PDA

View Full Version : Boycott Of GM Called



Franco
06-09-2009, 08:36 PM
We will soon find out just how much influence Rush Limbaugh has. I was reading on yahoo.com that he is calling for a boycott based on principle. That gooberment has no business being in the auto buisness.

He must have been reading my post here on Potus Place. Will he soon be calling them Gooberment Motors too?;-)

Real Patriots will be buying Ford!

YardleyLabs
06-09-2009, 08:46 PM
We will soon find out just how much influence Rush Limbaugh has. I was reading on yahoo.com that he is calling for a boycott based on principle. That gooberment has no business being in the auto buisness.

He must have been reading my post here on Potus Place. Will he soon be calling them Gooberment Motors too?;-)

Real Patriots will be buying Ford!

I was under the impression that GM's problems are that we are already boycotting it!:)

Mike W.
06-09-2009, 09:01 PM
I just bought a new GMC 1500, stepped to the plate, helped our workers, and got a great deal.

Mike Noel
06-09-2009, 10:20 PM
I just bought a new GMC 1500, stepped to the plate, helped our workers, and got a great deal.

Tsk, tsk Mike....I thought that of all people you would have chosen a product produced under a free enterprise capitalist system and bought a Ford....and you would have gotten a better truck to boot:-P:-P

Why are all these folks saying they want to help American workers and buy a GM??? Ford is just as, if not MORE American now.

honker88
06-10-2009, 05:15 AM
I've always been a GM guy. I've also owned a couple of Chryslers. I had already made the decision to never buy another GM based on principle. I'm kind of on the fence about Chrylser because they accepted stimulus money. I've never been a Ford guy, per se, but they've earned a ton of points in my book for not accepting any Govt. money. I am slowly accepting that I am joining ranks with the enemy, Ford lovers! ;)

Martin
06-10-2009, 08:21 AM
I have a question an the GM topic. With China buying Hummer does that mean they will be building our Military H-1. I sure hope not. Someone please explain.

Martin

Franco
06-10-2009, 08:29 AM
The military Hummer will still be built here by AMG, as it always has. China is buying the civilian version.

Martin
06-10-2009, 08:37 AM
The military Hummer will still be built here by AMG, as it always has. China is buying the civilian version.

THanks! I'll sleep better>>>lol

Martin

Hoosier
06-10-2009, 08:40 AM
I'm now a ford guy. I have always owned Chevy trucks, but not any more.

Illinois Bob
06-10-2009, 09:13 AM
I had already made the decision to never buy another GM based on principle.


I made the decision a long time ago because my last chevy trucks' engine blew out with only 60,000 miles on it.I'm on my second Ford now.

Blackstone
06-10-2009, 09:46 PM
I am a GM employee, and I am personally glad the government stepped in to assist us. If they hadn’t, I and thousands of others would likely have been out of a job very soon. There are a lot of good, hard working GM employees that would have suffered if that happened. In addition, the ripple effect of all those people being out of work would only serve to further cripple an economy that is already on the verge of collapse.

I guess I don’t understand the animosity toward GM just because the government has taken a temporary stake in the company. The government wanted something for its investment, and I don’t blame them for that. If the government had plans of keeping its ownership indefinitely, and controlling the business, I would have a problem with that too. However, the plan is for GM to buy out the government’s interest as quickly as possible. There is already a timetable being put in place for divestment. While they hold a stake in the company, their only input will be to provide oversight on major expenditures. So far, they have not objected to any of the plans GM had previously announced for new models, R&D, and new technology. Hopefully that will continue.

Now, I don’t like the fact that the government has a majority stake in the company either, but if that is what it took to help GM survive during this economic crisis, I’m all for it. For those that want to boycott GM just because the government has a temporary stake in it, I guess that their prerogative. However, please let me know who you work for, or what your business is, so I can be sure to return the favor if I get the chance.

Phillip

Franco
06-10-2009, 10:16 PM
What economic crisis? You must mean the one the government is playing up. Scaring everyone half to death so that they can take more control of everything. So that the new administration can be the saviors. I understand that Detroit and some other isolate parts of the country are having problems. I also understand that our government created a financial banking mess.

What folks object to is the way our tax dollars are being wasted and the out of control borrowing.

Want to fix the domestic auto industry? Then kick the UAW out. They are the ones that created the domestic auto mess. The best thing that could have happened to GM was for them to face the mess on thier own so that they could fix the real problems and not hide from them, all the while spending borrowed money.

The government is not the answer to GM's problems, they will only make it worse because what they are doing will not work and never has.

The government did not bail out the auto industry. They are bailing out the UAW! Pure politics, that simple.

P S I seriously doubt the American tax payer will ever get thier money back from GM.

Blackstone
06-10-2009, 11:48 PM
What economic crisis? You must mean the one the government is playing up. Scaring everyone half to death so that they can take more control of everything. So that the new administration can be the saviors. I understand that Detroit and some other isolate parts of the country are having problems. I also understand that our government created a financial banking mess.

If there is no economic crisis where you live, please tell me where it is, so I can move there. There are pockets of this country that have been devastated by the economy. MI is one of them, but even where I live in KS, we are feeling the effects. Housing prices have fallen. I have neighbors and friends that have either lost their jobs or taken wage reductions. Most of those that have lost jobs are having a hard time finding a new one. Municipalities have had their budgets slashed, and services have been reduced or eliminated. There are so many people out of work in MO, the State though it might run out of money to pay unemployment benefits. I am in fleet sales, and my sales will probably be half of what they were last year. Several businesses I normally sold to are now out of business. Some customers are just trying to weather the downturn in business, so they cannot afford to replace vehicle that are getting old. Some of my largest customers are either buy half of what they normally buy, or not buying at all because their business is so bad. I have a large beer company as a customer. Their distributors normally buy 200 Ė 250 vehicles per quarter. Last quarter they bought 50. When people stop buying beer, you know something is wrong. I think it would be more accurate to say there are a few isolated parts of the country that are not being affected by the current economic crisis. The fact is, our economy has been on a downward spiral since 2004. Our government just kept lying to us and telling us the underlying economy was strong, when it wasnít.


Want to fix the domestic auto industry? Then kick the UAW out. They are the ones that created the domestic auto mess. The best thing that could have happened to GM was for them to face the mess on thier own so that they could fix the real problems and not hide from them, all the while spending borrowed money.

The UAW is not the problem. I agree they have put some unnecessary costs in the system by backing workers that should be discharged. Some of the benefits were probably above and beyond what the manufacturers should have been obligated to provide. However, it has been unions that are largely responsible for raising the standard of living in this country. If the unions hadnít secured health care and other benefits for its workers, no one would be giving it to their employees today.

Now people want the U.S. auto workers to accept pay and benefits on the level of what the Japanese plants in the U.S. are paying. If you notice, all those import plants went to state where the cost of living and wages were low. The people there were happy to take the lower wages because it was still more than they would have been able to make in most other jobs locally. Well, now, the UAW will have wages and benefits lowered to match the imports. But, please explain how lowering wages, and thus the standard of living, is going to benefit anyone?

U.S. auto plants provided a good living for a lot of people with minimal educations that allowed them to send their kids to college, so they could do better than their parents. That trend may now be a thing of the past.

A greater problem is unfair trade practices. Level the playing field, and the U.S. auto companies can compete. The Japanese have subsidized their auto companies for a long time in one form or another to give them an advantage in the markets they wanted to sell into. They sell over a million vehicles in the U.S. every year. Yet, we cannot sell anything into Japan. A $25k U.S. made car costs about $50k by the time it gets to Japan.


The government is not the answer to GM's problems, they will only make it worse because what they are doing will not work and never has.

How do you know it will not work? What are you basing that on?

zeus3925
06-11-2009, 06:05 AM
Franco never worked a day in an auto plant. Yet, he KNOWS all about the UAW and unions. I suppose he would like a nice car built by no skill illegal immigrants paid slave wages.

subroc
06-11-2009, 06:32 AM
Franco never worked a day in an auto plant. Yet, he KNOWS all about the UAW and unions. I suppose he would like a nice car built by no skill illegal immigrants paid slave wages.

Maybe buy a car from a comany that was broken up by a 32 year old (Brian Deese) that knows nothing to very little about the auto industry, a CEO (Edward E. Whitacre Jr.) who states "I don't know anything about cars," and a union leadership who have never managed a company and during their negotiations with the company "never" considered the health of the company only the benefit package for their workforce would be a better choice.

Mike W.
06-11-2009, 06:57 AM
Tsk, tsk Mike....I thought that of all people you would have chosen a product produced under a free enterprise capitalist system and bought a Ford....and you would have gotten a better truck to boot:-P:-P

Why are all these folks saying they want to help American workers and buy a GM??? Ford is just as, if not MORE American now.

I will never own another Ford again after the constant tie-rod problems I had on two Ford units I owned in the past.

I really like this new GMC unit.

zeus3925
06-11-2009, 07:08 AM
...a union leadership who have never managed a company and during their negotiations with the company "never" considered the health of the company only the benefit package for their workforce would be a better choice.

The key word here is "negotiation". There are two sides to every negotiation. In terms of negotiating firepower I'd still put my bets on the company.

In normal circumstances, unions are were never constituted to provide management for a company. It is a irresponsible union leader that isn't mindful on the effect of they have on a company. The UAW has been making substantial concessions to the the manufacturers for quite sometime now and it has accelerated during the current crisis.

honker88
06-11-2009, 07:11 AM
The UAW is not the problem. I agree they have put some unnecessary costs in the system by backing workers that should be discharged. Some of the benefits were probably above and beyond what the manufacturers should have been obligated to provide. However, it has been unions that are largely responsible for raising the standard of living in this country. If the unions hadnít secured health care and other benefits for its workers, no one would be giving it to their employees today.

That makes no sense. You say "The UAW is not the problem". The next two sentances you contradict your initial claim. Then try to justify why the problems the UAW contributed to are okay. The UAW was doing part of their job and doing it very well, to the demise the rest of their job. I say that because they were able to negotiate inflated labor rates, full pensions, health care for life, etc. for union members. At the same time they were helping drive GM right into the ground. If the UAW was truely out to do what was best for it's members they would have taken that into account. What good have they done if they cause the company its members work for to go bankrupt? I don't think the UAW was the entire problem, but they certainly played a major role. They have a me, me, me attitude, which finally broke GM.


But, please explain how lowering wages, and thus the standard of living, is going to benefit anyone?

The wages and benefits the UAW negotiated for members is atrificially high. Look around the rest of the manufacturing industry and see how inflated those wages are. I read somewhere the other day that every GM bought has the price inflated by an extra $1400 to cover the costs of pensions and health care benefits compare to its foreign owned competitors in the US. That means a GM vehicle that cost $20,000 is inflated by 7% over the competition. That is pretty significant. How could GM and the UAW expect to compete with that?

honker88
06-11-2009, 07:47 AM
These are good articles that talk about inflated wages and other effects of the UAW.

http://http://midwest.chicagofedblogs.org/archives/2007/07/wages_in_automo.html

http://http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/payne200511290819.asp

Mike Noel
06-11-2009, 08:29 AM
I will never own another Ford again after the constant tie-rod problems I had on two Ford units I owned in the past.

I really like this new GMC unit.

Mike, you know I am just busting your chops.....

106K miles and no tie rod problems on my Ford regards;),

road kill
06-11-2009, 08:31 AM
Mike, you know I am just busting your chops.....

106K miles and no tie rod problems on my Ford regards;),

I have an F-150 & an Expedition!!

What's a tie rod??:confused:

Blackstone
06-12-2009, 09:30 AM
That makes no sense. You say "The UAW is not the problem". The next two sentances you contradict your initial claim. Then try to justify why the problems the UAW contributed to are okay. The UAW was doing part of their job and doing it very well, to the demise the rest of their job. I say that because they were able to negotiate inflated labor rates, full pensions, health care for life, etc. for union members. At the same time they were helping drive GM right into the ground. If the UAW was truely out to do what was best for it's members they would have taken that into account. What good have they done if they cause the company its members work for to go bankrupt? I don't think the UAW was the entire problem, but they certainly played a major role. They have a me, me, me attitude, which finally broke GM.

What I stated makes perfect sense. You are just missing the point. I stand by what I said. The UAW is not the problem. Sure, there are some flaws that have contributed to added cost, but not substantially when compared to other factors. You can always find some wasteful spending in any large organization. However, unfair trade practices allowed by our government, and mismanagement by GM Executives over the years, have taken a far greater toll on the company than the UAW ever did. You have only to look at the tenures of Roger Smith and Ron Zarella, and the direction they took the company, to see they did more damage to GM than high wages and benefits ever could. Neither one had any business running an auto company.
I sat in a meeting, and listened to Roger Smith explain how GM used to have 50% of the U.S. auto market, but over the last several years GMís market share had eroded to about 33%. He went on to explain how he expected GM to lose even more market share over the next several years. How could the Board of Directors elect a CEO to run the company that planned to lose in the marketplace? A CEO should have a plan for winning in the marketplace.
Then came Ron Zarella with his hair brained brand marketing scheme. It was doomed for failure from the beginning, and GM lost more market share. There are more blunders I could cite, but I think you get the idea.

So whatís wrong with good wages, a pension, and healthcare? Why do you begrudge them those things? I worked one summer in an auto plant. It was what made me go back to school and finish my degree. On the 2nd shift, the area of the plant I worked in would heat up to 100+ degrees. The foreman would come around at the start of the shift, and hand out salt tablets and a roll of paper towels to wipe off sweat. I would use the entire roll by the end of my shift. It was a miserable place to work. Personally, I think they deserved every penny they were paid. I realize work conditions in the plant have improved, but thatís not reason to devalue their jobs.

Itís funny how we sit around and ooh and aah over the mega salaries paid to professional athletes for playing a childís game. We would all love to be in their position. Yet, we think the guy that goes to work every, and works hard to support his family and give them a good life style, doesnít deserve decent wages.


The wages and benefits the UAW negotiated for members is atrificially high. Look around the rest of the manufacturing industry and see how inflated those wages are.

What makes the wages and benefits the UAW negotiated artificially high? I contend the transplant companiesí wages are artificially low. There was a time in this country when most manufacturing jobs paid very good wages. However, as manufacturers began to leave this country in favor of cheap labor overseas and in Mexico, pressure was put on the remaining U.S. manufacturing workforce to accept lower wages and benefits that are more in line with what workers are being paid elsewhere in the world.

Again, look where the foreign owned manufacturers established plants. They built them in states that traditionally paid workers low wages. They are the some of the same states people left during the great industrial migration for better paying manufacturing jobs in the north. The lower wages and benefits paid by the transplants has resulted increased downward pressure on wages for other U.S. workers, and the outsourcing of jobs to other countries. I ask again, how do lower wages, and a reduced standard of living benefit us in this country? That is the question you did not address.


I read somewhere the other day that every GM bought has the price inflated by an extra $1400 to cover the costs of pensions and health care benefits compare to its foreign owned competitors in the US. That means a GM vehicle that cost $20,000 is inflated by 7% over the competition. That is pretty significant. How could GM and the UAW expect to compete with that?

Your assumption that the price of a $20k GM car is inflated by 7% is wrong. The price of the car is not going to change because production costs are lower. Pricing on cars it pretty much dictated by what the market will bear. Each segment of the car market (small cars, mid-size cars, luxury vehicles, etc.) has a limit customers will pay. That is how manufacturers price their vehicle. If you price it beyond that limit, it will not sell. The only thing higher production costs mean is there is less profit in the car for the manufacturers. If the manufacturer reduces its costs by reducing wages, they are not going to pass that savings on to you, the customer.

dnf777
06-12-2009, 06:41 PM
Last ford I had was assembled in Canada. I just bought a GMC 2500. Why should I take the advice of a morbidly obese drug addict? (referring to Limbaugh...and that's not name calling, just factual description)

IowaBayDog
06-12-2009, 09:10 PM
Last ford I had was assembled in Canada. I just bought a GMC 2500. Why should I take the advice of a morbidly obese drug addict? (referring to Limbaugh...and that's not name calling, just factual description)


Obama smoked pot, did cocaine and is addicted to Nicotine, why would you listen to him either? Or are all those things OK if you're skinny?

dnf777
06-13-2009, 05:26 AM
You're right. So I assume you voted for Al Gore and John Kerry, since George W Bush did all those things as well. And who said I was listening to Obama? I just don't let Rush Limbaugh dictate my thought process or behavior. (I'm not saying anyone else does either, before I get jumped on.....just seems lots of Rushisms are echoed here) I love political debate, but I can watch and listen to the talking heads myself.

IowaBayDog
06-13-2009, 09:21 AM
You're right. So I assume you voted for Al Gore and John Kerry, since George W Bush did all those things as well. And who said I was listening to Obama? I just don't let Rush Limbaugh dictate my thought process or behavior. (I'm not saying anyone else does either, before I get jumped on.....just seems lots of Rushisms are echoed here) I love political debate, but I can watch and listen to the talking heads myself.

No actually I never gave those qualifiers, you did. If your qualifier is you don't take any information from anyone who has had an addiction problem or is overweight you might be a little short on reading material.

kjrice
06-13-2009, 01:04 PM
So why "save" GM and not Chrysler?

dnf777
06-13-2009, 02:02 PM
No actually I never gave those qualifiers, you did. If your qualifier is you don't take any information from anyone who has had an addiction problem or is overweight you might be a little short on reading material.

All I said was "drug addict". Nobody, including Rush disputes that. You in fact gave the other qualifiers. And no, I don't take serious advice from drug addicts. (we could debate that term as well, ie coffee drinkers, chocoholics...but I'm referring to narcotic abusers who illegally obtain them)

And I don't discriminate against morbidly obese people. But in his case its part of a constellation of conditions that all point to an inability to control one's desires. FYI, morbid obesity and overweight are not the same. One is a social judgement, the other is a medical condition.

Again, I'm not an Obama supporter, or even a democrat for that matter, but I just can't stand hypocrisy!!!!

subroc
06-13-2009, 02:23 PM
I agree Rush is a blow hard, but hey, aren't we all in our own way?

Do you listen to him at all?

Does he say anything that mirrors your opinion or position?

Is your hatred, him or his positions?

Is it that you loathe his hypocracy, at least on the drug issue, so much that anything he says must be somehow suspect and not worth any analysis?

Do you think he does a good job pointing out the lefts hypocracy?

Do you think he does a good job pointing out the MSM bias?

Blackstone
06-13-2009, 02:56 PM
So why "save" GM and not Chrysler?

I am not sure. It seemed Gov. rhetoric from the beginning favored GM over Chrysler being able to survive. However, the Gov. did put in some money to sweeten the deal for Chrysler bond holders at the 11th hour to try to stave off bankruptcy, but some bond holders refused go for the deal.

I would like to see Chrysler come out of this okay. However, Iím a little skeptical of the deal with Fiat. Chrysler is still dealing with some quality issues or their own, and Fiat is well known for quality problems. Fiat was rated ďbelow averageĒ in quality and reliability in Europe, finishing 20th of 25 brands in J.D. Power's Customer Satisfaction Index Study in Germany, France and the UK. Other than the infusion of cash, I just donít see how Fiat is going to help Chrysler make it.

dnf777
06-13-2009, 08:13 PM
I agree Rush is a blow hard, but hey, aren't we all in our own way?

Do you listen to him at all?

Does he say anything that mirrors your opinion or position?

Is your hatred, him or his positions?

Is it that you loathe his hypocracy, at least on the drug issue, so much that anything he says must be somehow suspect and not worth any analysis?

Do you think he does a good job pointing out the lefts hypocracy?

Do you think he does a good job pointing out the MSM bias?

Sure, many of his points are in line with mine, but I certainly don't need a talking head to validate my opinions. There are many other less biased (left or right) venues to obtain commentary, done so in a much less vitriolic way.

I try to be fair to people. I have patients in jail for doing the same thing he did, so I can't in any sense of fairness understand why he is on the street, and frankly yes, that taints all he says, in my book.

subroc
06-14-2009, 09:32 PM
In what way do you find his presentation vitriolic?

could you site some examples?

honker88
06-15-2009, 06:41 AM
So whatís wrong with good wages, a pension, and healthcare? Why do you begrudge them those things?

There isn't a thing wrong with those things, but when they are excessive in comparison to the rest of a specific industry they come with consequences. I'm not trying to begrudge them of those things at all. I am just pointing out that the UAW played a major role in causing this mess. The GM executives also played a major roll because they didn't have enough backbone to stand up against the UAW.


I realize work conditions in the plant have improved, but thatís not reason to devalue their jobs.

I'm not trying to belittle them at all. I am just pointing out that their wages and benefits are out of line with the rest of the manufacturing world. It is not sustainable.


What makes the wages and benefits the UAW negotiated artificially high?

The following two stories will answer that question. When wages are out of line with the rest of the sector they are artificially high. (I can't get the link to work for some reason, you'll have to copy and paste.) http://midwest.chicagofedblogs.org/archives/2007/07/wages_in_automo.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/payne200511290819.asp


There was a time in this country when most manufacturing jobs paid very good wages. However, as manufacturers began to leave this country in favor of cheap labor overseas and in Mexico, pressure was put on the remaining U.S. manufacturing workforce to accept lower wages and benefits that are more in line with what workers are being paid elsewhere in the world.

That's probably true, but that's capitolism. That is what got this great nation to where we are today. If you can't compete, you can't survive. Unfortunately that's true even if the competition is unfair.


I ask again, how do lower wages, and a reduced standard of living benefit us in this country? That is the question you did not address.

I am not making the argument that a reduced standard of living benefits this country. I didn't address it because I am not making that claim. I am just pointing out the UAW played a major role in the demise of the auto industry. You made the claim that the UAW is not the the problem. Based on what I know several factors played major roles, to include the UAW, the executives, the government, potentially unfair trade practices, and not to mention the quality of their products.


Your assumption that the price of a $20k GM car is inflated by 7% is wrong.

It wasn't an assumption, read the articles I posted above.



The price of the car is not going to change because production costs are lower. Pricing on cars it pretty much dictated by what the market will bear.

Above you asked, "What makes the wages and benefits the UAW negotiated artificially high?" You just made one of my points and answered your own question! Wages work the same way as the prices we pay for various things.


Each segment of the car market (small cars, mid-size cars, luxury vehicles, etc.) has a limit customers will pay. That is how manufacturers price their vehicle. If you price it beyond that limit, it will not sell. The only thing higher production costs mean is there is less profit in the car for the manufacturers. If the manufacturer reduces its costs by reducing wages, they are not going to pass that savings on to you, the customer.

You couldn't be any more wrong about passing on cost savings. What you said doesn't make much sense. That is the way capitalism works. Let's say Ford finds a way to produce it's vehicles at a cost that is 10% less than what it currently cost them. You don't think they are going to lower the cost to the customer? They may not pass the entire 10% savings on to the customer, but a chunk of the savings will make it to the customer. Think about it. That lower price will give them a huge competetive advantage. It will force the competition to sharpen their pencils and figure out how they can compete with Ford.

dnf777
06-15-2009, 11:56 AM
In what way do you find his presentation vitriolic?

could you site some examples?

Vitriolic: 2(b) virulence of feeling or of speech Webster's Collegiate Dict.

Self-explanatory. If it needs to be pointed out, it wouldn't be understood.
Well, if I must...how about calling John McCain "anti-American"? As a fellow veteran, I was hightly offended that someone who wouldn't know what a military service uniform looked like if it bit him in the butt, could pass such VITRIOLIC judgement on a decorated American hero, with whom he happened to disagree on an issue.

Hew
06-15-2009, 02:19 PM
If it needs to be pointed out, it wouldn't be understood.
Well, if I must...how about calling John McCain "anti-American"?

Sorry, but that just doesn't pass the smell test.

dnf777
06-15-2009, 03:18 PM
Sorry, but that just doesn't pass the smell test.

I'll try to find a link. I had to chuckle though, seeing an avatar of a baby smoking a cigarette next to a line being unable to pass a smell test! Don't worry, I'm not an anti-smoking nazi....At a dollar a pack, smokers may help keep my taxes from increasing...for the moment.

Hew
06-17-2009, 06:04 AM
How's your search progressing, DNF? Lest you think I'm a slacker, I looked as well and couldn't find any mention of Limbaugh calling McCain "anti-American." Should I just go ahead and file that accusation in the "Ummm, yeah. Not so much." file along with your previous claim that Limbaugh forged prescriptions?

dnf777
06-17-2009, 08:26 AM
Hew,
I'm inbetween surgeries right now, so I'm not inclined to perform internet searches....you don't remember Rush's prescription drug problems? It may be hard to find the court records, since he ran and hid behind the ACLU for protection of his records. Damn liberals! Hey, at this point, I'll concede anything.....Rush is an honest, outstanding citizen....Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Newt Gingrich, Sen. Stevens, and now Sen. Ensign...are all OUTSTANDING husbands and fathers, who just have "wide stances". Bush was an economic mastermind, who engineered these times of prosperity and job growth that we are all enjoying, as well as paying down our national debt. Do we even still have one?

There, I feel much better now. Now, if Obama doesn't screw it all up for us!

Dave

ps...no, I don't think you're a slacker...file away--I'm going to finish work, and have a nice, cool, homebrew! And you're welcome to join me anytime, I'll keep one cold for ya, b/c I'm sure we agree on more than we disagee. (you do think black labs are smarter than yellows, don't you?)

road kill
06-17-2009, 08:49 AM
Hew,
I'm inbetween surgeries right now, so I'm not inclined to perform internet searches....you don't remember Rush's prescription drug problems? It may be hard to find the court records, since he ran and hid behind the ACLU for protection of his records. Damn liberals! Hey, at this point, I'll concede anything.....Rush is an honest, outstanding citizen....Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Newt Gingrich, Sen. Stevens, and now Sen. Ensign...are all OUTSTANDING husbands and fathers, who just have "wide stances". Bush was an economic mastermind, who engineered these times of prosperity and job growth that we are all enjoying, as well as paying down our national debt. Do we even still have one?
There, I feel much better now. Now, if Obama doesn't screw it all up for us!

Dave

ps...no, I don't think you're a slacker...file away--I'm going to finish work, and have a nice, cool, homebrew! And you're welcome to join me anytime, I'll keep one cold for ya, b/c I'm sure we agree on more than we disagee. (you do think black labs are smarter than yellows, don't you?)

Yes, we do, it's been quadrupled in less than 6 months!!

Hew
06-17-2009, 03:39 PM
I'm going to finish work, and have a nice, cool, homebrew! And you're welcome to join me anytime, I'll keep one cold for ya, b/c I'm sure we agree on more than we disagee.
I'm sure you're right. I'm guessing nearly all of us would get along famously in person. I'd happily throw back a frosty one with you. Or a glass of chardonnay with Yardley. Or spark a big fat blunt of hippy hemp with Jdogger. :D

duk4me
06-17-2009, 03:49 PM
I'm sure you're right. I'm guessing nearly all of us would get along famously in person. I'd happily throw back a frosty one with you. Or a glass of chardonnay with Yardley. Or spark a big fat blunt of hippy hemp with Jdogger. :D

Can I join that party? I'll be bar beoch and fat blunt roller. I'll even sit quietly and listen cause that would be one hell of a conversation.:D

road kill
06-17-2009, 03:51 PM
Can I join that party? I'll be bar beoch and fat blunt roller. I'll even sit quietly and listen cause that would be one hell of a conversation.:D
Will there be any Jack Daniels??

Then this scrawney little old man would like to join in the imbibing!!

Hew
06-17-2009, 04:09 PM
Hey, everybody's welcome. It looks like Jdogger might have to dust off his 8 hitter hookah he picked up in Amsterdam back in '68. ;)

signgirl
06-17-2009, 04:37 PM
....getting back to the original thread...Rush did not call for a boycott, does not believe in boycotts and bought 2 Suburbans in the past 2 weeks. GM is a major sponsor of his show...maybe the new 'owners' will pull their advertising based on who he is but he has consistently supported Union Workers..just not the the Union Bosses .

JDogger
06-17-2009, 04:55 PM
....getting back to the original thread...Rush did not call for a boycott, does not believe in boycotts and bought 2 Suburbans in the past 2 weeks. GM is a major sponsor of his show...maybe the new 'owners' will pull their advertising based on who he is but he has consistently supported Union Workers..just not the the Union Bosses .
Signgirl, this thread has obiously gone south. There's only so much that can be said about Rush.
I'm sure you'd be welcome at the party too, though. Watcha goin' bring?

JD

Franco
06-17-2009, 06:08 PM
The best seat at the party would be between JDogger and Road Kill!
Just have to find my darkest lens sunglasses.
:cool:

road kill
06-17-2009, 06:20 PM
The best seat at the party would be between JDogger and Road Kill!
Just have to find my darkest lens sunglasses.
:cool:


Probably be pretty good entertainment.
You could tell your Grand Kids!!:shock:

road kill
06-19-2009, 07:15 AM
The best seat at the party would be between JDogger and Road Kill!
Just have to find my darkest lens sunglasses.
:cool:

I have decided to auction that seat off!!

I got $5, can I get $10??

Blackstone
06-19-2009, 06:44 PM
I'm not trying to belittle them at all. I am just pointing out that their wages and benefits are out of line with the rest of the manufacturing world. It is not sustainable.

For some reason you seem to think U.S. workers need to accept lower wages to match what is going on in the rest of the world. You need to remember, manufacturing, for the most part, has gone to less developed countries with very low standards of living. These jobs help elevates the standard of living in those countries, which is good. However, for decades, the U.S. has enjoyed one of the highest standards of living in the world. One reason for that is U.S. workers were offered good wages and benefits. They provided economic stability and opportunities to improve ones standard of living. Now, you think Americans should lower their standard of living to meet those of less developed nations. I donít agree with that.

Somehow, we have been fooled into believing we must participate in the ďglobalĒ economy, even if it works to our detriment. We donít have to. Just look at the Japanese. They are masters of participating in the global economy while protecting their own markets. Before the current world wide economic slow down, the Japanese sold approximately 15 million cars world wide. At the same time, they have kept sales of non-Japanese cars to around 10k units (that includes all U.S., European, and Korean models) in Japan. Ninety five percent of all cars sold in Japan are Japanese cars. Through taxes and tariffs, they have made it almost impossible for the average Japanese citizen to buy a non-Japanese car. The car market in Japan is closed to imports. My point is, itís okay to participate in the global economy, but take care of home first!


That's probably true, but that's capitolism. That is what got this great nation to where we are today. If you can't compete, you can't survive. Unfortunately that's true even if the competition is unfair.

You need to do a little more reading. Capitalism is what made this country wealthy. But, what made this country great was that everyone had a chance to get a piece of the pie. Of course, some people got a bigger piece than others, but everyone had a chance to get a piece. Unfair competition is not the type of capitalism that made this country great. Unfair competition hurts the economy in the long run. That is why there are laws that make sure the competition remains as fair as possible (i.e. anti-trust laws, fair trade laws, copyright, and trademark laws).


Above you asked, "What makes the wages and benefits the UAW negotiated artificially high?" You just made one of my points and answered your own question! Wages work the same way as the prices we pay for various things.

The UAW was being paid these types of wages and benefits long before there was a ďglobalĒ market. Now that manufacturing is leaving the U.S., or going to lower income states in the U.S. where wages are lower, you think the UAWís wages are excessive. Did it ever occur to you that these other workers might be underpaid?

In the 1960s, the auto companies and the UAW were hailed as good corporate citizens for providing such a good standard of living for their people. What they were being paid benefitted the entire economy. Now, they are being ridiculed for it. You may see auto workersí pay and benefits as excessive, but some guy in China making $1/hour would probably see the money you make as excessive. So, why donít you volunteer to give up a portion of your income to get closer to what theyíre making in China? It would certainly make your company more competitive and profitable. Itís always easier to tell someone else what they should be willing to give up when you are not being forced to give up anything.



You couldn't be any more wrong about passing on cost savings. What you said doesn't make much sense. That is the way capitalism works. Let's say Ford finds a way to produce it's vehicles at a cost that is 10% less than what it currently cost them. You don't think they are going to lower the cost to the customer? They may not pass the entire 10% savings on to the customer, but a chunk of the savings will make it to the customer. Think about it. That lower price will give them a huge competitive advantage. It will force the competition to sharpen their pencils and figure out how they can compete with Ford.

It makes perfect sense when you understand the automotive business. In your scenario, Ford would probably not lower its prices. I have been around the automobile business a long time, and that is not how it works. If Fordís pricing on that model was already competitive in that segment, they would not lower the price to gain a competitive advantage, they would take profit. Lowering the price significantly will not necessarily translate into a significant increase in sales. In addition, significantly lowering the price, devalues all cars in that segment. This will not be the last model Ford will want to sell in this market segment. The next car they introduce may not have that cost advantage over the competition, so they could end up pricing themselves out of the market as well. They would probably use the reduced cost to help offset costs on other less profitable models, and support R & D. In addition, each successive year in the life cycle of a car, the cost to produce it generally goes down as tooling is depreciated and paid for. How many cars have you seen get cheaper each year?

There are plenty of other examples where manufacturing cost have been significantly reduced by cheap labor, but the savings hasnít been passed on to American consumers.

The U.S. textile and clothing industries is all but gone from the U.S. Since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994, about 1 million U.S. textile jobs have been lost. Clothes are now made in China, Mexico, and other cheap labor markets. As a result, the cost of producing clothes has gone down significantly for manufacturers. Has the price you pay for clothing gone down accordingly?

Furniture that used to be produced in NC is now made in China because itís cheaper. Hourly wages for furniture workers in China are between $0.50 and $0.75, which is much as ten times lower than what is legal in the U.S. How much has the price you pay for furniture gone down?

The reason companies take their manufacturing overseas is to lower their costs, thereby maximizing their profit. They donít do it to save you money.

Franco
06-19-2009, 07:13 PM
For some reason you seem to think U.S. workers need to accept lower wages to match what is going on in the rest of the world. You need to remember, manufacturing, for the most part, has gone to less developed countries with very low standards of living. These jobs help elevates the standard of living in those countries, which is good. However, for decades, the U.S. has enjoyed one of the highest standards of living in the world. One reason for that is U.S. workers were offered good wages and benefits. They provided economic stability and opportunities to improve ones standard of living. Now, you think Americans should lower their standard of living to meet those of less developed nations. I don’t agree with that.

Somehow, we have been fooled into believing we must participate in the “global” economy, even if it works to our detriment. We don’t have to. Just look at the Japanese. They are masters of participating in the global economy while protecting their own markets. Before the current world wide economic slow down, the Japanese sold approximately 15 million cars world wide. At the same time, they have kept sales of non-Japanese cars to around 10k units (that includes all U.S., European, and Korean models) in Japan. Ninety five percent of all cars sold in Japan are Japanese cars. Through taxes and tariffs, they have made it almost impossible for the average Japanese citizen to buy a non-Japanese car. The car market in Japan is closed to imports. My point is, it’s okay to participate in the global economy, but take care of home first!



You need to do a little more reading. Capitalism is what made this country wealthy. But, what made this country great was that everyone had a chance to get a piece of the pie. Of course, some people got a bigger piece than others, but everyone had a chance to get a piece. Unfair competition is not the type of capitalism that made this country great. Unfair competition hurts the economy in the long run. That is why there are laws that make sure the competition remains as fair as possible (i.e. anti-trust laws, fair trade laws, copyright, and trademark laws).



The UAW was being paid these types of wages and benefits long before there was a “global” market. Now that manufacturing is leaving the U.S., or going to lower income states in the U.S. where wages are lower, you think the UAW’s wages are excessive. Did it ever occur to you that these other workers might be underpaid?

In the 1960s, the auto companies and the UAW were hailed as good corporate citizens for providing such a good standard of living for their people. What they were being paid benefitted the entire economy. Now, they are being ridiculed for it. You may see auto workers’ pay and benefits as excessive, but some guy in China making $1/hour would probably see the money you make as excessive. So, why don’t you volunteer to give up a portion of your income to get closer to what they’re making in China? It would certainly make your company more competitive and profitable. It’s always easier to tell someone else what they should be willing to give up when you are not being forced to give up anything.




It makes perfect sense when you understand the automotive business. In your scenario, Ford would probably not lower its prices. I have been around the automobile business a long time, and that is not how it works. If Ford’s pricing on that model was already competitive in that segment, they would not lower the price to gain a competitive advantage, they would take profit. Lowering the price significantly will not necessarily translate into a significant increase in sales. In addition, significantly lowering the price, devalues all cars in that segment. This will not be the last model Ford will want to sell in this market segment. The next car they introduce may not have that cost advantage over the competition, so they could end up pricing themselves out of the market as well. They would probably use the reduced cost to help offset costs on other less profitable models, and support R & D. In addition, each successive year in the life cycle of a car, the cost to produce it generally goes down as tooling is depreciated and paid for. How many cars have you seen get cheaper each year?

There are plenty of other examples where manufacturing cost have been significantly reduced by cheap labor, but the savings hasn’t been passed on to American consumers.

The U.S. textile and clothing industries is all but gone from the U.S. Since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994, about 1 million U.S. textile jobs have been lost. Clothes are now made in China, Mexico, and other cheap labor markets. As a result, the cost of producing clothes has gone down significantly for manufacturers. Has the price you pay for clothing gone down accordingly?

Furniture that used to be produced in NC is now made in China because it’s cheaper. Hourly wages for furniture workers in China are between $0.50 and $0.75, which is much as ten times lower than what is legal in the U.S. How much has the price you pay for furniture gone down?

The reason companies take their manufacturing overseas is to lower their costs, thereby maximizing their profit. They don’t do it to save you money.


No one is suggesting that UAW members work for what is paid in other countries. However, the average UAW line worker makes more per hour and has much better benefits that a RN nurse! Yes, they are overpaid and and in the 1960's they were building mostly crappy vehilces. That's why people want Asian cars and trucks today. Detroit can't get consumers to forget quality and design issues of the past.

Japanesse may buy some USA vehicles but don't fool yourself. They don't like what we build. What they did buy from us was trucks.

Also, without Chineese manufactoring, there would be no Walmart. Yes, cloths are cheaper today.

GM's buisness model will never turn a profit. Not with government in charge. We will never see our money back!

Blackstone
06-20-2009, 10:56 AM
No one is suggesting that UAW members work for what is paid in other countries. However, the average UAW line worker makes more per hour and has much better benefits that a RN nurse!

So, what level are you suggesting auto workers have their pay and benefits reduced to?

Actually, the national average for a RN with about 5 years experience is about $25/hour. The average for an auto worker on the line is about $26/hour. Benefits for RNs vary by where they work, but on average, RNs receive pretty good benefits as part of their compensation. Maybe UAW workers may make more, but not much more.

However, I guess your point is a UAW workerís job is not as valuable as a RNís job. That might be true, but you could make the same case that a pro athlete, movie star, banking executive, and a bunch of other professions arenít as valuable as a RNís job. Should we start adjusting all salaries based on who we think is the most valuable?


Yes, they are overpaid and and in the 1960's they were building mostly crappy vehilces. That's why people want Asian cars and trucks today. Detroit can't get consumers to forget quality and design issues of the past.

I agree the domestic auto companies built junk in the 60ís - 80ís. Even though they are building quality vehicles today, the perception remains that they build lousy cars. In reality, Ford and GM have models that have pushed some of the imports out of the top 5 in quality. The problem is consumers arenít really willing to take a $25k chance to see if quality has improved. I canít really say I blame them. It will take time to change their minds.

However, you canít really blame the average worker on the line for poor quality. They didnít engineer the vehicles. They just put them together. The manufacturer dictated what was built and how it was built.


Japanesse may buy some USA vehicles but don't fool yourself. They don't like what we build. What they did buy from us was trucks.

You miss my point, The Japanese auto market is pretty much closed to all non-Japanese auto maker, including Mercedes, BMW, VW, Fiat, Volvo, etc. If they opened the market, the Japanese would buy more than just our trucks. The Japanese may not have liked our cars in the past, but now that our quality equals or exceeds comparable Japanese models at about the same price, why wouldnít they buy them?


Also, without Chineese manufactoring, there would be no Walmart. Yes, cloths are cheaper today.

Walmart has done more to destroy American manufacturing and displace American workers than just about any other corporation. As Americans continue to lose higher paying manufacturing jobs, the jobs they are left with, in many cases, are lower paying service jobs. Saving $5 on a pair of jeans at Walmart hardly offsets the $8 Ė 10 per hour they lost when their old job left the country. Wal-mart, and their joint venture with China, is not good for this county!


Yes, cloths are cheaper today.

Maybe if youíre buying all your clothes at Wal-mart, but most people shop at a wide variety of stores. If I shopped at Walmart, which I wonít, I could buy jeans, tube socks, and tee shirts there, but little else. I canít show up to a meeting wearing a polyester Walmart suit, or plastic Walmart dress shoes. When I shop for dress clothes, the prices have not gone down.

Gerry Clinchy
06-20-2009, 05:37 PM
Maybe if you’re buying all your clothes at Wal-mart, but most people shop at a wide variety of stores. If I shopped at Walmart, which I won’t, I could buy jeans, tube socks, and tee shirts there, but little else. I can’t show up to a meeting wearing a polyester Walmart suit, or plastic Walmart dress shoes. When I shop for dress clothes, the prices have not gone down.

All of this is interconnected ... the price of clothes has not gone down because other costs have gone up. For example, electricity that's used in all phases of industry from manufacture to shipping. If one can't escape the cost of gasoline (shipping) or electricity, then one looks to those variables where costs can be cut.

Truthfully, having seen the quality of clothing from places like Lands End and L.L. Bean go down the toilet as almost all of their stuff is now made overseas, while it used to be made in the U.S. I'm not in favor of what we have given up in quality. I do think that the retailers mentioned above would have more expensive clothing now if they were manufacturing in the US ... but, I, for one, would be willing to pay a little more for those clothes in order to have the quality.

I do think that some of the union "rules" are now obsolete. We saw the same kind of thing happen with railroad unions, when workers who did nothing were still riding on the trains due to satisfy outdated union rules. I don't think that most people would mind union workers getting paid what they're paid for good workmanship.

I believe someone mentioned right here in this forum that part of the UAW union rules had "laid off" workers sitting in rooms doing nothing, collecting full wages due to some archaic union rule. Thus the price of the labor is not only those workers who put the car together, but also the cost of the workers who are sitting in that room.

Perhaps our greatest cost is due to the loss of common sense?

Sundown49 aka Otey B
06-21-2009, 01:54 PM
Kind of strange that the obama govt can spend 50 billion of taxpayers money to save 50,000 jobs at gm. There are 6 million workers out of work where is the money to GIVE them jobs???

Blackstone
06-21-2009, 02:10 PM
Kind of strange that the obama govt can spend 50 billion of taxpayers money to save 50,000 jobs at gm. There are 6 million workers out of work where is the money to GIVE them jobs???

The money was not just to save jobs at GM. It is meant to save the U.S. auto industry as a whole. Hopefully, not adding auto workers to the unemployment roles will keep the economy from getting any worse.

I guess the rest of the stimulus package is meant to help put people back to work. I hope it works. Until people get back to work and have money to spend, I don't think the economy will turn around.

Sundown49 aka Otey B
06-21-2009, 08:00 PM
well the AMERICAN way for since this country was founded was for people to work hard and they would be rewarded. Not so now . mediocraty(sp.) is rewarded. Should have let GM go..... and start over from scratch.

honker88
06-22-2009, 06:08 AM
For some reason you seem to think U.S. workers need to accept lower wages to match what is going on in the rest of the world. You need to remember, manufacturing, for the most part, has gone to less developed countries with very low standards of living. These jobs help elevates the standard of living in those countries, which is good. However, for decades, the U.S. has enjoyed one of the highest standards of living in the world. One reason for that is U.S. workers were offered good wages and benefits. They provided economic stability and opportunities to improve ones standard of living. Now, you think Americans should lower their standard of living to meet those of less developed nations. I donít agree with that.

You're putting words in my mouth again. I never said that US workers earnings should be compared with workers in other countries. I am comparing manufacturing wages within this country.


The UAW was being paid these types of wages and benefits long before there was a ďglobalĒ market. Now that manufacturing is leaving the U.S., or going to lower income states in the U.S. where wages are lower, you think the UAWís wages are excessive. Did it ever occur to you that these other workers might be underpaid?

The only sustainable wages are dictated by the market. If they are artificially higher, as in the case in the manufacturing part of the auto industry they become unsustainable. GM, Chrysler, and to a certain extent Ford have proven that. I'm not sure how you can continue to argue against that point, except that you choose to.

It's pretty clear to me that you have some axe to grind here. We'll never agree on this. It appears that you don't believe that capitalism works and I do, you're liberal and I'm conservative. This debate is going downhill fast.

honker88
06-22-2009, 06:17 AM
well the AMERICAN way for since this country was founded was for people to work hard and they would be rewarded. Not so now . mediocraty(sp.) is rewarded. Should have let GM go..... and start over from scratch.


AMEN!!!

Capitalism works, Socialism doesn't. As a general rule unions = mediocracy! They did a lot of good early on and served their purpose very well. Unfortunately they have outlived their usefullness.

road kill
06-22-2009, 06:36 AM
I don't think the Gov't. should decide pay for the UAW.

The market should (and has).


I think the UAW members should make as much as they can while keeping thier respective company competitive and viable.

The evidence (BANKRUPTCY) indicates they have not done that!

just sayin'

Uncle Bill
06-22-2009, 10:28 AM
Comes now the latest in the "Auto episodes". Enough to make you sick.

UB

If someone had said this to me one year ago (or ten years ago) I would have said - NAH - no way. Now all I can say is - it doesn't surprise me.

I recently attended a breakfast meeting where the speaker/guest was David E. Cole, Chairman of the Center for Automotive Resear ch (CAR). You have likely heard Cole quoted, or referred to in the auto industry news lately.

Mr. Cole, who is an engineer by training, told many stories of the difficulty of working with the folks that the Obama administration has sent to save the auto industry. There have been many meetings where a 30+ years of experience automotive expert has to listen to a newcomer to the industry, someone with zero manufacturing experience, zero auto industry experience, zero business experience, zero finance experience, and zero engineering experience, tell them how to run their business.

His favorite story is as follows:

There was a team of Obama people speaking to Mr Cole (Engineer, automotive experience 40+ years, Chairman of CAR). They were explaining to Mr. Cole that the auto companies needed to make a car that was electric and liquid natural gas (LNG) with enough combined fuel to go 500 miles so we wouldn't "need" so many gas stations (A whole other topic). They were quoting BTU's of LNG and battery life that they had looked up on some website.

Mr. Cole explained that to do this you would need a trunk FULL of batteries and a LNG tank as big as a car to make that happen and that there were problems related to the laws of physics that prevented them from...

The Obama person interrupted and said (and I am quoting here) "These laws of physics? Who's rules are those, we need to change that. (Some of the others wrote down the law name so they could look it up) We have the congress and the administration. We can repeal that law, amend it, or use an executive order to get rid of that problem. That's why we are here, to fix these sort of issues".

road kill
06-22-2009, 11:00 AM
Comes now the latest in the "Auto episodes". Enough to make you sick.

UB

If someone had said this to me one year ago (or ten years ago) I would have said - NAH - no way. Now all I can say is - it doesn't surprise me.

I recently attended a breakfast meeting where the speaker/guest was David E. Cole, Chairman of the Center for Automotive Resear ch (CAR). You have likely heard Cole quoted, or referred to in the auto industry news lately.

Mr. Cole, who is an engineer by training, told many stories of the difficulty of working with the folks that the Obama administration has sent to save the auto industry. There have been many meetings where a 30+ years of experience automotive expert has to listen to a newcomer to the industry, someone with zero manufacturing experience, zero auto industry experience, zero business experience, zero finance experience, and zero engineering experience, tell them how to run their business.

His favorite story is as follows:

There was a team of Obama people speaking to Mr Cole (Engineer, automotive experience 40+ years, Chairman of CAR). They were explaining to Mr. Cole that the auto companies needed to make a car that was electric and liquid natural gas (LNG) with enough combined fuel to go 500 miles so we wouldn't "need" so many gas stations (A whole other topic). They were quoting BTU's of LNG and battery life that they had looked up on some website.

Mr. Cole explained that to do this you would need a trunk FULL of batteries and a LNG tank as big as a car to make that happen and that there were problems related to the laws of physics that prevented them from...

The Obama person interrupted and said (and I am quoting here) "These laws of physics? Who's rules are those, we need to change that. (Some of the others wrote down the law name so they could look it up) We have the congress and the administration. We can repeal that law, amend it, or use an executive order to get rid of that problem. That's why we are here, to fix these sort of issues".

What's your point?

"The Obama" can do anything!!


(anyone remember the story of the "Pied Piper?")

Gerry Clinchy
06-22-2009, 11:02 AM
Comes now the latest in the "Auto episodes". Enough to make you sick.

UB
Mr. Cole explained that to do this you would need a trunk FULL of batteries and a LNG tank as big as a car to make that happen and that there were problems related to the laws of physics that prevented them from...

The Obama person interrupted and said (and I am quoting here) "These laws of physics? Who's rules are those, we need to change that. (Some of the others wrote down the law name so they could look it up) We have the congress and the administration. We can repeal that law, amend it, or use an executive order to get rid of that problem. That's why we are here, to fix these sort of issues".

Please, please tell me this is one of those internet myths/jokes ... if it's not, the U.S. auto industry is essentially over.

The only people dumber than these individuals thinking they can solve problems with none of the knowledge of the details, are those individuals who chose them for the job.

YardleyLabs
06-22-2009, 11:11 AM
Please, please tell me this is one of those internet myths/jokes ... if it's not, the U.S. auto industry is essentially over.

The only people dumber than these individuals thinking they can solve problems with none of the knowledge of the details, are those individuals who chose them for the job.

It is. See http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/physics.asp. Mr. Cole personally stated that he had never met with anyone from the Obama administration and that the story being passed around was a garbled version of a story he told about an incident with a member of Congress many years ago.

limiman12
06-22-2009, 11:22 AM
One problem with the wages the autoworkers make, is seen in the detroit drop out rate....

Why go to school, graduate from highschool, pay to go to college for four years, in order to earn a lower wage than a highschool drop out? Blackstone, if you are who I think you are we can debate it in person at the next circle of wisdom, you are one of the exceptions. Most people that "get a taste" of that kind of income won't go back to school. Good wage, early retirement etc are supposed to be the BENIFIT for going to school, not the incentive to drop out. Probably off the GM topic, but pretains to the whole social issue surronding it in cluding backlash from a lot of educated individuals NOT making that much. And also a DIRECT reason Obama's idea of every american going to college will never even come close.

Gerry Clinchy
06-22-2009, 11:25 AM
It is. See http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/physics.asp. Mr. Cole personally stated that he had never met with anyone from the Obama administration and that the story being passed around was a garbled version of a story he told about an incident with a member of Congress many years ago.


Thanks, Jeff.

Now, if a Congressman made such a comment ... we are the ones who are to blame for electing him/her!

Blackstone
06-23-2009, 05:33 PM
One problem with the wages the autoworkers make, is seen in the detroit drop out rate....

Why go to school, graduate from highschool, pay to go to college for four years, in order to earn a lower wage than a highschool drop out? Blackstone, if you are who I think you are we can debate it in person at the next circle of wisdom, you are one of the exceptions. Most people that "get a taste" of that kind of income won't go back to school. Good wage, early retirement etc are supposed to be the BENIFIT for going to school, not the incentive to drop out. Probably off the GM topic, but pretains to the whole social issue surronding it in cluding backlash from a lot of educated individuals NOT making that much. And also a DIRECT reason Obama's idea of every american going to college will never even come close.

I understand your point. That was essentially true in the 1960s - early 1980s. However, over the last couple of decades, U.S. auto manufacturers have not done a lot of hiring. Plants have been closed, and remaining plants have become more efficient, and able to run with fewer workers. You can't drop out of school anymore and expect to get a good paying job in an auto plant. If you drop out of high school today, you are pretty much assured a life of near minimum wage jobs. Also, if you looked at the last contact, incoming workers will start off at about $10/hour. They will never make what some of the current workers are making.

Blackstone
06-23-2009, 08:15 PM
You're putting words in my mouth again. I never said that US workers earnings should be compared with workers in other countries. I am comparing manufacturing wages within this country.

Honker,

I was not my intent to put words in your mouth. I based my response on what you wrote.


I am just pointing out that their wages and benefits are out of line with the rest of the manufacturing world.

And, considering the major downward pressure on U.S. manufacturing wages is coming from manufacturing wages in other parts of the world, that is the impression I got.


It's pretty clear to me that you have some axe to grind here.

I don’t have an axe to grind. I just don’t believe the UAW is the villain you have made them out to be. I’m not anti-union


It appears that you don't believe that capitalism works and I do, you're liberal and I'm conservative.

First, I don’t consider myself to be a liberal or a conservative. I try to think for myself, and not subscribe to any one ideology.

Second, I do believe capitalism works. In fact, one distinguishing feature of capitalism is that each person owns their own labor, and is therefore allowed to sell the use of it either singly or jointly to employers. Kind of sounds like what the UAW did, doesn’t it?


I'm not sure how you can continue to argue against that point, except that you choose to.

I argue my point because I believe I’m right. However, I can’t argue by myself!

YardleyLabs
06-23-2009, 08:32 PM
Thanks, Jeff.

Now, if a Congressman made such a comment ... we are the ones who are to blame for electing him/her!
No argument from me on that.:rolleyes:

zeus3925
06-23-2009, 10:02 PM
One problem with the wages the autoworkers make, is seen in the detroit drop out rate....

Why go to school, graduate from highschool, pay to go to college for four years, in order to earn a lower wage than a highschool drop out? Blackstone, if you are who I think you are we can debate it in person at the next circle of wisdom, you are one of the exceptions. Most people that "get a taste" of that kind of income won't go back to school. Good wage, early retirement etc are supposed to be the BENIFIT for going to school, not the incentive to drop out. Probably off the GM topic, but pretains to the whole social issue surronding it in cluding backlash from a lot of educated individuals NOT making that much. And also a DIRECT reason Obama's idea of every american going to college will never even come close.

The auto companies have demanded a high school diploma to be hired on the production line since the mid -60's. Auto wages have nothing to do with the drop out rate in Detroit. Get your facts straight before you run down people.

Detroit has been in decline as the result of white flight, southern welfare programs, the breakdown of families, and the drug trade--besides the fate of the auto industry.

GingerBelle
06-23-2009, 10:31 PM
Hello there! Any body in there? Could someone in Michigan, huh? Hello up there to you all. Could someone tell us, let's say, since 1980 through the present, what the total UAW employment has been by year? And the unemployment rate for the state each year also? Yes it seems like a lot of homework, but I'd bet someone can come close. Point being....especially GM, but all 3, have continued cutting employees, while keeping car prices going up. Heath care issue...uaw didn't create that either, its a problem for the whole country. I won't buy another new car till electric is available. I am close to building my own when I can get all the materials. Wall street, our gov, are main culprits to how high fuel prices are:-x....1900-2004 price cents to 1.53 gallon, then 225 fall 2004 and we can remember the past couple of years. $5. Now that the econ is busting, regulators are rethinking how much we are being gouged........So I refuse to ever buy another GM vehicle.
Glad at least they haven't taken our dogs yet! Hey,stay home, train dogs, and go to hunt tests!:)

Cody Covey
06-23-2009, 11:51 PM
The auto companies have demanded a high school diploma to be hired on the production line since the mid -60's. Auto wages have nothing to do with the drop out rate in Detroit. Get your facts straight before you run down people.

Detroit has been in decline as the result of white flight, southern welfare programs, the breakdown of families, and the drug trade--besides the fate of the auto industry.This sounds racists. Don't get me wrong Zeus i know you didn't mean it that way at all but when you say detroit is in disaray because white people are leaving the area, looks kind of bad. Again i know you didn't mean it that way but when i first read it i was like, "what" lol

limiman12
06-24-2009, 12:56 AM
I stand corrected (and apologize to anyone that I personally offended)if they are now demanding diplomas. Got the info from an someone that is older, but that I trust and I will corret him as well.... Did not mean it to be running people down. Actually saying that the smart thing to do personally was to take a good job instead of delaying income, racking up student debt in order to secure employment oppritunities that are no better then the job you could have gotten without an education. was any of the rest untrue, great benifits, good salary and ful retirement at a pretty early age??? Weather it be at starting at 16 or 18 still getting to retire early. Good for the person, not for the society when education is not valued as is the case in any area that has that kind of drop out rate.

Their wage would also increas ethe wage oher companies in the area would have to pay in order to hire good workers, and it pulls every wage up, or the "competing" industries leave the area to find lower labor costs, in other parts of this country or others. the other jobs leave, those that are mobile leave with them, the ones that aren't mobile are stuck which invites all of the social issues that were mentioned....

Still does not increase the odds of higher education when we are comparing RN salaries to manufacturing jobs. How will Obama ever get us all to go to college????

FWIW the "good" manufacturing jobs in the town I live pay 16-17 an hour, and they are the only plant in the company making a profit right now....

honker88
06-24-2009, 06:07 AM
I donít have an axe to grind. I just donít believe the UAW is the villain you have made them out to be. Iím not anti-union.

I am pointing out the UAW is one of the major contributors to the auto industry's problems. The other contributors are government, management, and probably quality. I do lean a lot closer to the anit-union side of the fence. I think there are probably legitimate instances where unions still do good. I can't think of any, but there has to be some.


Second, I do believe capitalism works. In fact, one distinguishing feature of capitalism is that each person owns their own labor, and is therefore allowed to sell the use of it either singly or jointly to employers. Kind of sounds like what the UAW did, doesnít it?

I guess I look at it differently. The way I look at it is; you perform your job to the best of your ability and always look to improve yourself and your company. If you do those things you shouldn't need the protection of a union. The union allows for the underacheivers to benefit from the overacheivers work. That is not right. That's why I say unions = mediocracy.

One last thing... I apologize for my tone and attitude in the last post.

zeus3925
06-24-2009, 07:01 AM
This sounds racists. Don't get me wrong Zeus i know you didn't mean it that way at all but when you say detroit is in disaray because white people are leaving the area, looks kind of bad. Again i know you didn't mean it that way but when i first read it i was like, "what" lol

What I meant by that was that the people that had the skills to make the city go left for the burb's taking their tax paying ability with them. Realtors had a huge hand in this with their block tipping practices.

zeus3925
06-24-2009, 07:48 AM
I am pointing out the UAW is one of the major contributors to the auto industry's problems. The other contributors are government, management, and probably quality. I do lean a lot closer to the anit-union side of the fence. I think there are probably legitimate instances where unions still do good. I can't think of any, but there has to be some.

I guess I look at it differently. The way I look at it is; you perform your job to the best of your ability and always look to improve yourself and your company. If you do those things you shouldn't need the protection of a union. The union allows for the underacheivers to benefit from the overacheivers work. That is not right. That's why I say unions = mediocracy.



Honker:

Please don't take what I have to say in an angry tone. Blackstone is in the auto industry. I grew up south of Detroit and people from my family have been involved in the car business for several generations now.

I think that if you pulled a shift in a car plant that very quickly you would realize they are not the the worker's nirvana you portray them as. The jobs in the plants are repetitive and boring. The working conditions are often uncomfortable and incredibly noisy, especially if you work in a stamping plant. I often went home after a 12 hour shift at Ford's resting my hands on the cross bars of the steering wheel, unable to grip the wheel because of the pain in my hands and arms. That pain did not go away for months after I left the company.

Management's attitudes toward line staff are often akin to a zookeeper's toward monkeys. A favorite term for GM management for non-management employees is "shop rat". (If I ran an auto company I would ban the term as the first order of business.) You don't get quality out of a workforce with that kind of attitude.

The auto plans have no room for a Horatio Alger story. The culture doesn't work that way. If all you do is bolt wheels to a chassis day in, day out there really is no way to demonstrate that you have improved yourself. Most plants work a 12 x 6 or a 12 x 7 week. Try going to school at the same time to improve yourself. You may not get noticed anyway.

I was talking to another member of my retriever club who was a UAW national committee man. He related a story about a woman that was refused permission to go to the bathroom at a Ford plant. She ended up soiling her pants on the line. Still she wasn't given permission to leave the line. When he went to bat for her he was reprimanded and given an eight day suspension.

Buzz
06-24-2009, 08:41 AM
One problem with the wages the autoworkers make, is seen in the detroit drop out rate....

Why go to school, graduate from highschool, pay to go to college for four years, in order to earn a lower wage than a highschool drop out? Blackstone, if you are who I think you are we can debate it in person at the next circle of wisdom, you are one of the exceptions. Most people that "get a taste" of that kind of income won't go back to school. Good wage, early retirement etc are supposed to be the BENIFIT for going to school, not the incentive to drop out. Probably off the GM topic, but pretains to the whole social issue surronding it in cluding backlash from a lot of educated individuals NOT making that much. And also a DIRECT reason Obama's idea of every american going to college will never even come close.

I grew up in Detroit. This post tells me that you don't know the first thing about the Detroit Metro area, or it's people. The graduation rate there has nothing to do with the auto companies. Most of those who didn't graduate are spending their days on the street corner or out in front of a party store, drinking a 40 of malt liquor.

honker88
06-24-2009, 08:53 AM
Honker:

Please don't take what I have to say in an angry tone. Blackstone is in the auto industry. I grew up south of Detroit and people from my family have been involved in the car business for several generations now.

I think that if you pulled a shift in a car plant that very quickly you would realize they are not the the worker's nirvana you portray them as. The jobs in the plants are repetitive and boring. The working conditions are often uncomfortable and incredibly noisy, especially if you work in a stamping plant. I often went home after a 12 hour shift at Ford's resting my hands on the cross bars of the steering wheel, unable to grip the wheel because of the pain in my hands and arms. That pain did not go away for months after I left the company.

Management's attitudes toward line staff are often akin to a zookeeper's toward monkeys. A favorite term for GM management for non-management employees is "shop rat". (If I ran an auto company I would ban the term as the first order of business.) You don't get quality out of a workforce with that kind of attitude.

The auto plans have no room for a Horatio Alger story. The culture doesn't work that way. If all you do is bolt wheels to a chassis day in, day out there really is no way to demonstrate that you have improved yourself. Most plants work a 12 x 6 or a 12 x 7 week. Try going to school at the same time to improve yourself. You may not get noticed anyway.

I was talking to another member of my retriever club who was a UAW national committee man. He related a story about a woman that was refused permission to go to the bathroom at a Ford plant. She ended up soiling her pants on the line. Still she wasn't given permission to leave the line. When he went to bat for her he was reprimanded and given an eight day suspension.

I didn't take your response negatively at all.

I work in a manufacuring plant myself, although not on the plant floor. I totally repect the work that is done by the folks out in the shop. I come from a family on both sides that is very blue collar. It's in my blood. I wasn't trying to portray individual UAW members as primadonnas in any way. My critizism of the UAW is directed towards the organization as a whole. Most unions have a take, take, take or a me, me, me attitude. They really don't care about the company's well being. It appears to me that the UAW definately has that mentallity. They took all they could get out of the big 3 to the detriment of the companies and the UAW members. That's part of why I say management played a major role. They rolled over and let the UAW take too much.

The story you told about the woman in the Ford plant is ridiculous and absurd. Nobody should have to deal with that type of treatment. Obviously there is more to that story, because on the surface it doesn't pass the common sense test.

A big part of my problem with unions is that they reward the folks that don't deserve to be rewarded. In any company you have superstars (people that give 100%, know everything, and don't complain) and you have the duds (people that half-a$$ everything, constantly complain, or do everything they can to get out of doing a task). The unions protect the duds that are a drag on the rest of the members and the company. That's not right, and it's not good for the company or the other union members.

zeus3925
06-24-2009, 11:55 AM
I didn't take your response negatively at all.

.
The story you told about the woman in the Ford plant is ridiculous and absurd. Nobody should have to deal with that type of treatment. Obviously there is more to that story, because on the surface it doesn't pass the common sense test.



The source of the story is a well respected and he is widely known in the retriever community . His honesty is impeccable.

I once went 14 hours of a 21 hour stint without seeing a white shirt. They simply forgot that they put me on that station. I had to pee behind a parts bin, an offense that could have got me fired. When I finally saw a white shirt and whistled him over, they weren't going to let me go home.

My experience with the UAW isn't that draconian as you see them. I once lead an effort to prevent a bill that would have destroyed the Porcupine Mountains State Park, Michigan's crown jewel park. I called the UAW seeking assistance. Even though I was not a member at that point, they ponied up a team of 3 lobbyists plus a Union VP within two hours. We won that fight but it was the UAW that turned the tide.

Hew
06-24-2009, 01:39 PM
My experience with the UAW isn't that draconian as you see them. I once lead an effort to prevent a bill that would have destroyed the Porcupine Mountains State Park, Michigan's crown jewel park. I called the UAW seeking assistance. Even though I was not a member at that point, they ponied up a team of 3 lobbyists plus a Union VP within two hours. We won that fight but it was the UAW that turned the tide.
That's comforting to know that a portion of the money I spent on my last GM paid for three lobbyists and a union honcho to work on a state park in Michigan. Heaven forbid they spend their time on, oh, I don't know....automobiles maybe? That makes me want to rush right out and buy another GM so I can fund some more union payback, lobbying, influence peddlin' and pet projects.

honker88
06-24-2009, 02:05 PM
The source of the story is a well respected and he is widely known in the retriever community . His honesty is impeccable.

Not questioning this honesty. I'm just saying based on the short synopsis you gave there has to be more to the story. Why was the guy who stood up for her suspended. Why wasn't she allowed to go? etc. I'm not saying that it's excusable to not let her use the restroom, there must be more to the story.

honker88
06-24-2009, 02:34 PM
That's comforting to know that a portion of the money I spent on my last GM paid for three lobbyists and a union honcho to work on a state park in Michigan. Heaven forbid they spend their time on, oh, I don't know....automobiles maybe? That makes me want to rush right out and buy another GM so I can fund some more union payback, lobbying, influence peddlin' and pet projects.

I completely understand where you are coming from on this. If somebody chooses to not buy a product from a company because that company donates to specific causes, I have no problem with it. Just keep in mind that many large companies donate money to various causes. Many of those organizations/causes are very contriversial.

My only point with this is that it's not uncommon for companies to donate to organizations and causes that have nothing to do with their business.

kjrice
06-24-2009, 03:18 PM
I don't have a problem with GM (or others) other than the government subsidizing their piss-poor management. The free market should dictate their fate instead of the marxist/fascist ideals by our newly appointed and glorious governmental majority.

zeus3925
06-24-2009, 03:55 PM
Not questioning this honesty. I'm just saying based on the short synopsis you gave there has to be more to the story. Why was the guy who stood up for her suspended. Why wasn't she allowed to go? etc. I'm not saying that it's excusable to not let her use the restroom, there must be more to the story.

You aren't familiar with the auto plant floor culture I see.

zeus3925
06-24-2009, 03:59 PM
That's comforting to know that a portion of the money I spent on my last GM paid for three lobbyists and a union honcho to work on a state park in Michigan. Heaven forbid they spend their time on, oh, I don't know....automobiles maybe? That makes me want to rush right out and buy another GM so I can fund some more union payback, lobbying, influence peddlin' and pet projects.

GM didn't pay for it.

Hew
06-24-2009, 04:28 PM
GM didn't pay for it.
Ah, OK. I wasn't aware that the UAW had other revenue streams beyond riding the backs of GM employees. And I guess I was wrong by assuming a percentage of every GM vehicle sold ends up in the pockets of UAW flacks and their lobbyists. My bad.

zeus3925
06-24-2009, 04:41 PM
Ah, OK. I wasn't aware that the UAW had other revenue streams beyond riding the backs of GM employees. And I guess I was wrong by assuming a percentage of every GM vehicle sold ends up in the pockets of UAW flacks and their lobbyists. My bad.

They don't have the auto employees as the sole source of funds. Also it may please you to note that the union dropped its non union advocacy a decade ago in a restructuring.

As for the term "flacks", I guess you might call them that from a safe distance in Florida:). But I bet you haven't met any.

Anyway, I enjoy you golden tongue(or the web equivalent, Hew. Soldier on!

Hew
06-24-2009, 05:20 PM
They don't have the auto employees as the sole source of funds.
Oh, that's right. They started outsourcing the services of their highly profitable Extortion and Intimidation Division a few years ago. ;)

zeus3925
06-24-2009, 05:41 PM
Oh, that's right. They started outsourcing the services of their highly profitable Extortion and Intimidation Division a few years ago. ;)

That, Hew, is bullshit! You know better than than that.

Franco
06-25-2009, 02:09 PM
We already have government corruption at the new Gooberment Motors!
This may come as a surprise to most Democrats but, your warm and fuzzy Barney Frank is just one of the culprits!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXyhKXUP7PM

Blackstone
06-28-2009, 10:55 AM
We already have government corruption at the new Gooberment Motors!
This may come as a surprise to most Democrats but, your warm and fuzzy Barney Frank is just one of the culprits!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXyhKXUP7PM

Every dealer that got a letter from GM telling them their Sales & Service Agreement would not be renewed in Oct. 2010 was advises they could appeal the decision by presenting a valid business case why they should remain open. GM agreed to review and consider all such cases on their own merit. To my knowledge, there have been about 800 appeals, and about 60 dealers have had the original decision overturned by providing GM with evidence that the financial figures and performance data previously used was inaccurate,

It is not uncommon for a dealer to have political connections to mayors, senators, and congressmen, and they often elicit the help of whoever they think has the most clout whenever they want to get something accomplished (dealer franchise laws, rezoning, etc). Since most of them assume the Democrats have influence over what GM is doing, it makes sense they would go to a Democratic Congressman or Senator to see if they could exert some influence with GM.

I can tell you that most of the original group of dealers were selected based on their viability and performance as a GM dealer. Then, it moved to dealers that were in locations where GM no longer wanted a dealership.

I also notice Rep. Bachmannís was pretty vague on the details. She gave no information on where these ďstoriesĒ she cited were published, and no information about the dealers in question. I think she needs to provide a little more information before I would be willing to accept her accusations as fact.

Franco
06-28-2009, 02:23 PM
Every dealer that got a letter from GM telling them their Sales & Service Agreement would not be renewed in Oct. 2010 was advises they could appeal the decision by presenting a valid business case why they should remain open. GM agreed to review and consider all such cases on their own merit. To my knowledge, there have been about 800 appeals, and about 60 dealers have had the original decision overturned by providing GM with evidence that the financial figures and performance data previously used was inaccurate,

It is not uncommon for a dealer to have political connections to mayors, senators, and congressmen, and they often elicit the help of whoever they think has the most clout whenever they want to get something accomplished (dealer franchise laws, rezoning, etc). Since most of them assume the Democrats have influence over what GM is doing, it makes sense they would go to a Democratic Congressman or Senator to see if they could exert some influence with GM.

I can tell you that most of the original group of dealers were selected based on their viability and performance as a GM dealer. Then, it moved to dealers that were in locations where GM no longer wanted a dealership.

I also notice Rep. Bachmannís was pretty vague on the details. She gave no information on where these ďstoriesĒ she cited were published, and no information about the dealers in question. I think she needs to provide a little more information before I would be willing to accept her accusations as fact.

So, if you don't know or can't pay financial tribute to a high-ranking Democrat, one is screwed?

We can all debate this for months. However, with the UAW incharge, GM is doomed.

Blackstone
06-28-2009, 03:01 PM
Franco,

Did you miss the part about ALL dealers having the right to appeal the decision? So far 60 have been successful in that appeal process. Do you think all 60 had high ranking Democrats lobbying on their behalf?

If you can prove you meet the criteria for being a successful, viable dealer, you have a chance at having the decision overturned. If you can't, you’re screwed.