Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Asylum Congressional DelegationFollow

#27 Dec 05 2008 at 9:35 AM Rating: Excellent
@#%^
*****
15,953 posts
catwho, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
Nay.

Let them rot.

Give the investment money to these guys instead. At least they have the right ideas.

Aptera: http://www.aptera.com/

Smart Cars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_(automobile)

And for people who want their hot rods: http://www.teslamotors.com/

Why should the big three be given money for failing when these guys could use that money to succeed?


I was going to say that they should use the money to subsidize foreign car companies to bring more of their operations to the US.
____________________________
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"

#28 Dec 05 2008 at 10:20 AM Rating: Good
***
2,086 posts
In the United Kingdom we had a similar position in the 80's. The industries concerned have since died and new ones have sprung up in their place.
I could expand more but UK motoring, mining and production were all in decline and had to be allowed to die. That said, it hurt .... good luck Smiley: dubious
#29 Dec 05 2008 at 10:25 AM Rating: Excellent
I vote restructure. These companies are idiots and I think the heads that flew on the private jets to ask for the bail outs should be shot out of a cannon into the sun. I think we should take the money and invest it into better public transportation for the nation. Let the companies flounder, they'll find their feet.
#30 Dec 05 2008 at 10:43 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
To hell with the free market when it's inconvenient!
#31 Dec 05 2008 at 3:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
They should get their money, under the following conditions:

Shareholder value goes to zero.

Bondholder value is returned at .80 per $1 of initial equity.

Pension and health care for *retired* workers is immediately nationalized and rolled into SocSec/Medicare.

Mandated minimum fuel economy of 120 mpg/number of seats for all non commercial vehicles by 2010. If you really need a low mpg truck, fine, get a commercial license and pay a significantly larger fee for registering it and being licensed.

Management salaries are capped at 100 times the federal minimum wage + a structured bonus not to exceed 50% of salary tied to net profit over the next 5 years.

In five years, the Federal Government publicly offers new stock at dutch auction.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#32 Dec 05 2008 at 3:45 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Why?

You've given the answer yourself. They tried. They made quality cars that people could not only afford to buy, but afford to drive.


No, Why? Because they have a lower loaded labor rate in the US because they have less retired workers. Yes, I agree a Civic is better than a Focus, but certainly not enough better to drive Ford out of business. This blaming SUVs thing is ludicrous. The profit margin on big consumer vehicles is astronomical. The profit margin on a $15,000 car isn't. If Honda or Toyota could have sold as many trucks as GM or Ford, they would have. Punishing a company for winning in market conditions is stupid.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#33 Dec 05 2008 at 6:39 PM Rating: Excellent
I have a hard time feeling sorry for artificially inflated corporate conglomerates that have done nothing but **** in their pants for the last 30 years.


Let them fall, the big piece will be broken down and sold in smaller pieces and it will decentralize the industry allowing growth for the smaller pieces.
#34 Dec 05 2008 at 6:45 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Let them fall, the big piece will be broken down and sold in smaller pieces and it will decentralize the industry allowing growth for the smaller pieces.


No it won't. It will set Labor back 30 years, because the sucker explanation will be that the problem was that unions drove the costs too high, when in reality what killed US manufacturing was skyrocketing health care costs that ludicrously outpaced inflation.
It will also cripple any hope of a recovered US economy in the next 18 months.

All that for the glorious self righteousness of denying GM, Ford and Chrysler a tiny fraction of what the FED has tossed to 11 investment banks with barely a press release.

That really seems like a good idea to you? Being late in line for failure doesn't make the failure somehow more repugnant that those who failed before you.


____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#35 Dec 05 2008 at 9:15 PM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

Let them fall, the big piece will be broken down and sold in smaller pieces and it will decentralize the industry allowing growth for the smaller pieces.


No it won't. It will set Labor back 30 years, because the sucker explanation will be that the problem was that unions drove the costs too high, when in reality what killed US manufacturing was skyrocketing health care costs that ludicrously outpaced inflation.
It will also cripple any hope of a recovered US economy in the next 18 months.

All that for the glorious self righteousness of denying GM, Ford and Chrysler a tiny fraction of what the FED has tossed to 11 investment banks with barely a press release.

That really seems like a good idea to you? Being late in line for failure doesn't make the failure somehow more repugnant that those who failed before you.


I can certainly agree that a long history of ever-more expensive retirees (that are living longer, well medicated lives) is a manufacturing industry problem here, and maybe car companies are the biggest hit the...though maybe they just whine the loudest. Presumabley though there's nothing to stop other aging companies with a big retiree pool from seeking a bailout under condition #3 that you mentioned (nationalizing health and pension for retirees).

With medical costs still running rampant, and medicare/caid, and ss underfunded, wouldn't that be kinda risky?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#36 Dec 05 2008 at 9:39 PM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
I agree with the bailout. I think Smash's plan makes the most overall sense. Healthcare in this country is a nightmare.

We need restructuring, sure, but really we can't afford to lose that many jobs, not to mention the pensions of thousands of workers without having a major negative impact on an already ailing economy. Just b/c I don't like everything that the American auto industry does doesn't mean that I'll benefit from its failure. We wouldn't. We'd all be economically devastated.

I don't know why everyone is so cavalier about the automobile industry possibly going down the tubes. This is a @#%^ing economic nightmare.






Edited, Dec 6th 2008 12:46am by Annabella
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#37 Dec 06 2008 at 6:24 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

With medical costs still running rampant, and medicare/caid, and ss underfunded, wouldn't that be kinda risky?


Risky to the bottom line of big Pharma? Possibly. The GOP framing of the Auto bailout has been a big winner. Make no mistake, they see opportunity here. I think Naomi Klein is largely a shrill alarmist, but she makes a fairly obvious point about interests using crisis as an excuse to further their agendas, that is valid.

That's what's occurring here. The Right (or the dozen intellectuals who are left on the right) understands that there's no traction to be gained on deregulation in this environment, and most free market policies are going to be exceptionally tough sledding. So, what to do? Where can they make gains?

Blame Labor. It's UAW's fault manufacturing costs are high because they negotiated loaded labor rates that average $70+. That's selling. If that gains enough traction, maybe they can stop CardCheck. Maybe they can cripple SEIU.

That's what's at stake here, the inept managers and corporate jets are just a sideshow. The win for the Right is for these companies to go into reorganization and then a court order that allows default on collective bargaining agreements, particularly retired worker's health care, then an re-emergence of the companies with a return to profitability, probably with new manufacturing in right to work states hostile to any attempts to organize.

So when people say "@#%^ the auto companies, they screwed themselves" they need to better understand the real net result of that sentiment is "@#%^ organized labor, they're bad for America". If you're ok with that, by all means. If you're not and you favor no federal bridge loan, you need to reconcile what's more important.




Edited, Dec 6th 2008 9:26am by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#38 Dec 07 2008 at 3:33 AM Rating: Good
Smasharoo wrote:
[b]

No it won't. It will set Labor back 30 years, because the sucker explanation will be that the problem was that unions drove the costs too high, when in reality what killed US manufacturing was skyrocketing health care costs that ludicrously outpaced inflation.
It will also cripple any hope of a recovered US economy in the next 18 months.



It's intellectually unfair to blame just one thing. All problems, especially in economics, have a whole slew of causes. You said it yourself Smash, a civic is better than a Focus. And now Toyota has gained a huge stranglehold on Trucks, an area where "American" (Read: Built in Mexico) manufacturers traditionally had an iron fist control of.

I think the failure of the American Auto Industry lies within the 1970's and 1980's. In this time, Honda's, Toyota's, and whatnot were generally laughed at and considered a waste of time by American Auto manufacturers. Fast forward 30 years and they can't figure out why their full-sized automobiles aren't selling as fast as their "foreign" counterparts. Now Honda has the vTec, which pretty much trumps anything the American companies have come up with singlehandedly.

While I'm willing to admit there is more cause than one, I think a major contributor was engineering failure, or engineering attempts way too late in the game.

The idiots finally realized gas isn't going to be cheap forever, the economy wasn't going to be artificially inflated forever, and now the fat ***** is singing, and they can't pay the price.

If we bail them out now, is there any guarantee that we'll not have to do so in another 4, 8, or 20 years? At what point should the umbilical cord be cut? If we do bail them out, is it unfair to ask for some sort of reinvestment?
#39 Dec 07 2008 at 3:43 AM Rating: Decent
Smasharoo wrote:
So when people say "@#%^ the auto companies, they screwed themselves" they need to better understand the real net result of that sentiment is "@#%^ organized labor, they're bad for America".
Which they are.

Organized labor is half the reason that there are stupid-*** "prevailing wage" laws that make state governments overpay for construction projects. (The other half of the reason is that state governments are generally made up of spineless idiots who think that it'll look good on their resume in 20 years.)
#40 Dec 07 2008 at 7:25 AM Rating: Good
***
2,086 posts
#41 Dec 07 2008 at 7:41 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Which they are.


You're a fucking gullible fool.


Organized labor is half the reason that there are stupid-*** "prevailing wage" laws that make state governments overpay for construction projects.


Labor is all of the reason the US has a middle class at all.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#42 Dec 07 2008 at 7:59 AM Rating: Decent
Smasharoo wrote:

Which they are.


You're a fucking gullible fool.
No.

At this point, and in their present form, unions are bad for America. Not "we will eat your children and sell the remains to terrorists" bad, mind you. More like "we'll just sit around and leech your valuable vespene gas resources from you" bad - a mild annoyance under most conditions.

It's entirely possible that I'm biased because, as the most notable example goes locally, we have a chain of grocery stores with three locations in town where the workers are entirely non-union, and union dues are still deducted from their pay. Or that I make a somewhat liveable wage in a manufacturing job without being union, and that union dues would drop my wage from "somewhat liveable" to "I have to go move in with my family" without a corresponding increase in wages that wouldn't happen for a while.

Or it could just be that the bus drivers in town are represented by a union that seems to be led entirely by @#%^s. I'm not entirely sure.

That said, the only good unions are doing at present are to provide a credible threat for people who are being underpaid and are not in a union.

EDIT: And I still stand by my opinion that "prevailing wage" laws, specifically as they apply to construction for public works projects, are idiotic, though again this may be due to how the Oregon PWR law's rates are set (it generally is between 150% and 250% of what the same worker would make for non-public works - for example, a carpenter locally would be paid nearly $50/hr for public works as opposed to around $30/hr for non-public).

Edited, Dec 7th 2008 8:08am by MDenham
#43 Dec 07 2008 at 8:45 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

No.


Yes. Also an ignorant sucker. Sorry.


At this point, and in their present form, unions are bad for America. Not "we will eat your children and sell the remains to terrorists" bad, mind you. More like "we'll just sit around and leech your valuable vespene gas resources from you" bad - a mild annoyance under most conditions.


Wrong, sucker.


It's entirely possible that I'm biased because, as the most notable example goes locally, we have a chain of grocery stores with three locations in town where the workers are entirely non-union, and union dues are still deducted from their pay. Or that I make a somewhat liveable wage in a manufacturing job without being union, and that union dues would drop my wage from "somewhat liveable" to "I have to go move in with my family" without a corresponding increase in wages that wouldn't happen for a while.


You make that wage because of unions you stupid *******. Were there no unions, you'd be paid minimum wage. Oh wait, without unions there wouldn't be a a minimum wage. You'd probably be working off your debt as an indentured servant at 10 cents a day.


Or it could just be that the bus drivers in town are represented by a union that seems to be led entirely by @#%^s. I'm not entirely sure.


Hmm, the US Government was led by an ******* for eight years. **** it, we'd be better with no government.


That said, the only good unions are doing at present are to provide a credible threat for people who are being underpaid and are not in a union.

EDIT: And I still stand by my opinion that "prevailing wage" laws, specifically as they apply to construction for public works projects, are idiotic, though again this may be due to how the Oregon PWR law's rates are set (it generally is between 150% and 250% of what the same worker would make for non-public works - for example, a carpenter locally would be paid nearly $50/hr for public works as opposed to around $30/hr for non-public).


I'm not an expert on Oregon Labor law, so I'll refrain from commenting on it.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#44 Dec 07 2008 at 8:51 AM Rating: Decent
Smasharoo wrote:
You make that wage because of unions you stupid *******. Were there no unions, you'd be paid minimum wage. Oh wait, without unions there wouldn't be a a minimum wage. You'd probably be working off your debt as an indentured servant at 10 cents a day.
Congratulations for being dumb enough to actually state what your misinterpretation of my argument is. The argument is not "unions are categorically bad", which is what you're arguing against.

The argument is "unions are, AT THIS PRESENT TIME, bad". Not "they were bad back in the 1890s". Not "they were bad when Nixon was president". "Unions are bad in the present and extremely recent past."

EDIT: And if you're in bad enough taste to attempt to call me out for ad hominem, (1) you started it first and (2) my excuse is that I haven't been to sleep yet. If your excuse is anything other than "In Boston, we substitute ad hominem for actual argument before we get coffee in our systems", your ******** detector is malfunctioning.

Edited, Dec 7th 2008 9:02am by MDenham
#45 Dec 07 2008 at 9:04 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

The argument is "unions are, AT THIS PRESENT TIME, bad". Not "they were bad back in the 1890s". Not "they were bad when Nixon was president". "Unions are bad in the present and extremely recent past."


What the fuck do you think will happen if unions vanish from the US? That corporations will persist in paying living wages and benefits to employees because they love to make less money?

Let me re-iterate that you're a fucking fool.


Congratulations for being dumb enough to actually state what your misinterpretation of my argument is. The argument is not "unions are categorically bad", which is what you're arguing against.


Congratulations on not being able to read, fucking fool. When I use the words "Were there no" that does mean "now", you borderline illiterate motherfucker. Perhaps you meant to make an argument against teacher's unions because of their failure to ensure they had members who could sufficiently educate someone of your intellect to the point where you could discern verb tense after twenty+ years of speaking and reading the language.



Edited, Dec 7th 2008 12:05pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#46 Dec 07 2008 at 9:10 AM Rating: Decent
Smasharoo wrote:
I'm grumpy and need my coffee and mornin' lovins from Nexa
Obviously.

(Since Smash seems to feel that being insulting is an acceptable substitue for argument, we bring you this derail, sponsored by... what, GM ran out of money to sponsor it?)
#47 Dec 07 2008 at 10:20 AM Rating: Good
***
3,829 posts
MDenham wrote:

Organized labor is half the reason that there are stupid-*** "prevailing wage" laws that make state governments overpay for construction projects.


I'm so very very sick of people demonizing the unions. Have there been mistakes made in the way unionized labor is dealt with? Yes. Has there been corruption here and there? Yes, but corruption is by no means exclusive to nor a product of unions.

Overall though, organized labor has been a force for good without which in the last century this country would once again have become one which tolerates slavery, in the form of underpaid employees barely able to make a living, forced to work in exceptionally hazardous conditions for a pittance, without benefits such as healthcare or retirement plans.

Let me tell you a story...

In the late 1950s, my grandmother, with 5 kids and an 8th grade education, was working 80 hours a week in a coffee shop for minimum wage (and in the 1950s, minimum wage was not even close to what it is today.) The only thing keeping her afloat was the allotment check from her ex-husband's military pay, but even that came with its own set of problems because her alcoholic ex-husband didn't see why a little thing like a divorce decree should get in the way of him having what he wanted--which is why two of their kids were conceived AFTER they divorced, and why he would, on a whim, drop in and take off with all her saved up money or even the car she used to get to work.

This situation also pretty much kept her stuck in Arkansas in proximity to her ex-husband's family, her children's uncles, at least two of whom were @#%^philes (one of which I know from personal experience.)

In short, she had no future. Her children had no future. Had the situation persisted, my mother and her siblings would have been just another generation of ignorant, uneducated white trash.

So one day my grandmother took her allotment check and bought a bunch of groceries and put them in the back floorboard of her beat up used DeSoto. She put the mattress from the crib over top of them, turning the backseat in a small bed, and piled all five of her kids onto it, and then drove all the way to Flint, Michigan. Since there was no interstate at that time, the drive took about 25 hours. But her sister and brother-in-law were living in Flint, and her brother-in-law said the auto factory where he worked was looking specifically to hire women.

So she got her job at the auto factory and she got into the UAW. And she was able to buy her own home, and put two of her four remaining children (one of the five died at the age of 11) through college. She retired after 35 years, and now she lives a comfortable lower-middle-class life, and some of her children live very nice upper-middle-class lives. My mother, unfortunately, chose not to take advantage of these opportunities, but luckily for me, my grandmother and one of my aunts stepped in and raised me and my brother and sister, and so our prospects are also much better than they would otherwise have been.

So, yeah, about 50% of this success story can be credited to my grandmother's pluck. But the other 50% rests entirely on the fact that organized labor saw to it that she was given a fair wage, and health care benefits, and a retirement pension. It meant that her working conditions in the factory were only uncomfortable instead of out-and-out torturous (you really have no clue how bad conditions in the factories were before the first sit-down strike in the Fischer Body plant took place.)

This story is by no means unique. It happened all over the country in every industry during the early to mid 20th century. Smash is right--without organized labor, we'd have no middle class. We'd have a ruling class of ultra-wealthy industry barons and an enormous underclass of wage slaves. And yours truly would probably be living in a shack in the Ozarks unable to read and pregnant with her 11th kid.

Edited, Dec 7th 2008 10:41am by Ambrya
#48 Dec 07 2008 at 10:27 AM Rating: Good
***
3,829 posts
MDenham wrote:
Or that I make a somewhat liveable wage in a manufacturing job without being union,


You can thank unions for this. Even those who work non-union jobs see the benefits of organized labor. The reason you are making a livable wage is because TPTB at your company don't want their employees to unionize, so they treat them well enough that they don't feel they HAVE to unionize to get a fair shake.

Quote:

That said, the only good unions are doing at present are to provide a credible threat for people who are being underpaid and are not in a union.


Which could very easily be YOU.

Yes, the unions need fixing. They haven't adapted to the times and to the fact that the mission was accomplished and now they need to focus on making the victories they won sustainable. But they are not teh debil.
#49 Dec 07 2008 at 3:12 PM Rating: Decent
Ambrya wrote:
Yes, the unions need fixing. They haven't adapted to the times and to the fact that the mission was accomplished and now they need to focus on making the victories they won sustainable. But they are not teh debil.
...thank you for actually saying what my point was better than I could.

I really need to stop this whole "Friday through Sunday is two 36-hour days" thing on the weekends.
#50 Dec 07 2008 at 4:17 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
MDenham wrote:
Ambrya wrote:
Yes, the unions need fixing. They haven't adapted to the times and to the fact that the mission was accomplished and now they need to focus on making the victories they won sustainable. But they are not teh debil.
...thank you for actually saying what my point was better than I could.

How about this:

"Unions are responsible for your wage being 70% of what you think it should be, instead of 1% like the corporations would make it".

70% is still better than 1%.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#51 Dec 07 2008 at 4:31 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
catwho, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
Nay.

Let them rot.

Give the investment money to these guys instead. At least they have the right ideas.

Aptera: http://www.aptera.com/

I would not want to get passed by an 18-wheeler doing 90 in one of these things. It looks like stray road debris would knock off one of those wheel pods.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 275 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (275)