Quantcast

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
Bailing them out simply enables them. Businesses fail when run poorly, it is not the governments fault. In this case, unions are a large part of the problem. Bad business choices are another.
Of course we shouldn't bail them out, then they will just fail again 10 years down the line. A bailout is a temporary solution to a long term problem.

The Auto Workers union had reps on a few networks today discussing it. Not a single one of them said they would agree to accept ANY compromises in benefits or salaries in order to help their member's employers succeed. I have no pity for them when they are not willing to help keep their employers afloat under these circumstances.
They already compromised on health care and pensions, and GM is still failing because of poor business decisions. Whenever they compromise, the workers lose and GM is still in trouble.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,040
3
Towing the party line.
They listed the employees benefits at GM, as well as salaries for different positions. There are PLENTY of compromises to make. And yes, GM will still most probably fail.

So once again, bailing them out will simply enable them to last to make bad decisions for a few more years. IE: they are bad businesses and need to fail. They aren't a make work project. Use 25 billion dollars to create some new jobs that are sustainable; in sectors that need workers. Use 25 billion dollars to educate un-skilled workers, allowing them to move up in the world.
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
So once again, bailing them out will simply enable them to last to make bad decisions for a few more years. IE: they are bad businesses and need to fail. They aren't a make work project. Use 25 billion dollars to create some new jobs that are sustainable; in sectors that need workers. Use 25 billion dollars to educate un-skilled workers, allowing them to move up in the world.
Except that this is the U.S we are talking about and this kind of thing only happens in a Bizarro America where people get healthcare, a living wage, and equality :rofl:

Just look at what a ****hole Detroit and Flint are, when they move out from other cities, the same thing will happen.
 
Last edited:

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,040
3
Towing the party line.
Except that this is the U.S we are talking about and this kind of thing only happens in a Bizarro America where people get healthcare, a living wage, and equality :rofl:

Just look at what a ****hole Detroit and Flint are, when they move out from other cities, the same thing will happen.
Unfortunately, this is sad but true.
 

IH8Rice

I'm Mr. Negative! I Fail!
Aug 2, 2008
24,524
494
Im over here now
bailing them out will in fact save jobs, but the U.S. will be giving a advantage to a American car maker in this troubled time...awesome.


and now Ford has sold 20% of their stoke in Mazda for $540mil


and unions are bad. they let the workers dictate the business. and they never want to give a inch in troubled times
teachers, auto workers, warehouse workers all suck
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
and unions are bad. they let the workers dictate the business. and they never want to give a inch in troubled times
teachers, auto workers, warehouse workers all suck
Unions are the only thing that stops capital from taking advantage of labor. They aren't giving in much because the cost of living is skyrocketing, and screwing over your members in a time of economic hardship is bad.

Workers should dictate business because then, and only then, will capital become less exploitative of the workers.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,040
3
Towing the party line.
Unions are the only thing that stops capital from taking advantage of labor. They aren't giving in much because the cost of living is skyrocketing, and screwing over your members in a time of economic hardship is bad.

Workers should dictate business because then, and only then, will capital become less exploitative of the workers.
Unions need to go away.
 

IH8Rice

I'm Mr. Negative! I Fail!
Aug 2, 2008
24,524
494
Im over here now
Unions are the only thing that stops capital from taking advantage of labor. They aren't giving in much because the cost of living is skyrocketing, and screwing over your members in a time of economic hardship is bad.

Workers should dictate business because then, and only then, will capital become less exploitative of the workers.
"capital," as you put it, founded this country on the broken backs on the laborers. its worked before and will continue to work

the cost of living has not skyrocketed so high that unions cant and wont give one inch in times of it's companies economic hard times.
my company banned union workers from working in our warehouses back in the 80's. it was tough at first, but business continued as normal without the threat of strike or any of their other BS.

look at teachers too...god forbid they dont get what they want in their already great job, and they strike.
 
Last edited:

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
"capital," as you put it, founded this country on the broken backs on the laborers
That's the problem.

look at teachers too...god forbid they dont get what they want in their already great job, and they strike.
Wow, workers using their power as a bargaining body to get more benefits! How dastardly! Why doesn't someone put a stop to this heinous behavior
 

IH8Rice

I'm Mr. Negative! I Fail!
Aug 2, 2008
24,524
494
Im over here now
How dastardly! Why doesn't someone put a stop to this heinous behavior
i see we are on the same page now.


and its not always about better benefits. teachers get great benefits...its usually about % pay increase for X amount of time...even if they are a horrible teacher, they want a pay increase. once a teacher has tenure its hard to fire them, but yet they will still get a pay increase

whys that?
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
i see we are on the same page now.


and its not always about better benefits. teachers get great benefits...its usually about % pay increase for X amount of time...even if they are a horrible teacher, they want a pay increase. once a teacher has tenure its hard to fire them, but yet they will still get a pay increase
I really don't see a problem with this, because for every bad teacher that stays in the system, GOOD teachers are able to keep working without being fired because they cost too much to keep around. It is an unfortunate side effect, but it prevents age discrimination, a serious, under reported problem.

whys that?
because it was absolutely ridiculous
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
^^^ hey, i know those guys!

i seem to recall that if gm/airlines, et. al., go into ch 11 that all labor agreements are off. if true, i hope they totally restructure w/o any union intervention.

pipe dream?
 

dan-o

Turbo Monkey
Jun 30, 2004
6,499
2,805
i seem to recall that if gm/airlines, et. al., go into ch 11 that all labor agreements are off. if true, i hope they totally restructure w/o any union intervention.
That's my understanding of it.
The UAW has no leverage in this situation. GM pays ~$2k more per vehicle in labor costs than companies like toyota. That's ridiculous and has nothing to do with employee exploitation. If the UAW doesn't want to revise current compensation to market rates they deserve to be in the unemployment line.

Letting labor steer the ship is suicide. I treat and pay my labor very fairly but I've made it clear that any BS on their part will result in immediate replacement. I had one crew try and hold a job hostage this summer because they knew we were running on a tight schedule. They arrived the next morning to find another crew finishing the job.

I do, however, think GM needs to honor past compensation promises to retired workers as that's already been earned on good faith.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,040
3
Towing the party line.
So they need money to survive, yet everyone of these CEOs showed up to washington on private luxury jets. WTF? Last I understood, these jets cost, on average, $100k per day to run, more if the distance flown is higher that a couple of thousand miles.

Are these guys for real? Tell them to get the hell out and deal with the consequences of their own actions.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
55,943
21,973
Sleazattle
Domestic auto companies need to change but they can't be allowed to die. The affect on the economy would be huge. The snowball affect will kill several other industries. It would all but kill several domestic machine builders. Domestic Japanese plants only buy Japanese machines. Losing the US auto plants and their tier 1 suppliers would kill the domestic machine industry and force other industries to also purchase imports. Michigan, Ohio and Indiana would become third world and Detroit would become 4th world.
 

Toshi

butthole powerwashing evangelist
Oct 23, 2001
39,638
8,683
Domestic auto companies need to change but they can't be allowed to die. The affect on the economy would be huge. The snowball affect will kill several other industries. It would all but kill several domestic machine builders. Domestic Japanese plants only buy Japanese machines. Losing the US auto plants and their tier 1 suppliers would kill the domestic machine industry and force other industries to also purchase imports. Michigan, Ohio and Indiana would become third world and Detroit would become 4th world.
is there something innately impermissible about this? if that's what the market dictates then so be it.
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
if that's what the market dictates then so be it.
Well, since we have a government, the invisible hand of the free market isn't free to anally rape us. Putting people into poverty when we can prevent it isn't a good thing to do.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
Well, since we have a government, the invisible hand of the free market isn't free to anally rape us. Putting people into poverty when we can prevent it isn't a good thing to do.
"poverty" has been defined to be below the median income level, which renders the term useless.
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
"poverty" has been defined to be below the median income level, which renders the term useless.
Just because the Republicans think that the progressive income tax is socialism, doesn't mean it is.

My point is that putting a ton of people out of jobs when it is preventable is silly.

To clarify, we shouldn't bail them out, that won't fix the problem. Since it is unlikely that those people that lose their jobs in related industries will get government help finding new jobs, getting educations, or anything else, it will just raise the unemployment rate.
 
Last edited:

Toshi

butthole powerwashing evangelist
Oct 23, 2001
39,638
8,683
Just because the Republicans think that the progressive income tax is socialism, doesn't mean it is.

My point is that putting a ton of people out of jobs when it is preventable is silly.
why let any company fail then? why even have the pretense of capitalism? if we're going to allow companies to profit we must allow them to succumb to their failures as well.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
Just because the Republicans think that the progressive income tax is socialism, doesn't mean it is.
when the progression stifles motivation to grow, it creeps. i think we can agree that if gm were taxed at the same rate as a small business, they wouldn't be in such dire straits.
My point is that putting a ton of people out of jobs when it is preventable is silly.
sooooo.....break up the unions?
si se puede!
why let any company fail then? why even have the pretense of capitalism? if we're going to allow companies to profit we must allow them to succumb to their failures as well.
on principle, i agree. but when you have a stifling tax code married to the mob rule of unions, the term capitalism has too lost all its original meaning.

have you ever wondered why our founding fathers were silent on the auto & airline industries? well, have you?
 

IH8Rice

I'm Mr. Negative! I Fail!
Aug 2, 2008
24,524
494
Im over here now
So they need money to survive, yet everyone of these CEOs showed up to washington on private luxury jets. WTF? Last I understood, these jets cost, on average, $100k per day to run, more if the distance flown is higher that a couple of thousand miles.

Are these guys for real? Tell them to get the hell out and deal with the consequences of their own actions.
actually the estimated price was only $20k roundtrip, when first class tickets to DC would have only cost $837.
hey, if you got the money.....oh wait, they dont
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
why let any company fail then? why even have the pretense of capitalism? if we're going to allow companies to profit we must allow them to succumb to their failures as well.
They are too big to fail. Bailing out will only delay the problem, not fix it.
 

IH8Rice

I'm Mr. Negative! I Fail!
Aug 2, 2008
24,524
494
Im over here now
They are too big to fail. Bailing out will only delay the problem, not fix it.
they arent too big to fail....but the government wont allow $50bil in economy and millions of jobs to be lost because they are going to fail.

and with the $25bil that is going to split b/w the "big" three, the three CEO's only expect that can help them for the first quarter of '09.
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
they arent too big to fail....but the government wont allow $50bil in economy and millions of jobs to be lost because they are going to fail.

and with the $25bil that is going to split b/w the "big" three, the three CEO's only expect that can help them for the first quarter of '09.
The bailout is a temporary bandaid to a long term problem, but the country can't afford 1 million jobs lost at this point.

A long-term solution would be nationalization and restructuring, then sold off, but that will never happen.
 

IH8Rice

I'm Mr. Negative! I Fail!
Aug 2, 2008
24,524
494
Im over here now
The bailout is a temporary bandaid to a long term problem, but the country can't afford 1 million jobs lost at this point.

A long-term solution would be nationalization and restructuring, then sold off, but that will never happen.

it would be nice if it was only 1 million jobs..its a lot more than 1 million jobs. dont forget about the sub-contractors and all their other vendors too, and everyone that is related to anything GM/Ford/Chrysler
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
They should FAIL.
I want the execs to eat **** as much as you do, but there are also a lot of retired people who need the pensions that they get to be economically secure.

I understand, it is a catch 22, you either bail out an inefficient and terrible company or you hurt an already weakened economy further. I would rather have the 25 billion go to workers and the retired people they support and let them fail, but this is the U.S we are talking about.

it would be nice if it was only 1 million jobs..its a lot more than 1 million jobs. dont forget about the sub-contractors and all their other vendors too, and everyone that is related to anything GM/Ford/Chrysler
I didn't want to overestimate. 13 million would be affected somehow.

edit:http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ad09qxbiElB8&refer=home

General Motors Corp., seeking a federal bailout as its cash dwindles, would cost the government as much as $200 billion should the biggest U.S. automaker be forced to liquidate, a forecasting firm estimated.

A GM collapse would mean ``more aid to specific states like Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana, and more money into unemployment and extended benefits,'' Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at IHS Global Insight Inc. in Lexington, Massachusetts, said today in an interview. He prepared the estimate for Bloomberg News.

The projected expense of $100 billion to $200 billion covers funds for existing programs, such as unemployment insurance, and new measures that would be needed to revive economic growth after millions of auto-related job losses.
 
Last edited:

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,207
105
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
The companies as a whole are to blame.

Oversimplification follows:

I personally keep an eye on the overall health of my employer. I think everyone has to take responsibility for their own destiny. If I was watching my emploeyer slowly go into the crapper, my resume would be circulating.

The "Won't someone think of the poor victimized worker??" argument is lame. It's not like it comes as any great shock that they are in this position. I wouldn't have hung around that long.

So the soon-to-e unemployed should have kept their eyes open instead of just wishing that everything would turn out ok.
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
The Big Three's management chose the bigger pensions and health care over higher wages, they chose to make it a long-term issue.

Granted, the UAW has been lobbying to halt fuel standards, but it was the inability of the management to innovate that got us to this situation.

However, the weakening of unions in the U.S has led to stagnant wages since the 70s. The business owners have a monopoly on capital, and the unions have a monopoly on labor, and it works out usually. However, since unions have been destabilized and there isn't a union culture in the U.S, the U.S doesn't have a strong safety net for when one of these big companies fails.

If we had single-payer health care, it would dramatically slash costs for the Big Three.