http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601170&refer=home&sid=ai5KpbywxqiQ GM is done..with or without a bail out....
stick a fork in em..their done.
- Thread starter max420thc
- Start date
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6eGk_t1Tin0&refer=home and this is some of what will happen after they file for bankruptcy...this does not include all the retirements that will people will lose and their medical bennies...when a company files bankruptcy..they stop paying everyone.include the retiree's ...
medicineman
New Member
Stick a fork in em, they're done. Along with about 1.5 million jobs. It's a great day in America for the Union busting pricks. Better get used to eating Rice and beans. I'm so glad I actually like rice and beans. Heck, with my retirement and SS, I'll probably be one of the higher ups in society after the big crash, that is if they still have funding, good thing my pension isn't directly related to the auto industry.
urmomis100
Well-Known Member
So your saying that any business, no matter how bad, should always be bailed out in lieu jobs they give? Where do we draw the line? Its a circumstancial question, Im not neccesarily talking about GM.
medicineman
New Member
What I'm saying is this. Nationalize the auto industry, fire all the inept managers, negotiate with the unions, give the employees the same medical the congress enjoys, and start making cars the American people want to buy. And no, I wouldn't apply this cure to all businesses. In the case of the financial bailout, I'd certainly have required some accounting for the disaster and where the funds were going, some firing and remitting of bonuses. But when these union busting pricks (For this is really what this auto shindig is all about, in fact I wouldn't put it past these management pricks to be doing this for just that reason) want to keep the managers and fire half the employees, eliminate medical and terminate retirement, I think something is rotten in Denmark. It's allright to lose 3 million union jobs while the financial industry gets a free pass. Like the man said, "It's the guys that shower in the morning fucking over those that shower after work."
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
Really?
The Government owned the Railroads for years and then they turned a profit and paid the governemnt back.... You were saying?
Spitzered
Well-Known Member
Maybe freight, but taxation and OTR trucking really hurt them. Land that tracks are on were taxed with little use, so many RR's just pulled them up.
Then when we needed them when gas spiked they were not there to use.
But if you are talking Amtrac, well profit is a strong word.
http://www.publicpurpose.com/ic-amtroute.htm
Spitzered
Well-Known Member
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ GM vs. Toyota Labor Costs
Compare GM to Toyota:
There used to be 2 sides to this coin, management and labor.
Now they are the same sides to the coin, they are both big business.
Unions use labor as their commodity.
Unions were a good thing, now they are just as greedy as big business.
I wouldn't have bailed out anyone. No one learns from there mistakes if they can't make one, if taxpayer will always be the backstop.
Government ownership and control, oh god. The govt has such a proven track record. Oh yeah, there is amtrac, its got a great record. Frannie and Freddie maybe, a social experiment akin to 'the Duke Brothers' bet'. Can't beat oversight like that.
Oh yeah, its just a loan, like loans to people who can't afford the payments?
ViRedd
New Member
Excellent posts, Spitzered. I can hardly wait for the responses. 
And Dankster ... please brush up on your railroad history. When railroads were being built, government backed routes became complete failures because of cost overruns and nonsensical routes. The profitable ones were created by free enterprise.
Here's a good place to start your historical deprogramming:
http://mises.org/story/2317
Vi
And Dankster ... please brush up on your railroad history. When railroads were being built, government backed routes became complete failures because of cost overruns and nonsensical routes. The profitable ones were created by free enterprise.
Here's a good place to start your historical deprogramming:
http://mises.org/story/2317
Vi
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Yeah, all this talk about the Auto Manufacturers being "middle class". They are hardly middle class. They are more than likely in the top 80% of the nation by household income. Or they were.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ GM vs. Toyota Labor Costs
Compare GM to Toyota:
There used to be 2 sides to this coin, management and labor.
Now they are the same sides to the coin, they are both big business.
Unions use labor as their commodity.
Unions were a good thing, now they are just as greedy as big business.
I wouldn't have bailed out anyone. No one learns from there mistakes if they can't make one, if taxpayer will always be the backstop.
Government ownership and control, oh god. The govt has such a proven track record. Oh yeah, there is amtrac, its got a great record. Frannie and Freddie maybe, a social experiment akin to 'the Duke Brothers' bet'. Can't beat oversight like that.
Oh yeah, its just a loan, like loans to people who can't afford the payments?
Though, in that article it mentions that GM won the concession to able to hire workers at lower rates IN 2010...
TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE, some one should congratulate the unions on shooting themselves in the foot.
As far as them being operated like big business, no.
Most big businesses actually understand that you ain't nothing, if you can't pay your bills.
And GM, is no longer able to do that.
And the Unions were never able to do that, which is why they have always been attached like a vampire draining GM.
Businesses actually produce things...
Unions, unions are more like government, all they produce are RED TAPE and TAXES (Involuntary Expenses),
misshestermoffitt
New Member
Hmmmm, I wonder how they got here? Looks to me like the piggies had fun dining when the trough was full, now that it's empty they're squealing for help. boo hoo.
DETROIT — The United Auto Workers says it knows it needs to help Detroit's automakers cut labor costs to reduce the gap in production expenses with Asian rivals. But as talks continue on new contracts, the union also is questioning why top executives at the automakers are paid what they are.
"As much as workers do, workers can't do enough, and as much as executives get, they cannot get enough," UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said during last month's two-day strike against General Motors (GM).
During talks with GM, the UAW pointed out that while the automaker has complained that hourly wages and benefits are dragging it down, it has continued awarding bonuses to its top executives.
GM CEO Rick Wagoner earned $9.3 million in salary and bonus in 2006, nearly double what he earned in 2005.
While UAW members finish voting on a new contract with General Motors that includes a cost-of-living freeze, union negotiators have moved on to Chrysler, with Ford Motor (F) next.
Chrysler's new CEO, Bob Nardelli, became a symbol of corporate excess when he left Home Depot early this year with a $210 million severance package. Ford's new CEO, Alan Mulally, got $27.8 million in salary and bonus in his first few months on the job, including an $18.5 million signing bonus.
Some top executives have taken steps to curtail their pay during automakers' recent financial difficulties. Former Ford CEO Bill Ford took only $1 in wages during his tenure and donated much of his stock-based pay to charity. Wagoner and his top lieutenants took a base pay cut, although they continued to get bonuses.
The automakers didn't want to comment on the issue.
Critics say automotive executive paydays are out of line with what's happening in the industry. "It seems like something out of the gilded age," says Chris Kutalik, an editor at Labor Notes newspaper. "It's such a glaring disparity."
But U.S. executive pay outpaces that of Asian companies, including Asian automakers.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-10-09-auto-exec-pay_N.htm
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.
In addition to his base pay, Mr. Wagoner was been awarded 75,000 restricted stock units valued at $1.68 million, based on GM's closing stock price in March. He was also given stock options representing 500,000 shares
But GM officials insist those reported figures need context. In 2006, Mr. Wagoner took a 50 percent cut in his base salary pay, according to company spokesman Tony Cervone. And Mr. Wagoner's overall compensation is down drastically from 2003 when the CEO made $8.3 million in compensation from salary and bonuses alone, according to figures cited by the company. Much of his overall compensation is also "at-risk," or tied to the stock price of the company which has plummeted, Mr. Cervone said.
In April, Ford reported Mr. Mulally received $2 million in base salary, a $4 million bonus and more than $11 million of stock and options in 2007. His base salary was unchanged over 2006. Mr. Mulally has earned nearly $50 million in compensation since taking the helm of the auto maker.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122702915620437775.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
DETROIT — The United Auto Workers says it knows it needs to help Detroit's automakers cut labor costs to reduce the gap in production expenses with Asian rivals. But as talks continue on new contracts, the union also is questioning why top executives at the automakers are paid what they are.
"As much as workers do, workers can't do enough, and as much as executives get, they cannot get enough," UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said during last month's two-day strike against General Motors (GM).
During talks with GM, the UAW pointed out that while the automaker has complained that hourly wages and benefits are dragging it down, it has continued awarding bonuses to its top executives.
GM CEO Rick Wagoner earned $9.3 million in salary and bonus in 2006, nearly double what he earned in 2005.
While UAW members finish voting on a new contract with General Motors that includes a cost-of-living freeze, union negotiators have moved on to Chrysler, with Ford Motor (F) next.
Chrysler's new CEO, Bob Nardelli, became a symbol of corporate excess when he left Home Depot early this year with a $210 million severance package. Ford's new CEO, Alan Mulally, got $27.8 million in salary and bonus in his first few months on the job, including an $18.5 million signing bonus.
Some top executives have taken steps to curtail their pay during automakers' recent financial difficulties. Former Ford CEO Bill Ford took only $1 in wages during his tenure and donated much of his stock-based pay to charity. Wagoner and his top lieutenants took a base pay cut, although they continued to get bonuses.
The automakers didn't want to comment on the issue.
Critics say automotive executive paydays are out of line with what's happening in the industry. "It seems like something out of the gilded age," says Chris Kutalik, an editor at Labor Notes newspaper. "It's such a glaring disparity."
But U.S. executive pay outpaces that of Asian companies, including Asian automakers.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-10-09-auto-exec-pay_N.htm
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.
In addition to his base pay, Mr. Wagoner was been awarded 75,000 restricted stock units valued at $1.68 million, based on GM's closing stock price in March. He was also given stock options representing 500,000 shares
But GM officials insist those reported figures need context. In 2006, Mr. Wagoner took a 50 percent cut in his base salary pay, according to company spokesman Tony Cervone. And Mr. Wagoner's overall compensation is down drastically from 2003 when the CEO made $8.3 million in compensation from salary and bonuses alone, according to figures cited by the company. Much of his overall compensation is also "at-risk," or tied to the stock price of the company which has plummeted, Mr. Cervone said.
In April, Ford reported Mr. Mulally received $2 million in base salary, a $4 million bonus and more than $11 million of stock and options in 2007. His base salary was unchanged over 2006. Mr. Mulally has earned nearly $50 million in compensation since taking the helm of the auto maker.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122702915620437775.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
medicineman
New Member
What I can't understand is the the health cost difference. That must mean they have a lousy health care plan for the workers. I can agree, that if you pay less wages, fuck the employees out of decent health care, and haven't been in business long enough to have a retirement draw, or have no retirement plan at all, you could retain solvency and make more profit, duuuhhhhh. It's all about greed my friends, do a few make millions while the workers get squat, or do the capitalists take good care of the workers and make a fair profit and fair salaries.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
What I can't understand is the the health cost difference. That must mean they have a lousy health care plan for the workers. I can agree, that if you pay less wages, fuck the employees out of decent health care, and haven't been in business long enough to have a retirement draw, or have no retirement plan at all, you could retain solvency and make more profit, duuuhhhhh. It's all about greed my friends, do a few make millions while the workers get squat, or do the capitalists take good care of the workers and make a fair profit and fair salaries.
Hardly Med, more than likely, while they don't have the retirement problem of the Big 3, they are not going to face it.
Why?
Defined Contribution Plans, as opposed to Defined Benefit Plans, at least in the US. In Japan, they may or may not have that, though with their higher savings rate it is likely that the Japanese don't need either.
In short, the Big 3 have been stuck catering to the Lowest Common Denominator.
Something made all the more egregorious by the fact that the government tacks on another 7.4% for Medicare and Social Security.
Government Programs that the Employees of the Big 3 would have never needed under the Defined Benefit Plans, and probably won't need under the Defined Contribution Plans, unless they fail to act with prudence.
Picasso345
Well-Known Member
I'm as liberal as they come, but sometimes we just have to put the teats away and let an industry sink or swim on their own.
We could still be supporting steam engine manufacturers or propping up the dirigible and zeppelin makers to keep those "jobs". but that is the fast track to obsolescence for America. In situations like this I believe the market is best able to handle the situation.
No bail out for Detroit. Sure the job loss comes at a bad time, but there never is a good time to take a hit like this. America should bite the bullet and move on to the future like the Free Market system is screaming at us to do.
We could still be supporting steam engine manufacturers or propping up the dirigible and zeppelin makers to keep those "jobs". but that is the fast track to obsolescence for America. In situations like this I believe the market is best able to handle the situation.
No bail out for Detroit. Sure the job loss comes at a bad time, but there never is a good time to take a hit like this. America should bite the bullet and move on to the future like the Free Market system is screaming at us to do.
ViRedd
New Member
Well, the answer to this dilemma is to start producing steam engines by the hundreds of thousands and dirigibles/zeppelins by the millions. After all, wages come from production, right? Don't think so?... just as Med.
Vi
Picasso345
Well-Known Member
Until you have stepped over the broken bodies and crippled souls of out of work vinyl record makers sleeping in homeless soup lines, you don't know how cruel a dying industry can be.Well, the answer to this dilemma is to start producing steam engines by the hundreds of thousands and dirigibles/zeppelins by the millions. After all, wages come from production, right? Don't think so?... just as Med.
Vi
