The auto makers

Life, the universe, and everything.
Forum rules
- No personal attacks against players or staff members - please be civil!
- No posting of mature images/links, keep content SFW. If it's NSFW, don't post it on these forums.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

The auto makers

Postby kiryan » Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:56 pm

Fairly good article pointing out what we can expect if we let the big 3 auto makers go under. I'm inclined to let it fail unless the unions do something substantial to allow them to be more competitive. I blame the unions primarily for the failure, and look at wage discrepancy. They may be willing to have GM hire new employees at $14 an hour when the old wage was $29. Which wage is the market rate... and you know they have amazing benefits to boot. I think Toyota pays 16-18.

http://www.time.com/time/business/artic ... ml?cnn=yes

"None of this can happen without the cooperation of the UAW, which is probably feeling better knowing that Obama is on his way to Washington. Although it hasn't shown its hand, the UAW may try to mitigate job losses in the U.S. by pushing GM and Ford to build fewer vehicles in Mexico, according to Sean McAlinden, chief economist at CAR. Obama might be sympathetic to that argument; he said during the campaign that NAFTA needed to be re-examined. The carrot for GM is that any new workers it hires in the U.S. will make $13 to $14 an hour and collect limited benefits rather than work for $29 an hour and get full benefits — the old UAW wage"
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: The auto makers

Postby Corth » Thu Nov 13, 2008 6:53 pm

Poorly run companies combined with unions that have undeserved statutory protection. A bad combination. I derive a lot of my income from people buying new cars, so this is a situation where I'm rooting for a bailout for my own greedy reasons. I want a piece of that TARP pie too! However, objectively, they should be allowed to fail so that well run companies can buy their assets and make better cars and not be a burden on the taxpayer.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: The auto makers

Postby kiryan » Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:10 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/13/ ... index.html

"A taxpayer bailout would be a terrible mistake. It would subsidize the shoddy management practices of the corporate bureaucrats at General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, and it would reward the intransigent union bosses who have made the synonymous with inflexible and anti-competitive work rules."

Of course my emphasis is on the criticism of unions .
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: The auto makers

Postby Kifle » Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:13 pm

I'm inclined to agree with Kiryan on this. While poor management is part of the cause, the underserved restrictions placed on the companies by the unions seem to be the root cause. If they do get a portion of that money, which I'm fully against, it should come with some weighty stipulations: readjust the past labor negotiations so that the business has more leeway in both their physical and financial operations and force the companies to present a viable short-term model (5-10yrs) to increase competitiveness and cost-effective production. Without this, the money will do nothing but line the coffers of the CEOs and union bosses... and prolong the firing/laying off of undeserving workers who feel a false sense of entitelment.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: The auto makers

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:26 pm

Does GM even produce enough cars in America these days for the union labor wages to be a real factor? Sure, they may have had to pay employees $29/hr in America... but where are all their factories?

For that matter, why is the new "competitive" wage so much less than what other auto makers are paying? It's probably that kind of disrespect for the labor that got GM saddled with unions in the first place.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: The auto makers

Postby Corth » Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:20 pm

Yeah, GM is on the verge of bankruptcy because they're expenses aren't high enough :)
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: The auto makers

Postby Sarvis » Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:49 am

Corth wrote:Yeah, GM is on the verge of bankruptcy because they're expenses aren't high enough :)



Probably has nothing to do with selling crappy cars that no one wants, either!

Kind of missing your point though, I didn't say their expenses weren't high enough... I said they got saddled with unions because they don't do things like offer fair market wages. Do you think workers who were HAPPY with their jobs would have organized?

They brought the unions on themselves, and with most of their labor force in Mexico I'm still not sure how much that matters... glib lawyer comments aside.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Re: The auto makers

Postby avak » Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:20 am

What worries me more than any of the specific details of an auto industry bailout is the insane precedent it would be setting. I think someone might have mentioned that in another thread, but yeah, who is next?

In an only tangentially related note, where is the Bush guy from and where is our old mumbling, bumbling president? He's been gracious and fluent lately. Wtf!?
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: The auto makers

Postby Corth » Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:26 am

Sarvis wrote:
Corth wrote:Yeah, GM is on the verge of bankruptcy because they're expenses aren't high enough :)


Probably has nothing to do with selling crappy cars that no one wants, either!


Cars that nobody wants? They sold more cars throughout the entire world last year than anyone else. Sorry, that argument holds no water.

But yeah, the cars are crap. I won't deny it :)
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: The auto makers

Postby Corth » Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:29 am

avak wrote:What worries me more than any of the specific details of an auto industry bailout is the insane precedent it would be setting. I think someone might have mentioned that in another thread, but yeah, who is next?


You were in favor of the $700 billion bailout no? If your going to bail out the financial industry, its hard to tell the 3 million people that directly or indirectly make their living off of the big 3 domestic auto manufacturers that they're shit out of luck. Its the slippery slope that our government had lead us down. Everything is too big to fail.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: The auto makers

Postby Corth » Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:32 am

Sarvis is wrong. It is the enormous labor expenses (including pensions and health benefits) that are crushing GM. He is right though that its not the fault of the unions. They have always done what they were designed to do. Negotiate better wages for its members. You can't exactly blame them for doing TOO good a job. Perhaps the artificial statutory protections that unions get from government. Or, even more on point, the idiots running GM who agreed to the union demands.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Re: The auto makers

Postby avak » Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:50 am

If the economy is like a human body, then the financial industry is a little like the heart. When the heart stops pumping then the rest of the body is starved for oxygen and slowly dies. The big 3 auto makers are like a foot. You can live without them, even though you really don't like the thought. And someday the missing foot will be replaced by a bionic foot that shoots lasers.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: The auto makers

Postby Corth » Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:58 am

The financial industry is the heart of the economy if you believe that it is important to the economy for people to spend money they don't have. Yes, in the unsustainable asset inflated non-wealth creating economy that we have had for maybe the past 10-15 years or so, the financial industry is the heart.. the pump of cheap credit that keeps things growing. In a more sustainable economy based upon earned income rather than asset inflation, then the financial industry is just one of many industries that are NOT too big to fail.

Just take a step back and think about it. They WANT people to go into debt. Do you see how crazy that is? That Senator from Maryland wants to create a big tax incentive for people to buy things they can't afford! And somehow we have been brainwashed to think this is considered proper and normal!

All this emphasis on consumer spending is a relatively new thing. We used to be encouraged to save, not spend. Now the consumer is broke, and idiots (politicians) think that the solution is convince consumers to become even MORE indebted. It boggles the mind.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Re: The auto makers

Postby avak » Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:13 am

Consumer credit has been part of American culture since the 19th century or earlier. The biggest difference is how people use that debt.

Intelligently mobilizing savings (ie allowing banks to create consumer debt) is a big driver in a healthy economy. Buying a home, getting an education, starting a business...all driven primarily on debt.

I don't think we're too far off the same page here. I don't gleefully think we should bail out the banking industry, but we need to get control of it somehow. Putting the pads on an unhealthy heart may keep the body alive, but it doesn't make the heart any more healthy.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: The auto makers

Postby Corth » Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:33 am

Consumer credit has always been around to some extent, but it was never encouraged the way it is now. Some sort of mindset took hold that said its perfectly normal to borrow money to buy what you can't afford. It isn't. There are certain limited times when the return on an investment (monetarily, or perhaps in the case of a house, quality of life) will exceed the interest costs, and thats when borrowing is appropriate. Somehow it all got skewed to the point that reasonable people like yourself see finance as the end all and be all (heart) of the economy, which cannot grow or thrive without wall street. Its a bogus mindset, and most people are now broke because of it.

Individuals should be encouraged to SAVE money towards useful purposes. What we have is quite the opposite.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: The auto makers

Postby kiryan » Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:31 pm

I agree that management was stupid to agree to terms that made their businesses uncompetitive. It is their faults, but the unions had a pretty big stick.

The growth of the world economy and the US economy has been borrowed against the future for at least the past 15 years. Its no surprise to me that it was unsustainable. About the only thing that can jumpstart the world economy is if Chinese and other net savers finance the next round of expansion. Americans could continue to do this as long as their home prices continued to appreciate and thats not likely to happen again until real wages go up or expenses go down.

Whats the first major purchase an individual makes... a car, a rapidly depreciating high maintenance asset. The next is a house of which generally is purchased with 3% down. With your standard 30 year mortgage, you end up paying 2.5x the purchase price which is not necessarily terrible with inflation and marginal appreciation, but certainly is a lot of interest.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: The auto makers

Postby Corth » Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:20 pm

Not sure where houses are usually purchased with 3% down. Up until very recently 20% was more or less standard. Its going back to that pretty rapidly too.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: The auto makers

Postby kiryan » Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:00 am

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/ ... lock500395

"Bankruptcy, Ikenson says, could allow the auto industry to renegotiate their union contracts. The Big Three's workers make, on average, $74 an hour - the highest paid in the country. Their Japanese counterparts, on the other hand, offer their non-unionized American workers just $47 and hour. "

--

FHA loans are 3% and a lot of people over the past 15 years put no where close to 20% down. Back further than that, yea 20% was the requirement.
and tonights winner in the Toril EQ lottery is demi belt and skull earring!
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: The auto makers

Postby Corth » Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:07 am

Yeah FHA loans are essentially a government subsidy. Loaning to people who could not get a mortgage from a private institution. I'm sure FHA will need some of that TARP bailout pie at some point...

As for the automakers, they released a video on youtube begging for money. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72cHfOKoA1c&eurl. Poor bastards were telling us for a couple of years everything is fine and dandy with their restructuring plans, but now that the government is doling out money they want their piece of the TARP pie too. Bankruptcy would absolutely be their best option at this point.. I have no doubt about it. They need liabilities cancelled. More money at this point will just put off the inevitable unless serious changes are made in the way they do business. I don't think its within their power to do what needs to be done at this point.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: The auto makers

Postby kiryan » Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:01 am

I'm waiting to see if the republicans will pussy out again like on the TARP bailout. Whats funny is that it was a Republican that said we need to slow down and debate the TARP bail out because we know what happens when we sign blank checks over to the executive branch, but everyone is too worried about appearing unamerican. Didn't they learn their lesson from the 100-0 votes for the wars?
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: The auto makers

Postby kiryan » Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:54 pm

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6281315&page=2

At Honda, workers receive about $44 an hour, including benefits, while GM employees receive $73.
Botef
Sojourner
Posts: 1056
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Eastern Washington
Contact:

Re: The auto makers

Postby Botef » Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:15 pm

Yea the arguments for bailing out the big 3 falls flat on its ass. If you look at %parts/labor Toyota produces more of its cars in the US than the Big 3, 70% of their cars in fact. Not to mention the abuse UAW has wrecked on the big 3, and their uneconomical design practices. Using Toyota again as an example, all 4-door sedan models use the same frame structure (Camry) making all of their cars economical to produce and repair. Its no wonder the Big 3 are on the brink of failure, they make proprietary cars that are expensive to assemble and expensive to repair once obsolete or retired. That all aside, the bottom line for me is we shouldn't be bailing out a company that exports such a great deal of its parts and labor overseas and then complains about the impact their bankruptcy will have on the blue collar workers they employ. They had to sign an agreement with China to produce a % of the LaCrosse Hybrids overseas and invest an additional $250 million in a fuel research center in Shanghai to get those contracts anyways which is a clear signal that even if we bailed them out their interests are not invested in american production. The argument that they need to be 'retooled' is just silly because the management of those companies opted to invest in China's production element when they could have been investing that money in research and production here.
Sunamit group-says 'imrex west, tibek backstab touk i think his name is on entry'
// Post Count +1
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: The auto makers

Postby Kifle » Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:11 pm

I'm not calling you out or anything, Botef, but where can one find these percentages and statistics? I'd really like to do more reading on this subject on my breaks.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: The auto makers

Postby kiryan » Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:18 pm

Did anyone else catch the testimony where the CEOs promised that the bail out money would go to only x y and z (basically trying to say it won't go to executive compensation).

What about the 16 billion of non bail out money, theres plenty of cash to pay bonuses out of that pot of money and you know thats exactly what they would do.

Also, did you see the indignation they expressed about how they travel (expensive private jets) being a business decision and basically none of congress' business?

I'd be laughing right now if our stupid congress hadn't just reached a "compromise" on auto industry aid.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: The auto makers

Postby Kifle » Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:29 pm

Is this a case of capitalism birthing socialism?

On topic: wtf was the compromise? I mean, I saw they getting something out of this bailout money, but I was never sure on how much they could or would get.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: The auto makers

Postby kiryan » Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:57 pm

I don't know what the compromise is, but whatever it is, I bet that it means we're on the hook for more money immediately and in the future because auto makers are now definitely as corth says, too big to fail.
Botef
Sojourner
Posts: 1056
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Eastern Washington
Contact:

Re: The auto makers

Postby Botef » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:56 pm

I believe those numbers are from the NHTSA. Its a difficult animal as the numbers vary according to how you calculate what constitutes 'Made in America'. What determines that is the AALA (American Auto Labeling Act) which was enacted in the mid-nineties to create a standard for labeling cars 'Made in America'. One of the interesting things about this act is it grouped items produced in Canada in addition to the US, so parts produced in Ontario count as being 'made in america'. It also places a value on each component, so a gear shift manufactured outside the US maybe count for more 'points' than the transmission it is a part of. Its really all rather silly as another NHTSA study in 1996 showed that 0 models produced that year could really qualify as 100% made in America. The original intent behind AALA was to give American auto makers the tools by which to make their claim legit. From my perspective it has had almost the opposite effect, as foregin companies have increased their domestic production while domestic companies have increasingly looked elsewhere for cheaper parts and labor. According to CSM Worldwide there has been a steady growth of foreign parts production since 1997 when AALA was enacted, while at the same time domestic auto makers have just as steadily decreased their US parts production.

Debating true production percentages is tricky when you take into account NAFTA and try to value everything accordingly. The big 3 do employ more americans, at higher wages, but the debate on % produced in America is a much more open field.

"For example, Chrysler's retro PT Cruiser may recall American cars of the prewar era, but it's produced at a Chrysler plant in Toluca, Mexico. And according to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), only 35 percent of the PT Cruiser's content is sourced in the U.S. or Canada. The "American" Ford Fusion contains just 30-percent U.S./Canadian content, whereas the competing "Japanese" Honda Accord contains 70 percent, Nissan Altima 65 percent and Toyota Camry 80 percent. "

http://www.edmunds.com/advice/buying/ar ... ticle.html

About the only argument I agree on here with the Big 3 is the money they make 'stays' in America. In terms of 'Buying American' I really see little difference between foreign auto makers like Toyota, Honda and Hyundai and the domestic giants. That, and the foreign companies have invested in domestic production and technology using a sound and effective business model while the domestic auto makers have squandered their opportunities investing in foreign parts production. I just don't see any reason to do anything to try and defend such poor management using tax payers $ when clearly the fault rests on the domestic auto industry for not making the adjustments needed to compete successfully with foreign companies that operate domestically just fine, and actually continue to invest in domestic production rather than seek more ways to outsource. Wow wth is in this coffee.
Sunamit group-says 'imrex west, tibek backstab touk i think his name is on entry'

// Post Count +1
Yasden
Sojourner
Posts: 1597
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Lake Stevens, WA, USA

Re: The auto makers

Postby Yasden » Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:55 pm

People would buy more American cars if they spent more time on quality instead of mass-producing aftermarket parts that start getting used 3-5 years after you buy it. There's a reason why Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and Hyundai are destroying the Big 3. I still say let them wallow in their bad decisions like the rest of us have to.

They couldn't travel to the meeting to Congress in a normal 1st class plane ticket that would've only cost about $800 dollars. No, they spend $25,000 on a private jet to do it. Yeah, that's the kind of money management we want to give bailout money to!
Support Your Addiction! Vote for TorilMUD Today!

Top Mud Sites: http://www.topmudsites.com/cgi-bin/topmuds/rankem.cgi?id=shev

Why Nerox is jealous of me:

Nerox tells you 'man this thing is kicking my ass and i have blisters!'
Nerox tells you 'ok attempting it again put tape on my fingers for easier sliding'
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: The auto makers

Postby Corth » Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:55 am

Corth wrote:Yeah FHA loans are essentially a government subsidy. Loaning to people who could not get a mortgage from a private institution. I'm sure FHA will need some of that TARP bailout pie at some point...


Inside Mortgage Finance, a research and newsletter firm in Bethesda, Md., estimates that over the next five years fresh loans backed by the FHA that go sour will cost taxpayers $100 billion or more.

The whole thing is too predictable...
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: The auto makers

Postby kiryan » Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:14 am

The end game will be the government providing a house, healthcare and all other necessities for you and minimum wage will be $30 an hour at which point we will all be minimum wage workers.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: The auto makers

Postby Corth » Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:33 pm

Well, the government of Zimbabwe certainly is not capable of providing a house and health care to all its citizens. And thats the road we're going down. I don't know what will ultimately happen, but I do know one thing. Standard of living will decrease in this country in the short term, and in the long term it will either decrease, or not rise as fast as it otherwise should.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: The auto makers

Postby kiryan » Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:51 pm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/ ... onBlock215

Article attempting to explain why big 3 workers are reported to make $70 an hour vs 45 for other makers. They suggest that its because there are hundreds of thousands of retirees collecting benefits from the big 3, but the new players don't have retirees yet. So you take total benefits and compensation for workforce (included retired) and divide by actual active workforce and you get an outrageous $70 an hour.

I knew this was coming. I believe part of this is true, but regardless its an unsustainable business. Also I'd make the argument that the compensation is still $70 an hour since when they retire they will collect benefits that most of us would never dream of having. It also discusses how wage discrepancy between foreign makers and domestic isn't a problem in the future because the last round of negotiations with the union resulted in a huge roll back in wages and benefits that takes place in 2010 (plus they got the retirees off the book by giving the unions 16 billion to invest on their own).

What it glosses over is that most if not all of the current workers would continue to get the sweet deal for the rest of their careers and only new employees would be affected by the 2010 contract. I bet you that there are laid off workers / former union employees that get first shot at the new jobs and will be covered under the old contracts.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: The auto makers

Postby Sarvis » Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:15 pm

kiryan wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/24/opinion/main4630103.shtml?tag=lowerContent;homeSectionBlock215

Article attempting to explain why big 3 workers are reported to make $70 an hour vs 45 for other makers. They suggest that its because there are hundreds of thousands of retirees collecting benefits from the big 3, but the new players don't have retirees yet. So you take total benefits and compensation for workforce (included retired) and divide by actual active workforce and you get an outrageous $70 an hour.

I knew this was coming. I believe part of this is true, but regardless its an unsustainable business. Also I'd make the argument that the compensation is still $70 an hour since when they retire they will collect benefits that most of us would never dream of having. It also discusses how wage discrepancy between foreign makers and domestic isn't a problem in the future because the last round of negotiations with the union resulted in a huge roll back in wages and benefits that takes place in 2010 (plus they got the retirees off the book by giving the unions 16 billion to invest on their own).

What it glosses over is that most if not all of the current workers would continue to get the sweet deal for the rest of their careers and only new employees would be affected by the 2010 contract. I bet you that there are laid off workers / former union employees that get first shot at the new jobs and will be covered under the old contracts.



I wonder how much the cost of these benefits would be cut if we had a "socialized" healthcare system?

That said, my company had a defined benefit plan, as they call it, and basically funded some kind of investment to keep it paid for. Did the Big 3 not do that?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: The auto makers

Postby kiryan » Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:53 pm

Yes... thats why GM had 46 billion in cash at the start of the year. Its tied up in retirement obligations ect ect ect.. They have 16 billion today, but basically once they get below 11 billion they are out of business which is why its "urgent" to address the issues now because they will likely be bankrupt by January 20th.

The deal they struck last year or was that the year before allowed GM to move a lot of their retirement / benefit obligations into a union controlled investment trust. GM funded it 16 billion at some point this year. If you read the article, it claims that the unions understood that basically they would not be able to maintain their obligations indefinitely, that at some point they would have to reduce benefits something GM could never get them to agree to in the past 10 years. First time I have read that, but I think it could be true.

--

to answer your first question would the benefits cost less if there was national healthcare... let me ask you a question. When has the government ever been accused of being efficient? Now I do believe they've probably reduced the price of prescription drugs... maybe.. might've just been smoke and mirrors with generics. but as a rule isn't government just bloated and inefficient? Do you want the DMV in charge of ERs?

There is a growing discussion that singles out medicare / medicaid for our problems. First for the trend towards specialists (since the government reimburses sepcialists so well, why would you go into general practice). Second, because private insurance companies only have to take care of you till age 65 they don't invest in your long term wellness, just enough wellness and care to get you to 65. Third, because medicare/medicaid reimburse more for acute cases and very little for preventive care, organizations tend to not bother as much and or conduct and bill for every single test that would be covered even if its probably not really necessary.

Of course the single biggest thing government could do to reduce costs of medicine is reform malpractice suits (which will bring down the exoribitant insurance costs). I think lawyers call that tort reform and Corth has commented on it in the past.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: The auto makers

Postby Corth » Tue Nov 25, 2008 2:13 am

Thats not a bad slogan. "National Healthcare - Squeeze the (remaining) taxpayers, not the automakers"
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: The auto makers

Postby Corth » Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:37 pm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28108346/

Democrats, White House seal auto bailout deal
Republicans express caution, calling plan an ‘ass-backwards’ approach
-------------

Another stupid bailout. But perhaps the best headline in a major news outlet ever. If the republicans keep this up I might actually start having a little bit of respect for them again.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: The auto makers

Postby kiryan » Wed Dec 10, 2008 10:05 pm

I hope they do... although I hope they then don't roll over once they get some more pork for their states like they did on the TARP bailout.

I believe someone will find a way to give them a government loan. I will be flabbergasted if they let GM go into bankruptcy by this month.

--

I love the last line of the article... also included in the bill is an unrelated raise for federal judges. One of the biggest problems with our government is essentially buying votes by throwing in unrelated legislation. Not saying this happened here, but that is the way it generally works.

--

I'm interested in seeing if Bush has any pull. It says he dispatched his guys to go drum up support... How successful can he be when he's partially responsible for the stunning defeat a month ago. Fighting this bailout would be a strong start to rebuilding the republican brand. I just hope that they stop playing politics and actually think about what is good for us.
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Re: The auto makers

Postby oteb » Wed Dec 10, 2008 11:46 pm

Corth wrote:
Cars that nobody wants? They sold more cars throughout the entire world last year than anyone else. Sorry, that argument holds no water.

But yeah, the cars are crap. I won't deny it :)


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18286221/
You group-say 'who is da red shape?'
A red shape group-says 'I'm a shape'
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: The auto makers

Postby Corth » Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:24 am

oteb wrote:
Corth wrote:
Cars that nobody wants? They sold more cars throughout the entire world last year than anyone else. Sorry, that argument holds no water.

But yeah, the cars are crap. I won't deny it :)


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18286221/


http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2008 ... 75729.html

Your article is just for the 1st quarter of 2007. For the entire year, GM lead in vehicle sales.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Re: The auto makers

Postby oteb » Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:35 pm

Corth wrote:
oteb wrote:
Corth wrote:
Cars that nobody wants? They sold more cars throughout the entire world last year than anyone else. Sorry, that argument holds no water.

But yeah, the cars are crap. I won't deny it :)


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18286221/


http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2008 ... 75729.html

Your article is just for the 1st quarter of 2007. For the entire year, GM lead in vehicle sales.


Point taken. The full info didn't hit the headlines here.
You group-say 'who is da red shape?'

A red shape group-says 'I'm a shape'
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Re: The auto makers

Postby Ashiwi » Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:19 pm

I'm this )( close to switching party affiliations. I'm so disgusted with the Democratic party over this mess I could just spit.

On top of the injury that these mismanaged organizations have caused, the insult of where the idiots involved in this seem to think it's appropriate to pull the funds from is just too much. It's like a badly written fairy tale where everybody's afraid to tell the king he's really naked and so outclassed by a foreign king that he's only doing more harm than good.

And he's ugly when he's naked, on top of that.
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'

Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
kwirl
Sojourner
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: The auto makers

Postby kwirl » Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:58 pm

74 an hour....jesus christ

my friend's dad worked at the GM plant and he was always very defensive of his kids EVER asking him how much he made, but fuck....if you would have told me that number in high school i bet you i would have said fuck computers and gone straight to votech automotive classes
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: The auto makers

Postby Corth » Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:59 pm

They don't walk away with $74 per hour in cash. Thats the average cost of their compensation which includes extraordinarily generous healthcare and pension benefits.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: The auto makers

Postby kiryan » Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:07 pm

$75 an hour is basically total cost of wages + benefits (including benefits for retired workers) divided by the # of active employees. Hourly, they make about the same as the foreign car makers, but have much better benefits. Part of the big 3's problem is legacy costs from workers who have retired over the last 30 years... something the foreign companies don't have to deal with yet. I still think its fair to say they make $75 an hour because when they retire, someone else will be paying the extra burden for their benefits. This is why bankruptcy is the only way to make them viable.

If you think autoworkers make a lot of money... look at what longshoremen at ports make to unload boats, 120k a year + benefits. There was about 100 new positions back in 2005 and I think they got 23k applications.

Also top on my list is the retail cashier's unions. You can make 18+ bucks an hour ringing up sales. Running a register is not hard; I used to run my parents convenience store from 3pm to 11pm weekdays and 6am to 11pm on weekends. No one should make $18 an hour to run a register.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: The auto makers

Postby Sarvis » Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:02 am

kiryan wrote:If you think autoworkers make a lot of money... look at what longshoremen at ports make to unload boats, 120k a year + benefits. There was about 100 new positions back in 2005 and I think they got 23k applications.


Wait... how does that work with supply and demand? Or do longshoremen have the best union ever?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: The auto makers

Postby Corth » Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:36 am

Guessing its a pretty damn good union...
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: The auto makers

Postby Sarvis » Fri Dec 12, 2008 1:31 am

Or maybe Kiryan's just full of shit: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job ... ourly_Rate

Looks more like $46k-60k...

Actually, I saw some things where it's not full time until you have a couple years experience so it's not even really $46k.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kwirl
Sojourner
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: The auto makers

Postby kwirl » Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:03 am

And bailout bill goes down the toiiiilet. Swing! and a miss!
kwirl
Sojourner
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: The auto makers

Postby kwirl » Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:14 am

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008812050400

Myth No. 1: Nobody buys their vehicles

Myth No. 2: They build unreliable junk

Myth No. 3: They build gas-guzzlers

Myth No. 4: They already got a $25-billion bailout

Myth No. 5: GM, Ford and Chrysler are idiots for investing in pickups and SUVs

Myth No. 6: They don't build hybrids

Myth No. 7: Their union workers are lazy and overpaid


Since the last one is the one I found most interesting and relevant to this thread:

The oft-cited $70-an-hour wage and benefit figure for UAW workers inaccurately adds benefits that millions of retirees get to the pay of current workers, but divides the total only by current employees. That's like assuming you get your parents' retirement and Social Security benefits in addition to your own income.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: The auto makers

Postby Corth » Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:16 am

I'm thinking Paulson or Bernanke announce some sort of short term auto manufacturer bailout tomorrow. Either way, its going to be a very interesting day. In addition to this situation with the big 3, some money manager was arrested today for running a 50 BILLION (with a B) dollar ponzi scheme. The victims were a 10-20 or so hedge funds. This could be one of those chain reaction forced liquidation situations.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.

Return to “T2 General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests