• 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!

US car bail-out talks 'collapse'

Silly me, I figured you quoted the pertinent information...

I quoted some pertinant information, but didn't want to break DP rules by posting the whole article. I KNOW you would have infracted me on that. :2razz:
 
I quoted some pertinant information, but didn't want to break DP rules by posting the whole article. I KNOW you would have infracted me on that. :2razz:

Well if you had quoted information that was contrary to my position, I may have bothered to check out the link. Why would I research something I thought I had already pointed out?

And yes I would have infracted you, because you are in good need of a spanking lately. :2razz:
 
And yes I would have infracted you, because you are in good need of a spanking lately. :2razz:

Well crap, if I would have known that, I would have posted the whole article, along with all of the webpage ads, just to be extra naughty. :rofl
 
PeteEU said:
Funny how the unions get the blame here, when in fact it was the Republicans that killed the deal.. oh well, welcome to a million+ new unemployed America and hundreds of billions in extra money need for them.

Yes, Republicans did kill the deal. Thank goodness they did. They killed it when the UAW wouldn't budge on several critical issues. Republicans were stunned by the UAW's arrogance in not willing to go to the table. They seem to think that they can treat this like a regular Union deal and not the major catastrophe that this really has become. They won't have the option to go on strike.


That depends on what perspective you approach the question from. From the perspective of a capitalist, yes, the job of a CEO, that is to increase revenue, is necessary, as is the entire bureaucracy of management. Of course, it should be obvious that I'm not concerned with maximizing revenue.

Revenue is the reason to have a business. A business is there to make money for its owners and/or shareholders. You can argue Soviet economics, and I can point to its version of "tax" (more like direct cash infusion to the coffers).

In the process of the sustainability of human society through production, their job is utterly unnecessary, as it has been historically shown many times that workers are capable (in fact, more so, as generally when factories are appropriated by its workers their productivity increases) of self-management.

Whoa there buddy. That Marxist stuff looks great on paper..but thats still paper and this is the real world, not the university. If you're going to try and claim history then lets see your documentation or are you attempting to use pre-industrial rural examples?


Union agitation isn't driving the company to bankruptcy. Poor economic planning, a massive bureaucracy of management, and paying ridiculous amounts of money to their upper- and mid-level management is.

There's plenty of blame to pass around, but I certainly wouldn't put the unions at the top of the list. Nary a bitch I've hear about the executives and CEOs of the NA big 3 who collected millions upon millions of dollars of salary and bonuses for doing the absolute worse job imaginable. If the workers were making them that poor, how do you explain this bonus trough?


The few CEO's that get those huge bonuses don't add up to the total cost of labor and their required benefits. Not even close. Lets not forget that "labor" includes those that don't work their either and I don't just mean "pensioners". A single plant even without its current auxilliaries, pensioners, and poolee's blow those bonuses waaaay out of the water. I know its easy to beat up on the CEO's being big bad money grubbers but the sacrosanct "Labor" is going to have to take their BIG share of this mess as well.

Outrage? Yeah if I was a shareholder I would be outraged and would be asking for their resignations with no severance packages. But I'm not a shareholder so I can only be outraged that they're asking for my tax dollars. Shareholders recieve all of those nice business spam letters (they're actually important) for a reason.
 
Last edited:
The few CEO's that get those huge bonuses don't add up to the total cost of labor and their required benefits. Not even close. Lets not forget that "labor" includes those that don't work their either and I don't just mean "pensioners". A single plant even without its current auxilliaries, pensioners, and poolee's blow those bonuses waaaay out of the water. I know its easy to beat up on the CEO's being big bad money grubbers but the sacrosanct "Labor" is going to have to take their BIG share of this mess as well.

Please back that up with hard facts. I'm interested.
 
Link
BBC NEWS | Americas | US car bail-out talks 'collapse'

It seems that the Unions concerned would not agree to wages being cut to levels paid by other Auto manufacturers within the US.
Silly people, it is better to have a job that pays something than have no job at all.
When will they realize that the gravy days are over?

Here is the problem I have with that:

1) GOP wants to cut wages and destroy the UAW.

2) GOP voted to give welfare queen bankers everything they wanted. No pay cuts for them.

Where is the consistency, or is it is a fact that the GOP doesn't like auto workers but loves bankers?
 
I was looking at homes in Detroit to see what these workers have to pay.

The houses are like free!

There are lots and lots of houses for sale for less than $30,000. I'm not talking about $30,000 homes, I'm talking about $120,000 homes selling for $30,000.

It seems like a good place to go open a factory. Your employees would be able to buy cheap housing.

Is that right?
 
I was looking at homes in Detroit to see what these workers have to pay.

The houses are like free!

There are lots and lots of houses for sale for less than $30,000. I'm not talking about $30,000 homes, I'm talking about $120,000 homes selling for $30,000.

It seems like a good place to go open a factory. Your employees would be able to buy cheap housing.

Is that right?

The houses are going for $30,000 but the bars on your windows cost an extra $80,000.
 
Please back that up with hard facts. I'm interested.

Chief Executive Richard Wagoner
$1.6 million salary original plan to increase to 2.2 did not go through
Estimated annual health and dental care family plan: $14,000

$1.8 million in non-equity incentive bonuses. Since GM posted a loss he doesn't get it though.
Another $3.3 million in estimated expenses. Most of which are travel (estimated cost on all vehicles jets included), security, and insurance.

Those costs are always added into the mix when it comes to reporting time.

Vice Executive Ray Young
$900,000 salary
Same health care plan

Another 946,000 incentive bonus. Since GM posted a loss he doesn't get it.
Similar expenses.

Chief Operating Officer Fritz Henderson

$1.8 million salary
Same expenses as above minus the incentive package.
Same health care plan

*note: attempting to throw in estimated stock options and signing bonuses is disengenious as they are a one time payment and non-reoccurring. We're a debate forum, not a CNN ratings whore. Any additonal options are purchased through their own stock purchase plan which is available to ALL GM employees...even the janitors.

Janesville GM Plant in Wisconsin

Approx. # of workers at full production (mid Jan. of this year) approx. 2,200.
Estimated cost of ACTIVE labor (salary and benefits): $325 million....FOR ONE PLANT.


Total loss by posting of this year. $38.7 Billion....yes with a B..BILLION


Do I get a cookie now? :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Here is the problem I have with that:

1) GOP wants to cut wages and destroy the UAW.

2) GOP voted to give welfare queen bankers everything they wanted. No pay cuts for them.

Where is the consistency, or is it is a fact that the GOP doesn't like auto workers but loves bankers?

1) Cut salaries and benefits yes. Those costs are part of the immediate problem. Destroy the UAW? Hardly. Opposing anti-secret ballot legislation is a good thing. Letting the UAW know that they don't own the plants is a darn good thing!

2) Wages and labor even for the top execs isn't an issue to the Wall Street bailout. Heck you could pay every single worker there $1 for the next 10 years and it still wouldn't affect Wall Street at all.


Thats funny. After looking at the voting record I can see the GOP isn't alone in the Wall Street bailout (thats a pretty HUGE number of Dems voting for it) and almost caved in to the US carmaker bailout. That "almost" was pretty much crushed by one entity..the UAW.

Just wanted to point that out...you know..so you won't forget the Dems hold Congress...like for how many years now?
 
Last edited:
Chief Executive Richard Wagoner
$1.6 million salary original plan to increase to 2.2 did not go through
Estimated annual health and dental care family plan: $14,000

$1.8 million in non-equity incentive bonuses. Since GM posted a loss he doesn't get it though.
Another $3.3 million in estimated expenses. Most of which are travel (estimated cost on all vehicles jets included), security, and insurance.

Those costs are always added into the mix when it comes to reporting time.

Vice Executive Ray Young
$900,000 salary
Same health care plan

Another 946,000 incentive bonus. Since GM posted a loss he doesn't get it.
Similar expenses.

Chief Operating Officer Fritz Henderson

$1.8 million salary
Same expenses as above minus the incentive package.
Same health care plan

*note: attempting to throw in estimated stock options and signing bonuses is disengenious as they are a one time payment and non-reoccurring. We're a debate forum, not a CNN ratings whore. Any additonal options are purchased through their own stock purchase plan which is available to ALL GM employees...even the janitors.

Janesville GM Plant in Wisconsin

Approx. # of workers at full production (mid Jan. of this year) approx. 2,200.
Estimated cost of ACTIVE labor (salary and benefits): $325 million....FOR ONE PLANT.


Total loss by posting of this year. $38.7 Billion....yes with a B..BILLION


Do I get a cookie now? :2wave:


No cookie, unfortunately. You didn't post any links, and your information does not match what I found:


NOVEMBER 18, 2008, 12:33 P.M. ET
GM, Ford May Set Up Caps on Executive Pay
By MATTHEW DOLAN

The chief executives of Detroit's Big Three auto makers appearing before Congress today don't make the kind of money that Wall Street bosses pull down, but they could still face tough questions about executive compensation.

The legislation under consideration by the Senate would require the government to bar bonuses for executives making more than $250,000. The bill in the House of Representatives has similar provisions for those companies receiving loans, demanding no bonuses to employees making more than $200,000, no "golden parachutes" payouts to fleeing executives and "no compensation plan that could encourage manipulation of reported earnings to enhance compensation."

Spokesmen at Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corp. said their companies are still reviewing the bills released Monday night but added that the auto makers are already taking steps themselves that would effectively institute similar kinds of caps.

This afternoon, the auto companies' CEOs will be testifying in favor of a $25 billion, government-backed loan program designed to help the ailing auto makers weather a global credit crunch and sharp downturn in auto sales.

In previous bailouts in the financial sector, executive compensation has been a sore point for congressional members and taxpayers who questioned giant pay packages for leaders of failing companies.

Although GM has been losing money since 2005, CEO Rick Wagoner got a salary increase this year. At Ford, Chief Executive Alan Mulally has come under fire for a rich pay package even though the company is losing money and pulled back from a pledge to return to profitability next year.

Less is known about Robert Nardelli's CEO package at Chrysler LLC because the auto maker is privately held.

The Securities and Exchange Commission filings reported earlier this year that gave Mr. Wagoner, the company's chairman and chief executive, a 33% raise for 2008 and equity compensation of at least $1.68 million for his performance in 2007, a year for which the auto maker reported a loss of $38.7 billion. The salary increase puts Mr. Wagoner's salary for this year at $2.2 million, compared with $1.65 million in 2007.

GM, Ford May Set Up Caps on Executive Pay - WSJ.com


Is a pay raise normal when a CEO drives ('scuse the play on words) a company in the red?

Yeah, they do pay their workers well at Ford, GM and Chrysler. But I can't fathom why it's the little guy that gets the blame here as there is plenty to go around.
 
Here is the problem I have with that:

1) GOP wants to cut wages and destroy the UAW.

2) GOP voted to give welfare queen bankers everything they wanted. No pay cuts for them.

Where is the consistency, or is it is a fact that the GOP doesn't like auto workers but loves bankers?
Weak, and sadly, so.

I dont recall labor costs being an issue within the finance industry, where labor costs-- wages, benefits and pensions -- have often been an issue in the auto industry.

Why do you believe the unions should be unwilling to grant concessions in order to keep the jobs they represent?
 
Yeah, they do pay their workers well at Ford, GM and Chrysler. But I can't fathom why it's the little guy that gets the blame here as there is plenty to go around.
What % of the big 3 payroll (inc benefits) goes to the CEOs?
What % of the payroll (inc benefits) goes to UAW workers?
 
What % of the big 3 payroll (inc benefits) goes to the CEOs?
What % of the payroll (inc benefits) goes to UAW workers?


Do any of the union employees make $11,000 an hour? Richard Wagoner does. So if your beef is about misappropriation of pay, you can start at the top.

As for the bull $70 hr., this is how the figure came that way:

But then what's the source of that $70 hourly figure? It didn't come out of thin air. Analysts came up with it by including the cost of all employer-provided benefits--namely, health insurance and pensions--and then dividing by the number of workers. The result, they found, was that benefits for Big Three cost about $42 per hour, per employee. Add that to the wages--again, $24 per hour--and you get the $70 figure. Voila.

Except ... notice something weird about this calculation? It's not as if each active worker is getting health benefits and pensions worth $42 per hour. That would come to nearly twice his or her wages. (Talk about gold-plated coverage!) Instead, each active worker is getting benefits equal only to a fraction of that--probably around $10 per hour, according to estimates from the International Motor Vehicle Program. The number only gets to $70 an hour if you include the cost of benefits for retirees--in other words, the cost of benefits for other people.

Pretty misleading, no?

Now tell me Goobieman, if there was universal helthcare in the US, do you think that would help the big 3?
 
As I understand it, one of the main reasons Republicans doomed this bailout is because the supposed "Car Czar" position had been denuded in the legislation. It amounted to a title position only with no power to initiate industry reforms or veto poor company decisions. Window dressing.
 
Link
BBC NEWS | Americas | US car bail-out talks 'collapse'

It seems that the Unions concerned would not agree to wages being cut to levels paid by other Auto manufacturers within the US.
Silly people, it is better to have a job that pays something than have no job at all.
When will they realize that the gravy days are over?

Yeah, we should lower the compensation of workers, that's the best answer for society. Conservatives won't be happy until there is no middle class and only the lower class serving the upper class. Flip my burger and mow my lawn you peon, I was lucky enough to go to college so I deserve better than you. Conservatives won't be happy until blue collar workers in this country are paid as little as other third world or oppressive countries.

I don't think any of the bail outs should happen. Not because I have some fantasy about the "free market" but because I believe we need to have a big ****ing meltdown so that people will recognize that the conservative model of laissez faire economics and Reaganomics has brought nothing but trouble to our country. When all those republicans lose their jobs maybe then they will stop voting republican.
 
Where is the consistency, or is it is a fact that the GOP doesn't like auto workers but loves bankers?

Comrade I now believe it is a fact that the Republicans in Congress are all EVIL, and every last one should be expelled. They would bail out usurers while not wanting a law or Congressional goal to the FED to prevent more than 36% debt to income ratio. 38%? Where did that come from? {see link} They are as dumb as Hannity for not being able to read consistent "with the safe and sound operation." They prefer debt given by usurers who think a National Treasure Sweepstakes debt hidden in the attic is funny. And when the equity of a lifetime is not there for the taking after the fracking, in an economic downturn due to high gas prices and burning cornbread to go zoom, they bail the bastard usurers out.

“[2.280] And if (the debtor) is in straitness, then let there be postponement until (he is in) ease; and that you remit (it) as alms is better for you, if you knew.”

I have had enough of the Republicans in Congress.

The EVIL Republicans in Congress want responsible business by decreasing the wages of hourly workers gained by contract, for socialism, but try to get knowledge and consent before a usurer fornicates in your household behind your back, for more than 36% debt to income ratio and a mortgage crisis, and the Republicans know nothing, see nothing...


The Republicans in Congress can go to hell; EAT THIS YOU STINKING BASTARDS:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...cans-caused-bad-economy-4.html#post1057840083

Republicans hate worker's contracts, in good faith, but love usurers fornicating in our households behind our backs.

I FART ON THE STINKING REPUBLICANS.
 
No cookie, unfortunately. You didn't post any links, and your information does not match what I found:

The Securities and Exchange Commission filings reported earlier this year that gave Mr. Wagoner, the company's chairman and chief executive, a 33% raise for 2008 and equity compensation of at least $1.68 million

The salary increase puts Mr. Wagoner's salary for this year at $2.2 million, compared with $1.65 million in 2007.

Actually, your info does match what mine was. Yours is pretty much unresearched, included equity compensation (its really non-equity) which is mentioned in my more detailed info, and is still in the same ballpark. You can play with numbers by adding in stock options or signing bonuses (also mentioned) to come up with slightly different numbers depending on who's reporting the info.

Yeah, they do pay their workers well at Ford, GM and Chrysler. But I can't fathom why it's the little guy that gets the blame here as there is plenty to go around.

$24 per hour is the STARTING pay on a GM line worker. Veterens can make up to $37 an hour in lower paying states. But lets play ball here. We'll strip everything from the equation. No overtime, no benefits, not bonuses, no nothing and stick with the lowest of the low pay.

24 x 40 (no overtime) x4 x 12 = 46,080 a year. Hmm kinda low. Now lets multiply that 2,200. Hmm, my math says 101 million for one plant. Start adding benefits, pensions, overtime, well you get the point. Labor is the largest overhead cost to production for anything. On top of that labor is also the easiest to replace.

Why are the "little guys" the bad guys? Simple, we pay sooo much for a job that can be outsourced to cheaper countries and still get the same in terms of productivity and quality. And they want more pay and benefits for less work. You'll notice that America isn't exactly that sympathetic to the UAW these days. You can only bleed an animal so much before it becomes too weak and dies. And its ironic that they heavily support a party who's multicultural views directly conflict with the nationalistic sympathy that they feed off to keep the companies going. Support your country, buy American cars! Nah, I'll stick with a Toyota.
 
Comrade I now believe it is a fact that the Republicans in Congress are all EVIL, and every last one should be expelled.

I have had enough of the Republicans in Congress.

Republicans hate worker's contracts, in good faith, but love usurers fornicating in our households behind our backs.

Comrade, put the appropriate blame on the appropriate people. This is all of Congress and not just the Republicans. I understand that your fevor has blinded you to the voting decisions of the Democrats in the past...and present but we can clarify this for you if need be. I too hate the republicans. Mostly though for their lack of action on the Democrat installed policies and incompetance by trying to be bipartisan when that is not why we voted for them in the first place. I say we kick them all out...or at least hold the appropriate people accountable.

Ah but Comrade, contracts are negotiated and therefore apt to be renegociated when trying to keep the business running. Even Marxist theory allows and to a point asks for just that. Good faith isn't exactly what I would call some of those contract methods though. Threatening "scabs" that come to replace union workers with violence is hardly in good sport.
 
Actually, your info does match what mine was. Yours is pretty much unresearched, included equity compensation (its really non-equity) which is mentioned in my more detailed info, and is still in the same ballpark. You can play with numbers by adding in stock options or signing bonuses (also mentioned) to come up with slightly different numbers depending on who's reporting the info.

It's amazing to me how you seem to be so okay with this. Here's a CEO that makes $11,000 an hour (with benefits), who managed the company to a 36 billion dollar deficit in 2007. That's a full year salary for 157 assembly-line workers (at the inflated rate of $70 hr!). You okay with this? Is a CEO really worth that much more, especially one who's doing a lousy job? I think it was Roosevelt who said that the gap between salaries should not exceed 15-1. My math is terrible, but even I can figure out that the GM, Ford and Chrysler gap is a much higher rate than that. If they're going to clean up and start making themselves profitable companies once again, they should start at the top.

$24 per hour is the STARTING pay on a GM line worker. Veterens can make up to $37 an hour in lower paying states. But lets play ball here. We'll strip everything from the equation. No overtime, no benefits, not bonuses, no nothing and stick with the lowest of the low pay.

Please provide a link, as from what I've seen so far, those number are NOT accurate. At least since 2007, new assembly-line workers make $12-15 hr, with less benefits. Do you want that trend to go even lower, so Americans can compete with the Chinese? Is that the America you envision... a small percentage of very rich people and no middle-class?

General Motors Hourly Pay - Glassdoor.com

From The New Republic:

Let's start with the fact that it's not $70 per hour in wages. According to Kristin Dziczek of the Center for Automative Research--who was my primary source for the figures you are about to read--average wages for workers at Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors were just $28 per hour as of 2007. That works out to a little less than $60,000 a year in gross income--hardly outrageous, particularly when you consider the physical demands of automobile assembly work and the skills most workers must acquire over the course of their careers.

Assembly Line


Why are the "little guys" the bad guys? Simple, we pay sooo much for a job that can be outsourced to cheaper countries and still get the same in terms of productivity and quality. And they want more pay and benefits for less work.

You want the US to become China? Is that what you want? How about this... how about build better cars that people want, and limit the number of cheap labour imports? How 'bout them apples?


You'll notice that America isn't exactly that sympathetic to the UAW these days.

That is because people are being misinformed.
 
I understand that your fevor has blinded you to the voting decisions of the Democrats in the past...and present but we can clarify this for you if need be. I too hate the republicans. Mostly though for their lack of action on the Democrat installed policies and incompetance by trying to be bipartisan when that is not why we voted for them in the first place. I say we kick them all out...or at least hold the appropriate people accountable.

Ah but Comrade, contracts are negotiated and therefore apt to be renegociated when trying to keep the business running. Even Marxist theory allows and to a point asks for just that. Good faith isn't exactly what I would call some of those contract methods though. Threatening "scabs" that come to replace union workers with violence is hardly in good sport.

To be consistent, which is what I was responding to with regard to danarhea's post, in 2005 I would have said, "I do not want to be bailed out like Chrysler..."

It is easy to find that topic of mine, it is about Democrats and Debt. The topic is narrow, because it is personal, but the overall problem was not so narrow.

On page one of the topic I quoted Democrats; Please, these quotes are very important:

"Average family debt is higher than ever. And as they lose the struggle to make ends meet, one out of every seven middle class families may be bankrupt by the end of the decade.”

"And over time, fiscal discipline saves families thousands of dollars on their mortgages and credit cards.”


The solution the Democrats had to prevent that bankruptcy was not any goal to the FED (the job of Congress) for less than 50% debt to income ratio, where Greenspan had it set for unsound banking practices, which would have prevented little ACORNS from having 4000 square foot houses in upscale hoods while driving a truck, their solution was just to have "fiscal discipline." {said like Peter Lorre, who you can imagine as a bank clerk http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000048/}

How exactly would that work? Even with fiscal discipline by the Bush administration and the Republican Congress, the black in the hood up in DeKalb County would still be living in too big a house with no furniture with debt more than twice their income during good times. How is it not a time bomb!

Think about this for a minute. The Democrats are not stupid. The Democrats knew the only way to avoid a problem with the bad Community Reinvestment mortgages was to maintain good times. They knew the middle class families were struggling to make ends meet. They knew credit cards have to be figured into debt to income ratios with regard to the mortgages they knew were bad. Knowing what they knew, instead of making businesses give safe and sound debt to income ratios, it looks to me like they wanted fiscal discipline for the anticipated bail out

*****

When the boss is looking for stuff to be signed off, so he will look good getting in under budget before Christmas, and the inspector on the line is dragging his feet for the one whose name is at the very top of the list on the public bulletin board of those not in the union, the only choice is to join the union so you can consistently keep the boss happy. I do NOT want to talk about the unions even in this topic, because the problem causing all this is more than that.

*****

What if there had been no rise in gas prices or other rise in food costs from burning feed corn to push the 2005 "one out of every seven middle class families" over the edge? Would the auto industry have this problem now? Would the big head on Fox have changed his tune? No need to discuss the ticking time bomb of the the union wages, or the horrible Corporate Average Fuel Economy being the reason why people prefer foreign economy cars when gas prices go up.

What I want to see is reasonable laws to try and prevent bailouts. Fiscal discipline is good to have for bad things you cannot predict, but a good law is better for preventing those things you can predict.

Comrade, if Republicans cannot do those reasonable laws, and their only solution is to bail or let die like a Libertarian in a Dickens novel, this Republican might as well cut the Democrats some slack.
 
$24 per hour is the STARTING pay on a GM line worker. Veterens can make up to $37 an hour in lower paying states. But lets play ball here. We'll strip everything from the equation. No overtime, no benefits, not bonuses, no nothing and stick with the lowest of the low pay.

Wow a whopping $37/hr? THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS!! I can see why you conservatives are so upset, I mean, that's a lot of money to pay someone so that they can house, feed, clothe and educate their family... maybe putting a little something away for vacations and retirement and maybe a little to pass on to their kids in the end. I had no idea there were people making that kind of loot for playing bingo or fishing or whatever it is this month that ALL union workers got caught doing instead of working. I wonder how many conservatives who post here during working hours do so on their break instead of while they should be working... They must be conservatives forced into union jobs because we know it's only union workers who **** off during working hours... but I digress.

Why are the "little guys" the bad guys? Simple, we pay sooo much for a job that can be outsourced to cheaper countries and still get the same in terms of productivity and quality. And they want more pay and benefits for less work.
Right, like I said earlier we need to be lowering the standard of living of American workers to that of the Chinese or some other 3rd world country. Why should average Americans be so privileged? And talk about quality, eh, what's a little melamine in our baby food, candy, pet food et al., I mean you can go to any Wal-Mart and see the high quality of goods you can get on the cheap. So what if moving jobs overseas so that CEOs, Board of Directors and shareholders can make more money for themselves hurts the peon workers and their families and undermines the foundation of prosperity in our society, we really only want the rich to succeed anyway because they deserve it more. Sure there will be some lucky bastards who are able to make it from the bottom to the top but that will end too if we can just keep the populace poor enough. After all, we can't have the rabble reaching the upper crust and spoiling things with their crude and unrefined ways. Frankly, I think we should move to the feudal system anyway.

You'll notice that America isn't exactly that sympathetic to the UAW these days. You can only bleed an animal so much before it becomes too weak and dies.
That's not because people like you say it at every opportunity is it? I'm not sure how I feel about union workers so please tell me another story about lazy union workers getting over on their companies so that I can figure it out. In the second sentence above, were you talking about CEOs, board members and shareholders?

And its ironic that they heavily support a party who's multicultural views directly conflict with the nationalistic sympathy that they feed off to keep the companies going. Support your country, buy American cars! Nah, I'll stick with a Toyota.
I don't really even know what you mean by that. Nationalistic sympathy, do you mean that democrats think we should be paying American workers more than workers in other countries because we are the shining light on the hill, the hopeful nation, the land of prosperity, the place where other people want to go for opportunity and a better life? No, you certainly can't be talking about that because you want our wages and standard of living to be like those other countries. And multicultural? Oh you mean those lesser races. Yeah, we want to pay them even less than the chosen race, right?
[/colbert]
When I think of organized labor I hear the mantra "a rising tide lifts all boats" but it seems like republicans only want the yachts to rise. I think the attitude I hear from conservatives goes like this 'if you're lucky enough or smart enough to employ others, then it's your duty to financially rape them if possible'.

Do you really think that the CEO of GM works 1000% harder than the average person he employs?

The problem is that the top 1% somehow convinced a lot of people that businesses are responsible to their shareholders instead of their employees. But the truth is that employees make business profitable NOT the shareholders.
 
Right, like I said earlier we need to be lowering the standard of living of American workers to that of the Chinese or some other 3rd world country. Why should average Americans be so privileged? And talk about quality, eh, what's a little melamine in our baby food, candy, pet food et al., I mean you can go to any Wal-Mart and see the high quality of goods you can get on the cheap. So what if moving jobs overseas so that CEOs, Board of Directors and shareholders can make more money for themselves hurts the peon workers and their families and undermines the foundation of prosperity in our society, we really only want the rich to succeed anyway because they deserve it more. Sure there will be some lucky bastards who are able to make it from the bottom to the top but that will end too if we can just keep the populace poor enough. After all, we can't have the rabble reaching the upper crust and spoiling things with their crude and unrefined ways.

About 6 months ago, I got some more house keys cut. Turns out I got the exact same type of key for my side door as my front door. I started to wondering how I was going to distinguish them, when I looked at the writing. The older front door key said, "usa." The newer one, "china." Upon that discovery, I couldn't help but wonder how much money Joe Key Company is saving, and how many American jobs were lost.
 
Do any of the union employees make $11,000 an hour? Richard Wagoner does. So if your beef is about misappropriation of pay, you can start at the top.

As for the bull $70 hr., this is how the figure came that way:

But then what's the source of that $70 hourly figure? It didn't come out of thin air. Analysts came up with it by including the cost of all employer-provided benefits--namely, health insurance and pensions--and then dividing by the number of workers. The result, they found, was that benefits for Big Three cost about $42 per hour, per employee. Add that to the wages--again, $24 per hour--and you get the $70 figure. Voila.

Except ... notice something weird about this calculation? It's not as if each active worker is getting health benefits and pensions worth $42 per hour. That would come to nearly twice his or her wages. (Talk about gold-plated coverage!) Instead, each active worker is getting benefits equal only to a fraction of that--probably around $10 per hour, according to estimates from the International Motor Vehicle Program. The number only gets to $70 an hour if you include the cost of benefits for retirees--in other words, the cost of benefits for other people.

Pretty misleading, no?

Now tell me Goobieman, if there was universal helthcare in the US, do you think that would help the big 3?
Since you didnt answer my question, I will ask again:
What % of the big 3 payroll (inc benefits) goes to the CEOs?
What % of the payroll (inc benefits) goes to UAW workers?
 
Back
Top Bottom