Big Three changes need to start at the top

[Cebby]

Re: Big Three changes need to start at the top

In the case of my newspaper, a union was critical in getting editors, reporters and ad salespeople wages that were comparable with other newspapers our size.
It also played a critical role in getting us fair vacation time.

They also play (present tense) the major role in shipping jobs straight out of the US. They also played a major role in communist revolutions.

IMO, 9/10 people who make comments like "unions should be done away with" have: A) never been in a union; B) never taken part in labour negotiations; C) only looks at the bad parts of a union - which admittedly are there.

9/10 people who don't like Neo-Nazis have A) never been a Neo-Nazi, B) never been in a race war, or C) only look at the bad parts of Neo-Nazis.

The major difference between the two organizations that should have died out in the 40s? Neo-Nazis aren't asking for $25 billion to fund their idiocy.

Without those auto unions, I suspect all auto labourers would be making Wal-Mart wages

And without the unions, rust belt plants wouldn't be closing every other day.

[Stumbleweed]

Re: Big Three changes need to start at the top

Heh, wave that red flag.

"They also played a major role in communist revolutions."

We better be careful!

[fishepa]

Re: Big Three changes need to start at the top

If the government does indeed bail out the big 3 then any company in the US has the right to fly to Washington and beg for free money to bail them out. The precedence has been set. God forbid people take responsibility for their own actions.

[Cebby]

Re: Big Three changes need to start at the top

If the government does indeed bail out the big 3 then any company in the US has the right to fly to Washington and beg for free money to bail them out. The precedence has been set. God forbid people take responsibility for their own actions.

When I seize power, I will guarantee that there will be no bailouts for anyone.

[Stumbleweed]

Re: Big Three changes need to start at the top

If the government does indeed bail out the big 3 then any company in the US has the right to fly to Washington and beg for free money to bail them out. The precedence has been set. God forbid people take responsibility for their own actions.

Well that argument would've already been true, given that they've been bailed out once before (a quiet $25 billion that was approved before the main financial sector one was) and given that we "bail out" the American farming industry as a whole with subsidies... And the financial sector... the precedent has been there.

[Cebby]

Re: Big Three changes need to start at the top

Well that argument would've already been true, given that they've been bailed out once before (a quiet $25 billion that was approved before the main financial sector one was) and given that we "bail out" the American farming industry as a whole with subsidies... And the financial sector... the precedent has been there.

The financial and agricultural industries are about 500,000 times more important to America and the world than 3 horribly run car companies.

[Stumbleweed]

Re: Big Three changes need to start at the top

Speculative trading of fake money is worth more than producing actual goods with American workers... that's the state that our economy is in. And I see your point, I'm just saying that the precedent for a gigantic bailout of privately-owned companies who mis-managed themselves into oblivion has been set.

I'm of the opinion that the oil companies should finance this bailout, since they are still recording record profits as of last quarter and owe a lot of their success to Detroit and its penchant for giant gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs. Then we can all be happy.

[SqueakyD]

Re: Big Three changes need to start at the top

On the news this morning, they said that the CEO of Ford made $23 million last year. He also lives in Seattle, not Detroit. He takes his private jet back to Seattle every weekend.

I'm playing Devil's advocate for a moment... One of the reasons why CEOs (in pretty much any of the big companies) take their personal jets is that it's less of a risk than it is to fly commercial. Think of it as more control over who flies the planes (companies will probably look for a higher qualified pilot over one that is drunk ), the attention to detail over flightplans, safety issues, etc... In a more extreme analogy, it's like having the President of the US fly business class on Northwest Air...

But then again sports athletes get paid just as much as these guys so I'm not sure what's extreme anymore

[Cebby]

Re: Big Three changes need to start at the top

One of the reasons why CEOs (in pretty much any of the big companies) take their personal jets is that it's less of a risk than it is to fly commercial.

The only reason CEOs travel in personal jets is convenience.

[Cebby]

Re: Big Three changes need to start at the top

Speculative trading of fake money is worth more than producing actual goods with American workers... that's the state that our economy is in.

That's a really, really, really ignorant statement to make.

The fact that our financial system is more important than our manufacturing shows that we are in amazing shape. Make a list of countries that value their financial system over manufacturing and then vice versa.

The first group of countries will be the first world countries. The second group will be the third world countries. The ex-Soviet states and China would require way too much analyzing, but the first/third world split is pretty obvious. In 2008, it's a really good thing to value "fake money" over producing goods.

I'm of the opinion that the oil companies should finance this bailout

The last time taxes on a company weren't passed onto the consumer was in 190never. This would raise gas prices a lot. Econ 101

[dave374]

Re: Big Three changes need to start at the top

They also play (present tense) the major role in shipping jobs straight out of the US. They also played a major role in communist revolutions.



9/10 people who don't like Neo-Nazis have A) never been a Neo-Nazi, B) never been in a race war, or C) only look at the bad parts of Neo-Nazis.

The major difference between the two organizations that should have died out in the 40s? Neo-Nazis aren't asking for $25 billion to fund their idiocy.



And without the unions, rust belt plants wouldn't be closing every other day.

Actually, a trade union (Solidarity in Poland) pretty much ended communism, if you must know.

Comparing unions to Nazis is ridiculous. I suspect you really don't know that much about unions.

[Stumbleweed]

Re: Big Three changes need to start at the top

So paying more for oil (which caused many people to "green" up their lifestyles, purchase smarter vehicles, take mass transit, etc.) is a bad thing? It's bad for oil companies because there would be less demand, it's bad for stupid auto companies who weren't thinking ahead (aka Detroit for the last 10 years), but it's good for American progress as a whole, because panic and strain seems to be the only way things get done in this country.

I'll gladly go back to $4.00 gas if it keeps Detroit from collapsing and killing millions of jobs and pensions as long as whatever bailout comes containing conditions that spur them into action on producing smarter vehicles that can actually help our country as a whole and assist transition from an oil-based economy. I know that this oil-financed bailout will never happen, but it certainly seems like a good idea from over here.

And yeah.. what Dave said..

[Hooe]

Re: Big Three changes need to start at the top

I'm still on the fence on this recent issue.

On one hand, the argument is being made that if Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler all go down, the US economy will suffer a sharp increase in unemployment due to drastic job cuts not only in auto production, but in parts production, materials production, etc. This on top of an already sliding economy would be signficant at the very least.

On the other hand, the argument is being made that if you don't make a product people want, you will fail; this specifically in reference to these three companies putting the emphasis on the least fuel-efficient cars with all sorts of unnecessary bells-and-whistles in their product line during a time of increasing cost of living, and particularly in reference to one executive at one of these companies calling the Toyota Prius a joke and unprofitable before it went on to be the most-desired car in America.

[Stumbleweed]

Re: Big Three changes need to start at the top

"On the other hand, the argument is being made that if you don't make a product people want, you will fail; this specifically in reference to these three companies putting the emphasis on the least fuel-efficient cars with all sorts of unnecessary bells-and-whistles in their product line during a time of increasing cost of living, and particularly in reference to one executive at one of these companies calling the Toyota Prius a joke and unprofitable before it went on to be the most-desired car in America."

Yeah, that's what I'm struggling with as well. It goes against my normal intuitions to essentially excuse that kind of shortsightedness, but I do think that the government didn't hold up its end of the bargain either by allowing these horribly inefficient cars to continue to be made in such high numbers and in effect supporting them to the bitter end. Also, if you recall, there has been a tax incentive to buy vehicles over 6,000 lbs for businesses and industry -- that is unconscionable in my view... To Bush's credit, that was actually reduced (used to be up to $100K per vehicle, reduced to $25K now), but it's still pretty ridiculous that companies are rewarded for using big inefficient vehicles at all.

Basically, all of America was short-sighted and it's now biting us in the collective ***. Now that the majority of people have woken up and are realizing that green vehicles are the way to go, it's a matter of the government giving incentives and the automakers not collapsing before they get a chance to truly compete in that venue after squandering 10+ years of development.

[Cebby]

Re: Big Three changes need to start at the top

So paying more for oil (which caused many people to "green" up their lifestyles, purchase smarter vehicles, take mass transit, etc.) is a bad thing?

Yes. Oil and nuclear power are the best energy solutions. Relying on green energy at this point is like sending a 12 year old honors kid to Harvard. At some point, it might be an option, but it's not anywhere near ready.

It's bad for oil companies because there would be less demand

It also slows down the economy as there's far less money for people to spend (including a loss of jobs) since they're spending far more money on energy.

it's good for American progress as a whole

Forced economic progress has been proven to be absolutely horrible time and time again.

I'll gladly go back to $4.00 gas if it keeps Detroit from collapsing and killing millions of jobs and pensions

Letting the Detroit 3 die wouldn't kill millions of jobs. People aren't just going to stop buying cars. The good auto companies would move in moreso and the suppliers and workers would get jobs back at a far more fair wage. The jobs would be back within a year or two.

As long as the unions remain, the Detroit folk will continue to run into these problems.

http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20070808/NEWS/708080355/-1/xmlnews

assist transition from an oil-based economy

Not happening any time soon. This will come with scientific progress, not taxes.