|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,418
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,418 |
GM is always five years behind the times. I suggested to Ed Mertz years and YEARS ago that GM should come out five zero percent financing for 60 months (back in the day when they only offered it for 24 and 36 months) because the average Joe couldn't afford to finance a car for 24 or 36 months and make the payments. His reply to me...... "It will never happen, we don't want people to keep their cars for five years, we want them to trade every two or three years." The big shots at the top have never been on top of the pulse of the america public. 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
So Pit, beyond loaning them a ton of money, what exactly is your plan since you don't seem to like anybody elses?
Well DC they could start buy building vehicles that people want to buy, then they could actually try something new, build the cars dealerships order, instead of trying to shove models that are not selling down the dealerships throats.
That would be a fine start GM.. but those are business decisions. When I said a "plan" I was thinking more along the lines of what government should do. The government cannot (or at least should not) be in the business of saving them from themselves, which is what they are doing.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,812
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,812 |
Quote:
This is about a lot more than fuel efficiency.
Yes it is. It's also about how they were late in getting fuel efficiant. Which I've already addressed. If you would rather deal with auto makers history rather than look at the present, you have every right to do so.
But the present dictates they have turned the corner. That they are fixing the mistakes of the past. That was my point.
Quote:
So while foreign auto makers were reacting to fuel crises of the 70s and 80s and ramping up fuel standards and making higher quality smaller more fuel efficient cars on their own initiative, the Big 3 were rolling out the H3 and that's the governments fault for not MAKING them produce more fuel efficient cars? 
Let me try to help you with your confusion.
What was the price of fuel in the U'S. in the 80's? How about in Japan and Europe during that same time period? How about in the 90's for these same countries?
You see, while they were paying 3-5 dollars for fuel during this time, we were paying 1 dollar a gallon. Now somehow you seem to indicate they "saw it from a mile away". I disagree.
I think as with most people, the world saw it when it hit their pocketbook. It just hit our pocketbooks much later.
For you see, while foreign auto makers were designing cars for THEIR NEEDS, our auto makers were building vehicles for OUR needs.
Because during this period of time you are refering to, U.S. auto makers were setting record sales of SUV's, Ford F-150's etc...... Does that sound like a country starving for fuel efficiant vehicles to you?
And from what I gather, Arch LOVES his H-3. So the auto industry was also risking alienating their customers by not providing such vehicles. It's not as clean cut as you are portraying it to be IMO
Quote:
The US automakers made a business decision, a very stupid one... the government should not have to MAKE them react to the inevitable that the rest of the world sees coming a mile away, which is a need for high quality, fuel efficient vehicles.
Once again, I have openly admited that the "quality" of the vehicles in the 70's and 80's are the sole responsability of the auto makers. I don't see how anyone can legitimatly dispute that.
But we look at this issue from totaly different viewpoints where it comes to our governments involvement in such matters. It appears many view these fuel regulation guidelines as government interferance in business. But I look at it from a completly different perspective than that.
According to figures supplied by T. Boone Pickens ( I think the guy is a genius on this subject BTW ), 50% of our foreign oil comes from the middle east. Or as I've heard him say. "Countries that don't like us so much".
So is funneling billions upon billions of dollars annualy into their economies a sound national security approach? I say no. Keeping these fuel standard guidelines in tact would have lessened our dependancy on foreign oil greatly. It would have lessened us "financing our enemies". At that juncture, it is our governments business IMO
So I saw those guidelines as good for the auto industry for the long haul. But much bigger than that, was to help cut down on the flow of money to make middle eastern countries stronger at our own peril.
Quote:
But Pit, this goes way beyond fuel efficiency. It goes to antiquated manufacturing techniques not being upgraded until it was too late, obnoxiously large overhead caused by the unions, etc..
It appears as though you are not completly researching what you are saying to some degree. And not reading my posts either.
The unions have made HUGE consessions since the 80's. This isn't the 60's or the 70's. You are more than welcome to go back to my previous post and look at just a couple that I mentioned. But the "evil unions" are no more than an excuse IMO. They have made serious and numerous consessions since that time and I'm pretty sure they will continue to do so. Why? Look up what Braniff airlines did when Reagan was president. And the Supreme Court upheld them. The unions realisticly hold no power anymore.
And have you considered the impact to our economy WITHOUT union jobs? How can we EVER recover economicly by cutting the % of people who can afford to buy new cars and houses? You can't see that as counterproductive to an economic recovery?
And on aniquated techniques? Well why don't we compare apples to apples here. I did that earlier on fuel costs in foreign countries. And I think it's quite valid.
Let's look at Japan and Europe. In what countries mentioned above, are employers left holding the high cost of health care for their workers? Do you have any idea of how much the big three are subjected to spend on health care for their workers and retirees?
I'd say if the numbers were crunched, it would match or exceeed the amount that any three foreign manufacturers have spendt on retooling and R&D. So how can anyone view that as a level playing field?
Our businesses are burdened by this at every level. This is a situation that most all foreign manufacturers do not face. And it runs in the multi billions.
Quote:
and in the end, the US automakers have a serious reputation problem when fighting against Honda and Toyota etc..
I happen to drive a Ford, before that I had a Ford and before that I had a Jeep... so don't lecture me on giving anybody a second chance.
The lecture was not intended towards you. Sorry I didn't clarify that. But a general overall attitude I hear from many. They are stuck in the 70's and 80's and will not open up to understanding that American auto manufacturers have overcome and resolved many of those issues.
So I'm very sorry that I didn't clarify that better. It was intended to reflect a general attitude I hear frequently and not towards you as an individual.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,812
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,812 |
Quote:
Quote:
So Pit, beyond loaning them a ton of money, what exactly is your plan since you don't seem to like anybody elses?
Well DC they could start buy building vehicles that people want to buy, then they could actually try something new, build the cars dealerships order, instead of trying to shove models that are not selling down the dealerships throats.
That sounds like a very realistic approach that would help.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
If you would rather deal with auto makers history rather than look at the present, you have every right to do so.
But the present dictates they have turned the corner. That they are fixing the mistakes of the past. That was my point.
That was also my point. When I go to get my next car I will consider all options, both foreign and domestic.. but the simple fact is that American Auto companies are facing a reputation issue based on the past.... and they have to find a way to overcome it...
Quote:
What was the price of fuel in the U'S. in the 80's? How about in Japan and Europe during that same time period? How about in the 90's for these same countries?
You see, while they were paying 3-5 dollars for fuel during this time, we were paying 1 dollar a gallon. Now somehow you seem to indicate they "saw it from a mile away". I disagree.
I remember the 70s and 80s.. I remember during the Carter administration, going through gas rationing.. I remember the popularity of sporty little foreign cars that got good gas mileage and were dependable... our answer was the Chevette and the K car.... I remember emissions standards in the 70s... and I saw the US, in its arrogance, laugh at those foreign cars and pump out big cars and trucks, essentially ignoring that market segment even though it was growing.... Just admit it Pit, they were perfectly fine with writing off that market to foreign cars because they felt their trucks and big cars could not be challenged.
Quote:
Because during this period of time you are refering to, U.S. auto makers were setting record sales of SUV's, Ford F-150's etc...... Does that sound like a country starving for fuel efficiant vehicles to you?
No Pit, the people weren't starving for it, but the automaker execs get paid millions of dollars to stay ahead of the curve, not follow it. Anybody can be a CEO if you are allowed to follow the trends and never try to set one... the small car market was growing and they ignored it.
Quote:
And from what I gather, Arch LOVES his H-3. So the auto industry was also risking alienating their customers by not providing such vehicles. It's not as clean cut as you are portraying it to be IMO
I'd love to have an H3.. but you seem to think you can't make SUVs and quality small cars.. so why not? We were making very good big cars and light trucks but our small cars sucked.. we made them, but they sucked... why?
Quote:
So is funneling billions upon billions of dollars annualy into their economies a sound national security approach?
During the 70s and 80s, which is the timeframe in question, if it wasn't going to Russia then nobody cared.. the middle east wasn't considered a huge national security risk. So you can't change the argument in midstream here Pit.
Quote:
And on aniquated techniques? Well why don't we compare apples to apples here. I did that earlier on fuel costs in foreign countries. And I think it's quite valid.
Let's look at Japan and Europe. In what countries mentioned above, are employers left holding the high cost of health care for their workers? Do you have any idea of how much the big three are subjected to spend on health care for their workers and retirees?
I'd say if the numbers were crunched, it would match or exceeed the amount that any three foreign manufacturers have spendt on retooling and R&D. So how can anyone view that as a level playing field?
Pit, you are changing timeframes again.. I'll bet if you go back to the period from '75 to '90 you will find that we lagged Japanese innovation seriously in manufacturing.. and we lag the Germans in R&D.. either we lag or we aren't nearly as good at it.
So the auto industry lags because they have to provide healthcare?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449 |
Okay, PIt you touched on some good stuff. The foreign countries were making more fuel efficient cars because their countries were experiencing it in their walletts. While we were not facing it in our walletts.
That explains why foreign cars changed their ways, but it doesn't explain why American companies would not change to COMPETE with these companies. Just because gas didn't hurt our walletts til recently doesn't mean that consumer choice for product wasn't about fuel efficieny. I know I always preferred a Honda or Toyota because it was better on gas and lasted longer. And that was a preference in the mid to late '90's when gas was at or below $1 per premium gallon.
Ultimately, it comes down to US auto companies not changing, not adapting, or being late to adapt to foreign competition.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
I'll give you that the small car market was growing, but so was the big vehicles. If it wasn't do you think Toyota and Nissan would have entered the full size truck and SUV market in recent years? Toyota entered the luxury car market as well, with Lexus. They eventually saw that Americans still wanted style and size up until gas shot up.
Truth is, there were people who wanted small fuel efficient cars, but the majority of Americans still wanted style and power. The "bigger is better" thinking.
The foreign car makers blew it by ignoring styling in the 70's and 80's, and pumping out matchbox cars. They could have put the big 3 out of business years ago.
Last edited by FloridaFan; 11/17/08 04:01 PM.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
Hey, I just noticed you mentioned me and my (my wife's actually) H3. Yeah, we do love it. Build what sells. But be ready, willing and able to change quickly. That's one thing the union does not do. Unions served a purpose at one point in time, no doubt. So did horse and buggies. Companies cannot afford to pay their workers the equivalent of $70 an hour with guaranteed lifetime benefits. Can't be done. About the time the union became a "business" in it's own right.......that's when the problems started. The union is a business, and it depends on raping the business that employs the union members. Pit, I know you're fond of saying the UAW is one of the few places that offers jobs that give people a decent wage so they can buy other products. Problem is, no one can afford to buy the products the union makes, and the problem is doubled by the union employees that go out and buy foreign goods anyway. It would be nice if everyone of us made $70 an hour with lifetime benefits. Problem is, no one could afford to buy anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,812
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,812 |
Quote:
I remember the 70s and 80s.. I remember during the Carter administration, going through gas rationing.. I remember the popularity of sporty little foreign cars that got good gas mileage and were dependable... our answer was the Chevette and the K car.... I remember emissions standards in the 70s... and I saw the US, in its arrogance, laugh at those foreign cars and pump out big cars and trucks, essentially ignoring that market segment even though it was growing.... Just admit it Pit, they were perfectly fine with writing off that market to foreign cars because they felt their trucks and big cars could not be challenged.
I do openly admit that. But not just the auto industry, but the American people. Detroit built what Americans wanted. Isn't supply and demand the creed for big business? So I feel if you wish to cast stones, then you must also look at the market. And the very fact you stated. "they were perfectly fine with writing off that market to foreign cars because they felt their trucks and big cars could not be challenged".
They had the market cornered there. And as I said, the F-150 set annual sales records regularly under that system.
Quote:
No Pit, the people weren't starving for it, but the automaker execs get paid millions of dollars to stay ahead of the curve, not follow it. Anybody can be a CEO if you are allowed to follow the trends and never try to set one... the small car market was growing and they ignored it.
So the CEO's of GM, Ford and Chrysler the same now as they were then? I understand why many would like to tar and feather the CEO's of the past, but are the current CEO's responsible for that?
Quote:
I'd love to have an H3.. but you seem to think you can't make SUVs and quality small cars.. so why not? We were making very good big cars and light trucks but our small cars sucked.. we made them, but they sucked... why?
Because as you indicated, foreign auto makers were just too far ahead of the curve. Their R&D started MUCH earlier than Detroits did in regards to small, fuel efficiant vehicles. And in the last decade or so, have just finaly caught up.
Once they saw the need, they rushed to try to produce them. And in that rush, didn't have the R&D needed to do it from a quality standpoint.
Quote:
During the 70s and 80s, which is the timeframe in question, if it wasn't going to Russia then nobody cared.. the middle east wasn't considered a huge national security risk. So you can't change the argument in midstream here Pit.
Wait a minute. You seem to be readily willing to hold auto makers CEO's for not being able to see into the future, but not our own government?
We were installing the Shaw at about that time weren't we? But our government didn't know there were serious issues ahead in the mid east? I beg to differ. When you're installing leaders like The Shaw and Sadaam, you KNOW you have serious issues.
And once again, now that we do know, you say government shouldn't have gotten or shouldn't be involved in business? Not even at the juncture you KNOW it involves national security?
Quote:
Pit, you are changing timeframes again.. I'll bet if you go back to the period from '75 to '90 you will find that we lagged Japanese innovation seriously in manufacturing.. and we lag the Germans in R&D.. either we lag or we aren't nearly as good at it.
So the auto industry lags because they have to provide healthcare?
Like I said, just try looking at what the big three has paid that foreign competition did NOT have to pay. I bet it's FAR MORE than the loan the auto makers are asking for...............
That's not a level playing field.
Last edited by PitDAWG; 11/17/08 04:17 PM.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Unions served a purpose at one point in time, no doubt. So did horse and buggies.
Unions still serve a very important purpose...the problem is, instead of fighting against vapid and cold greed, they've decided they want to be a part of it.
If unions disappeared, the common man would be ruined...especially in today's climate...instead of people parroting pre-packed opinions - "Unions are good!", Unions are outdated!" - we should instead look at why the structure isn't working any longer...it's not because of the union...and it's not because of the management...it's because both sides grew eyes larger than their sockets.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,812
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,812 |
Quote:
Pit, I know you're fond of saying the UAW is one of the few places that offers jobs that give people a decent wage so they can buy other products. Problem is, no one can afford to buy the products the union makes, and the problem is doubled by the union employees that go out and buy foreign goods anyway.
It's a catch 22 to be sure. And I agree with you that the unions came about for the most noble of reasons, but soon were abused. As with many things involving humans when left unchecked. We've seen it in our government, the banking industry and within unions.
But things have changed since the 80's. Unions have made many consessions in wages and benifits. I know my dad tried to get me to go to work for Chrysler in the 80's. ( ME? Trapped in a factory for 30 years? No thanks. )
But Iacocca had just reorganised Chrysler. New employees made $8.00 an hour. It took ten years "in shop" to get parady with union wages. At that time, I would have had to of taken about a 40% wage cut just to go to work there!
I didn't want to work in a factory, nor could I afford a 40% pay cut. So I do know for a fact that unions have made huge concessions in the past.
And in at least one of my posts above, I mentioned that it should be required that they take additional cuts now as a part of a bailout deal. And I feel the phrase bailout is kind of abused.
Chrysler did borrow money from the federal government before. They paid it back early with interest. But it took concessions from the workers and a good business mind to do that. I think the same holds true now.
Everybody involved must make consessions in order to make this thing work. Including but not excluding others......union concessions, the stop to huge board and CEO bonuses, concessions from white collar workers and a mandate on a percentage of the loans being used towards R&D for alternative fueled vehicles and hybrids.
But above and beyond that. a willingness of Americans to give the big three another chance and buy American. Without hard work, concessions and all of us as a nation taking such issues head on, I fear we will all end up the losers.
JMHO
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
If unions disappeared, the common man would be ruined...especially in today's climate..
There are hundreds of thousands of people working without unions, and doing just fine.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
Quote:
I was simply pointing out the inaccuracies in your statements.
You mean the one about the PBGC right... Yeah, I know and I acknowledged that.. the problem is, it can only stretch so far before they need a hand also..
In the end, no matter what, it's gonna be you and me paying for all of it...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,218
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,218 |
no, it can stretch as far as it needs to, then it can crash and burn.... if it fails, it is NOT my responsibility, nor yours, to pick up the pieces of their failure.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
Thats the surest way I can think of to bring a country to it's knees..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,086
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,086 |
Quote:
Quote:
Unions served a purpose at one point in time, no doubt. So did horse and buggies.
Unions still serve a very important purpose...the problem is, instead of fighting against vapid and cold greed, they've decided they want to be a part of it.
If unions disappeared, the common man would be ruined...especially in today's climate...instead of people parroting pre-packed opinions - "Unions are good!", Unions are outdated!" - we should instead look at why the structure isn't working any longer...it's not because of the union...and it's not because of the management...it's because both sides grew eyes larger than their sockets.
HUH?
It wasn't the union and it wasn't management... but it was their 'eye sockets'. What on Earth does that mean?
A HUGE issue here is in fact the unions! Obviously you are a union worker or have some ties to unions, but the fact is that unions were a MAJOR role in the demise of the US Automakers.
Back in the hey day of the automakers they could afford to pay these ridiculous salaries and benefits that the unions demanded. And now you see where that went.
To say that unions are not the problem is to flat out ignore what the problem here is. Your post is a great example as to why any bailout money cannot be given to the current company's management.
Why are we talking about bailout money for the US automakers now?
MANAGEMENT
&
UNIONS
Get rid of both and maybe they can survive. If not, we can all drive Hondas and Toyotas, which is fine too.
![[Linked Image from i45.tinypic.com]](http://i45.tinypic.com/adhq2o.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,218
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,218 |
Quote:
Thats the surest way I can think of to bring a country to it's knees..
If this country is able to be brought to its knees because a single pension management corporation can't fulfill its obligations to its insured, then this country is far enough along in failing on its own that it is going to be on its knees anyway and you're not going to stop it.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
Quote:
Quote:
Thats the surest way I can think of to bring a country to it's knees..
If this country is able to be brought to its knees because a single pension management corporation can't fulfill its obligations to its insured, then this country is far enough along in failing on its own that it is going to be on its knees anyway and you're not going to stop it.
Too many people - society in general, but UAW retirees specifically, worked for 25 or 30 years, never saved, spent all they got - believing that social security and their pension would last forever.
They earned great incomes while working, and they spent huge amounts while working because "....I have a pension. It'll take care of me".
Never once thought about saving any money. Now we're supposed to bail them out?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
Quote:
If this country is able to be brought to its knees because a single pension management corporation can't fulfill
That alone won't do it, but if you look at what you and others are saying should happen, then add it up, it's just another nail in the coffin...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448 |
Quote:
Thats the surest way I can think of to bring a country to it's knees..
.... Please forgive me in advance : But maybe that's what our Country needs ? ? ?.. Nothing else seems to work , it's Govt. & Biz as usual !
Last edited by waterdawg; 11/17/08 06:54 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
Quote:
They earned great incomes while working, and they spent huge amounts while working because "....I have a pension. It'll take care of me".
Arch, my father worked for GM from roughly 1952 to 1975,,, at that point, he had developed a health issue and was forced to retire. He died on Christmas day 1983 of cancer.
My dad, in his entire life working for GM never earned more than his last year there,, and that was 25k. Admittedly, 25 k in 1975 wasn't horrible.. but when you say that people worked all thier lives and made big money,, you need to decide what you call big money...
Also, not everyone just worked and didn't save... I resent that you made that Blanket statement.. Not everyone screwed up..
From the pension standpoint, what my mom receives isn't much at all... I think it's about 850 or so a month.. not a lot of money.. her retirement savings (that her and my father scrimped and saved a lot of years for) is what is her biggest form of income.. So don't you dare lump everyone into that..
Wow, just to prove a point on a message board....  
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,218
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,218 |
Also... this is a pension guaratee corporation that has existed for upwards of 30+ years that its insured have been paying into that entire time..... there is no way they should fail just because a couple of the companies go under. They deal with a LOT more than just companies like the Big 3. partial listAllegheny Health Educ. & Research Allis Chalmers Anchor Glass Arrow Automotive Bethlehem Steel Bradlees Caldor Corporation Collins & Aikman Cone Mills Consolidated Freightways Delta Pilots Durango Apparel Eastern Air Lines Fleming Grand Union Harvard Industries Henry I. Siegel Co. J.A. Jones Jacobson Stores Kaiser Aluminum Kaiser Steel Kemper LTV Steel McCulloch National Steel Northwestern Steel and Wire Outboard Marine Payless Cashways Penn Traffic Petrie Piccadilly Cafeterias Pillowtex Polaroid Reliance Insurance Republic Technologies Singer Company Thorn Apple Valley TWA United Airlines United Merchants and Manufacturers US Airways Weirton Steel Westpoint Stevens ALL of these pay into them, and have been doing so for dozens of years. They aren't going anywhere. Furthermore, I cannot find 'United Auto Workers', nor 'General Motors' in their list of plans, so I'm pretty darn sure that the PBGC won't be affected at all as I'm thinking that the UAW manages their own retirement programs and have nothing to do with the PBGC at all. Lastly, if we (the U.S.) are to let the Big 3 fail, we need to think in terms of letting the companies fail and go into bankruptcy and crash-n-burn, but still help the displaced people transition along to something else or tide them over until the Big3 emerge from restructuring. The city of Detroit would be crushed as would all of its surrounding areas, but THIS is where the Gov't can get involved and be active... in helping to get other industry to move into the area to help tide things over until the Big 3 can emerge from bankruptcy. Letting the companies fail does NOT mean that we let the people fail... there is no sense in more people paying heavy prices for the failings of their management. I would MUCH rather do this than anything now that I'm thinking about it. To hell with the company... change with the times or go the way of the other dinosaurs. Let the UAW step up and take care of its people, then disband the UAW... let Unemployment Assistance help the people, and lastly the money that would have gone to bail out these bloated corporations can go to providing extended assistance, only as necessary, to the workers... by which time, if nothing else, Toyota, Honda, etc.. will have gotten far enough up to speed to take on some of the burden and the Big 3 will just have to get used to being the Little 3 and perhaps, for once in the last 80 years, actually have to EARN their old status.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
Resent me all you want. $25,000 in 1975 had the same buying power as $101,664 in todays economy. I would say your father was a wealthy man. http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.plDo the math yourself. You speak of one instance - your parents. I speak from many, many more instances. Most of the UAW union members spend everything they make and then some, knowing they: a. won't lose their job, b. they know someone else will pay them when they retire, and c. they feel they are entitled. Notice I said "most". Not all. I also know some people that retired from gm and are living high on the hog right now. They lived below their means when they were working. They saved. They drove used cars. I begrudge them nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,812
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,812 |
Quote:
Too many people - society in general, but UAW retirees specifically, worked for 25 or 30 years, never saved, spent all they got - believing that social security and their pension would last forever.
Yes, because they believed in the contractual agreements that were made and the word of their government.
Silly rabbits.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,218
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,218 |
Quote:
Silly rabbits.
I agree... never trust the Gov't; especially with your money.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
Quote:
Quote:
Too many people - society in general, but UAW retirees specifically, worked for 25 or 30 years, never saved, spent all they got - believing that social security and their pension would last forever.
Yes, because they believed in the contractual agreements that were made and the word of their government.
Silly rabbits.
Honestly, do you feel working for a company - any company - for 25 years entitles you to retire with the same standard of living you enjoyed while working? With no help from any savings and investments?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,218
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,218 |
something about an Ant and a Grasshopper is bouncing around in my head... hmmmm, what is it???
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448 |
You can get them both Chocolate covered ???? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
Quote:
You can get them both Chocolate covered ????
No, silly rabbit. It's personal responsibility. I know that's a swear word to some. Hopefully I won't get banned for saying it. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448 |
Quote:
Quote:
You can get them both Chocolate covered ????
No, silly rabbit. It's personal responsibility. I know that's a swear word to some. Hopefully I won't get banned for saying it.
OK ; But I can still get them both Chocolate covered down here !
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,812
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,812 |
If they contractualy agree to it, yes.
Does it sound practical, no.
And that'a a part of the story. I can tell you that my dad was very smart but lacked a high formal education. He continued to educate himself for most all of his life. He knew that some day the bubble would burst without major consessions from the unions. the CEO's and board members. I know this would crush him if he were alive to see it.
But there were many not quite as smart as my dad. They were Patriotic, hard working people. They believed the promises that were made. And they lived according to those promises.
What that makes these people is too trusting. Trusting that contracts would be honored. Trusting that our government would follow through with Social Security. Now you may see it differently. But I can not see why hard working, honest patriots should be reduced to mistrusting everyone and everything they hear. I find that a pretty sad state of affairs.
I seriously implore those who would reject a loan to the auto industry to take a serious look at something and how that turned out.
Just look at our history before unions. Look at how Americans in general lived, how they were paid. And look at the results of the labor movement. Do we really want to repeat that part of our nation's history?
Do you really want an even further skyrocket in home foreclosures? Do we really want 15-20% unemployment rates? Do we really want to embrace another depression?
I understand PPE's point about the PBGA. But never before in its history have they EVER had to deal with ANYTHING remotely close to this magnitude. Do we really trust that playing trial and error is a wise move?
And let's look at it from a political standpoint. IF this economy fails because the GOP blocks such measures, what political ramificatons will the GOP endure going forward?
I guess one can choose to spin the roullette wheel on this if they wish. But do you have any idea of the odds in that game?
The reality of this situation is a far graver one than many seem to believe. But sometimes, people must see it to believe it.
But isn't that what those who opose this accuse the auto industry of doing?
And one thing seriously puzzles me here? Where is all the outrage about Board members and CEO's lining their pockets with gold on an annual basis? Why is it all about the unions? Both are just as guilty.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,812
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,812 |
Quote:
Quote:
You can get them both Chocolate covered ????
No, silly rabbit. It's personal responsibility. I know that's a swear word to some. Hopefully I won't get banned for saying it.
Personal responsability for whom? Those who made the promises?
Because you can try to get away from that if you wish.
But the fact of the matter is, those recieving those retirement benifits lived up to their responsability to recieve it.
Blaming them rather than those breaking their word to them, is a bait and switch game of where the responsability truely belongs.
Or are you excusing contractual obligations? Sure sounds like it IMO
Sorry, just an add on.
If you don't think many of these retirees and union members didn't vote for Reagan and McCain, you would be mistaken. The things you are discussing, would be political suicide for the very things you hold dear.
So it would be a political funeral for many who post here. That's why I'll repeat something my dad used to say.....
"Be carefull what you wish for. Because you may just get it."
JMHO
Last edited by PitDAWG; 11/17/08 07:48 PM.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
Said too much. Never mind.
Last edited by archbolddawg; 11/17/08 09:08 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,346
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,346 |
Quote:
The reality of this situation is a far graver one than many seem to believe. But sometimes, people must see it to believe it.
I must admit I didn't read every word of this thread, so if I repeat something please excuse me.
That quote is what hits home for me. Have these companys considered their own position in this or do they consider themselves victims? I went to visit with a recently retired boss of mine and he told me that he knows of a family member working for General Motors making $80 an hour. Now I don't know what this person does and I'm sure that there are certain qualifications to that type of money, but it does make me wonder if all employees of the companies in danger have really considered their stake in this. Are they victims that deserve a hand out from their fellow Americans? Let's rehash some numbers provided by PETE314 in a similar thread:
Production Time per Vehicle
Source: 2005 Harbour Report
GM: 34.3 hours, 2.5% improvement since 2003
Toyota: 27.9 hours, 5.5% improvement since 2003
North American Workforce
Source: GM & Toyota, Dec. 2005
GM: White collar: 36,000 Production: 106,000. Retirees: 460,000
Toyota: White collar: 17,000 Production: 21,000 Retirees: 1,600
Average Hourly Salary for Non-Skilled, Assembly Line Worker
Source: Center for Automotive Research
GM: $31.35/hour NOTE: Includes idle workers still on payroll and those on protected status.
Toyota: $27/hour NOTE: Includes year-end bonus.
Health Care Costs per Vehicle in 2004
Source: 2005 Harbour Report & A.T. Kearny Inc.
GM: $1,525
Toyota: $201
Average Labor Cost per U.S. Hourly Worker
Source: GM & Toyota
GM: $73.73
Toyota: $48
I do think the writing is on the wall and I believe that all employees, production, middle management and the executives, should experience whatever sacrifice is needed for each company's survival. These are some dire circumstances and I do believe that the very tone of the bail out debate illustrates a concern that some automakers are not victims, but only are reeling from their own poor decisions and even greed. Then again when one can get in someone else's wallet it sure is easier to ignore the writing on the wall.
President Elect Obama recently spoke of tying a bail out to regulating executive bonuses. It is much deeper that that. Every employee everywhere should recognize their contribution to their employers livelihood. To disregard that is to disregard fundamental principles of capitalism. To disregard that is to place all of us in peril. Sacrifice starts at home. The time is now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Quote:
If unions disappeared, the common man would be ruined...especially in today's climate..
There are hundreds of thousands of people working without unions, and doing just fine.
Thanks to the advances of what the Unions have done.... Don't hate the Unions, just hate what they have become.. They have moved a little too far towards the corrupt side. If you remove Unions, business can continue to treat employees fairly or degrade to treating them unfairly? It's an unanswerable question. Perhaps we need to get rid of unions, but bring them back when business starts to get out of hand again?
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
Too many people - society in general, but UAW retirees specifically, worked for 25 or 30 years, never saved, spent all they got - believing that social security and their pension would last forever.
Yes, because they believed in the contractual agreements that were made and the word of their government.
Silly rabbits.
Well those contractual agreements have been dragging down the automakers for years now just as social security has been dragging down everything else...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,812
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,812 |
Well I think it's been a rather usefull thread. Everybody has stated their beliefs and feelings on the subject pretty well. Some think it would just be a bump in the road without an auto bail out and some feel it would be very devistating to our economy.
Some feel no bail out should occur, while others feel a bailout would be wise, but only with stringent pre-conditions that would give just cause to believe that these pre-conditions have a good chance of turning things around for the auto industry.
So at this point, I guess we'll all just have to wait and see.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
So at this point, I guess we'll all just have to wait and see.
2 pages to get to that conclusion? You sure you don't work for the government?
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,812
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,812 |
Well, I thought about working for the governmet, but I heard they were pretty deep in debt. Then I also heard they were not solvent and their assets had been devalued a great deal. So when looking at those risks, I didn't think that was such a good idea.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,418
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,418 |
Quote:
2 pages to get to that conclusion? You sure you don't work for the government?
He said 2 pages, not 2,000 pages.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum The U.S. Auto Industry and the
Ripple Effect
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Maddog/PDVD_000Z.jpg)
