• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GM goes bankrupt and gets nationalised

I am not seeing where the government is actually going to manage GM. You have a source for that?
it is already leveraging its aid with salary limits, penalties for pre-payment of TARP funds, and based upon that is what politicians want, more power/control
 
I am not seeing where the government is actually going to manage GM. You have a source for that?

You have Obama assuring the mayor of Detroit that GM headquarters will not move to Warren. How can he make this assurance if his administration does not intend to leverage its 60% ownership stake? Watch what they DO, not what they SAY.

(Aside from the assurances that warranties will be honored, etc.)
 
A couple solid examples, thank you.
 
I am not seeing where the government is actually going to manage GM. You have a source for that?

They have 60% ownership right now. They have been mettling with GM for months now. They have not broken up anything for the unions that matters.
 
except

apparently the Consumers have decided that they are being paid too much
because the companies have FAILED and a major component of that failure is the UAWs extortion for ridiculous wages and benefits
$3000/wk for a labor job????
$163k/ yr for a labor job????

**** em, let em go under and see how the cost of labor goes down
8 out of the 10 cars i have owned were american made, including my present 300C. But enough is enough
And you, like so many people who lack critical thinking can't tell the difference between COST OF EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS and WAGES.

The long ago debunked number of $78/per hour includes retirees benefits in an aggregated number. The workers don't get a paycheck for $78/hr. :doh
 
You will find the states that are highly unionized have a lower productivity then non unionized states. You will also find that those state lose jobs to other states/countries at faster rate.

How again is it good for the economy?
We will find this? How about you back up that claim with a link to some facts.
 
And you, like so many people who lack critical thinking can't tell the difference between COST OF EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS and WAGES.

The long ago debunked number of $78/per hour includes retirees benefits in an aggregated number. The workers don't get a paycheck for $78/hr. :doh

It's still contractually-mandated obligation of the company.
 
And you, like so many people who lack critical thinking can't tell the difference between COST OF EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS and WAGES.

The long ago debunked number of $78/per hour includes retirees benefits in an aggregated number. The workers don't get a paycheck for $78/hr. :doh
you are an obama supporter, who lacks critical thinking skills?


I still love that my racist spell check does not have the correct spelling of Dear Leader :rofl
 
Interestingly enough, I work for a nonunion tier 1 auto parts supplier, and we don't want a union because we make enough, and when we have a problem with management, we just work it out, and it mostly works.
You sound very conservative when you make these kinds of statements which completely lack empathy. What if you weren't making enough? What if management didn't work it out? What then? Strike? Union? That's how it works pal.

We have all been to UAW plants to do part sorts, and don't care for the attitude of the people there, both towards us and their jobs. If I was ever as lazy as some of these workers, I would deserve to be fired.
Ah... so it's just your opinion. I have been to a couple of the GM plants outside of Dearborn and have a very different opinion. I didn't see anything but hard workers.

Anecdotal evidence from my time in the auto industry.
Seems like that's all you have, anecdotal evidence.

Of course it is. They have made better business decisions, absolutely. Lower costs is a better business decision.
Thank you for finally agreeing. They put their plants in the south and pay less (stupid southerners) for the same work while having healthcare subsidized by their government. :2wave:

Again, I work for a tier 1 supplier. We supply GM, Chrysler and Toyota. I get paid the same no matter which I am making parts for that say.
I don't know what you are responding to but it wasn't anything I said.

you said:
The fact that some of those same foreign auto makers supply many jobs to the US is worth noting as well.
And I replied:
Thanks for that capt. obvious. You left out the part about - at a lower employment cost.
 
And you, like so many people who lack critical thinking can't tell the difference between COST OF EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS and WAGES.

The long ago debunked number of $78/per hour includes retirees benefits in an aggregated number. The workers don't get a paycheck for $78/hr. :doh

It's the same thing.
 
What UAW does that I would define as a perversion is they promote workers to such an extreme that it hurts the employers to the point that the employer is less competitive.
Less competitive because their competition pays lower wages right? Right. :2wave:

So you think it's a perversion to pay people a better wage. Is there a difference in the standard of living between 2 workers doing the same job, one in Detroit and one in Kentucky? Yes, the guy in Detroit has a better standard of living. So if I were the guy in Kentucky I'd be like, why don't I make that much. Instead he says, the guy in Detroit gets paid too much... baffling.
 

So you'd admit you are mistaken if I could provide you MORE links than you provided, that dispute your claims?
 
You sound very conservative when you make these kinds of statements which completely lack empathy. What if you weren't making enough? What if management didn't work it out? What then? Strike? Union? That's how it works pal.

Then it would be a different situation. Unions are not some ultimate evil, I have not claimed that. If the pluses outweighed the minuses, I would want a union. So far, that has not been the case though.


Ah... so it's just your opinion. I have been to a couple of the GM plants outside of Dearborn and have a very different opinion. I didn't see anything but hard workers.

My first job after I got out of navy was at a place that made blockout switches for GM car doors. Part sort in Columbus GM plant, the guy who riveted the switch to the door could do his whole days quota in about 2 hours, but would not do more. He spent most of his time when his upervisor was not there reading. Note, they where on 10 hour days and Saturdays at the time.


Seems like that's all you have, anecdotal evidence.

You as well. We are sharing stories, what is your point?


Thank you for finally agreeing. They put their plants in the south and pay less (stupid southerners) for the same work while having healthcare subsidized by their government. :2wave:

If those stupid southerners are making enough money to provide for their families and be happy, and they have a job, I am failing to see why they are stupid. They have better employment than we have here in Michigan, home of the auto industry...


I don't know what you are responding to but it wasn't anything I said.

you said:

And I replied:

You said that foreign auto makers payed lower employment costs, I pointed out that this is not the case in my situation, and that of all suppliers that supply both "domestic" and "foreign" auto makers, or to put it another way, at least a large portion of the auto industry as a whole.
 
Maybe you haven't been paying attention the last few years but the southern U.S. (up until the recession that's bit everyone) has been experiencing an economic boom for 20 years now. Our states in the south have been growing by leaps and bounds while the rust belt states, aptly named, up north have been bleeding jobs and population for years.

Take a look at the 2010 Census projections and how it will affect the Electoral College and Congressional apportionment.

File:proposed Electoral College 2012.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look who is gaining seats: North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Texas, etc. Look who is losing seats: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New York, Massachusetts, etc.

The states that have practiced tax friendly economics to both businesses and residents have thrived. The yankees up north who are still stuck in the economic 1950s are sweeping up the dirt of their once great empires.

Like we've been telling you for a long time: The South will rise again!

confederate_flag.jpg
Let me give you some first hand knowledge. I moved from California to North Carolina in 2004, not because CA was bleeding jobs but because I got sick of the materialistic lifestyle and I could do my same job from a State closer to my familiy (IL and MI) and the cost of living is WAY cheaper. TADA! The south was seeing an economic boom because after the tech bubble, and the rise of the internet (working from home) people moved to lower CoL states. It's not that southerners suddenly created better paying jobs it's that smart people were selling their homes for BIG profit and buying nice homes in the south for next to nothing.

I lived in a 1800sqft house in CA that I bought before it was even finished being built (goldy locks track home) in 1998 for $250k. In 2004 I sold it for $625k and moved into a 3600sqft house on 2 acres with an inground pool for $260k. Most of the people around here (Asheville area) are transplants just like me. :2wave:

The south will rise again because the north has invaded! :rofl
 
Less competitive because their competition pays lower wages right? Right. :2wave:

So you think it's a perversion to pay people a better wage. Is there a difference in the standard of living between 2 workers doing the same job, one in Detroit and one in Kentucky? Yes, the guy in Detroit has a better standard of living. So if I were the guy in Kentucky I'd be like, why don't I make that much. Instead he says, the guy in Detroit gets paid too much... baffling.

Yeah, everybody should be paid 50,000 an hour.

Liberals suck. Stop being liberal.
 
Another no-content response from good ol' Slippery.
Good to see that some things never change.
Another con proving to be consistent by attacking the poster when you can't attack the argument.
Good to see that some things never change.
 
Less competitive because their competition pays lower wages right? Right. :2wave:

So you think it's a perversion to pay people a better wage. Is there a difference in the standard of living between 2 workers doing the same job, one in Detroit and one in Kentucky? Yes, the guy in Detroit has a better standard of living. So if I were the guy in Kentucky I'd be like, why don't I make that much. Instead he says, the guy in Detroit gets paid too much... baffling.

But the guy in KY still has a job, and better climate, and less pollution, and probably better looking women.:lol:
I know what I had to learn, and be able to do, in order to get paid $60K per year as a reactor operator/technician. No way should a semi-skilled job like assembly line worker make more than me...
 
Last edited:
The job of anyone on a side of the negotiating table is to get as much as possible for as little as possible.

If you don't accept that, then it is YOU who are the naive one.
As little as possible does not automatically mean less work. In this instance it means that unless you pay more you won't have any workers. Or to put it another way, we want more pay for the job WE DO. Not more pay for less work.

If you don't accept that, then it is YOU who are the naive one.

It doesn't make GM any more competitive; it simply cripples the competition and make everyone less well-off, including the "middle class" who will see car prices in general skyrocket.
Interesting, so cars from the Big 3 are at astronomical prices while Toyota's are low priced. Interesting. You must be right because I don't see anyone driving cars built by the Big 3... :doh

Increasing the wages to be comparable would raise the car price to that of the Big 3. People can afford a GM car as evidenced by their sales. Sure, they have made business mistakes in the type of cars they produce but that's not compensation related. So your hypothesis is fails a simply examination.
 
Increasing the wages to be comparable would raise the car price to that of the Big 3. People can afford a GM car as evidenced by their sales. Sure, they have made business mistakes in the type of cars they produce but that's not compensation related. So your hypothesis is fails a simply examination.
There are a lot of stubborn folk like myself, who will not buy anything but American brand cars. Even my elderly neighbor who actually fought the Japanese while in the Navy buys Toyota vehicles, at least the last 3 times.
I hope it never gets to the point where I have to buy a Japanese brand, hell I will buy a Ford first.:2wave:
 
No, I consider it a condition and a statement of fact, appropriate unless I am under contract, in which case we would both be required to honor those terms. As an contracted employee, or a contracted on with freedom to terminate unilaterally, I have the right to issue a simple statement of fact that I may exercise my right if I continue to feel that continued employment under the existing terms is not to my satisfaction.

If on the other hand I go to my boss and say, give me a raise or I'll shut your business down (strike), that is simple extortion, and never should have been legal.

To take a job, agree to the terms of employment and then try to force a change is the act of a common thug.
That was all very eloquently outlined. Unfortunately for you I'm educated and can read through what you've tried to obscure with pedanticalness.

To take a job, agree to the terms of employment and then never ask for a raise or threaten to leave unless given a raise or to be fairly compensated, is stupid.
 
"Crap cars" which still outsold everyone else's.

If you're selling more cars yet still can't compete, what does that mean?
It means your competition has lower costs. Raise the labor cost so that the stupid southerners make a living wage and suddenly the Big 3 are competitive. :2wave:
 
It means your competition has lower costs. Raise the labor cost so that the stupid southerners make a living wage and suddenly the Big 3 are competitive. :2wave:

You have some evidence that those "stupid southerners" are not making a living wage? Hell, they are making a better wage than many of us unemployed northern auto workers...
 
You sound very conservative when you make these kinds of statements which completely lack empathy. What if you weren't making enough? What if management didn't work it out? What then? Strike? Union? That's how it works pal.

No. "How it works, pal" is that you didn't mention the preferred alternative: find a different job that pays more.

Can't find a job that pays more? Then who are you to say your job "should" be paid more? Why shouldn't the company replace you with someone less greedy?
 
It means your competition has lower costs. Raise the labor cost so that the stupid southerners make a living wage and suddenly the Big 3 are competitive. :2wave:

I find the profound and deep-seated bigotry of this statement pretty much consistent with your overall reasoning skills. But then, that level of reasoning is where hate generally hatches its maggots.
 
Back
Top Bottom