I don't recall your link stating what is actually being manufactured. Plans and current outcomes not are one in the same.
Most wealthy Chinese in Vancouver are immigrants, not much detached from their counterparts at home. It is certainly not a stretch to assume they will have similar tastes. It's a lot different than simple "ancestry" - we have the same basic demographic, just living in different locations.
No, actually they are very different demographics. The MB-owning Chinese immigrants mostly came from Hongkong in the 90's by buying a Canadian citizenship for about $300k (Canada had/has a investment immigration rule). The "China" we have been discussing in this thread is Mainland China. Very different demographics facing very different economic choices, more different than say British expats living in tax shelter islands vs. middle-class Americans. The average MB-owning Vancouver ex-Hongkonger probably can not even sustain a conversation with the vast majority of mainland Chinese because of linguistic difference alone (what Chinese government calls "dialects" actually covers a wide span of lingustic span than most European Languages that are derived from either Latin or Germanic roots).
"UAW work rules have just as much to do with what gets produced by those UAW workers . . ."
I guess I just can't see it that way.
Well, if you are handed a slab of beef brisket to work with, can you be blamed for not making the best steak dinner in the world? You can only make ground beef "country-style steak" or at best London Broil with it, and sell for low margin in the low-end of the market. That's what GM faces in the US when the UAW work rules preserve ancient production lines and prevent firing/hiring and retraining of workers.
as 62vette mentions, that Chinese LaCrosse is not the dumbed down American fleet version.
Contrary to your earlier point about Buick success there is due to Chinese acceptance of dumbed down rental fleet versions of American cars.
"GM earned over 400 million dollars from its partnership with SAIC in Shanghai in 2003 alone. "
From how much investment? And how much of that is Buick?
That $400+ million was net profit after amortizing investment and interest payment. Back in 2003, Buick was the main brand, and Chevy was just getting started; Caddy was not there yet.
I was saying that those cars which are not up to the competition in terms of worldwide prestige or innovation look a lot nicer compared to a lowly Chinese car than compared to a lowline US or Euro car. That has to make them an easier sale.
Except those lowly Chinese cars like you cited (Cherry) sell for 1/5 to 1/10 the price of a Buick there. You are not seriously suggesting the introduction of Chevy Aveo makes Lexus LS or Mercedes S class more appealing, are you? How are they even related to one another? Buick's primary competition was Audi A6 (made in China since the mid-1980's) and Toyota Crown (which occupied a similar market position as Lexus ES for the rest of the world out side NA), with BMW 3 and 5 sold in smaller numbers despite local production and MB E class imported (and soon to be produced locally if not already).
I'd be very curious to know the wage and benefits of the average Buick assembler, too.
High enough to attract 8 times as many applicants as there were positions . . . resulting in a produciton line that was fully staffed by college degree holders. Many credit that work force with the high quality of cars that they turn out there; it was said that the GM China Buick production line makes the highest quality GM vehicles anywhere in the world. Quality really sells, anywhere in the world, as Wagoner observed astutely more than a decade ago in Brazil.
Have you even been to Vancouver? Do you know anyone there? I have my doubts. IIRC you once tried to lecture me on the layout of my own town too. Is this from wikipedia or elsewhere? Not convincing.
Where do you think those HK Chinese came from? HK is mainland China. You're experiencing some kind of confusion.
It doesn't matter...to say that that Buick is a competitor with anything but a lowline 4cyl E class is insane. Pricing structure alone sets the stage.
Yeah, it's all the unions. The unions create the mediocre designs and the painfully long product cycles. Let's do away with the unions, then we can get that final death blow to liberalism that you neandercons dream about, and the labor market can exist free from regulation. Then America will shine!
"Contrary to your earlier point"
I'd beg anyone to find it on par with a Lexus or E class or 5er, its supposed competition.
"That $400+ million was net profit"
Do we have a link to that? I hadn't heard that. I won't ask to see what Wagoner himself did to enable work in China, I know the answer to that.
"Except those lowly Chinese cars like you cited (Cherry) sell for 1/5 to 1/10 the price of a Buick there"
Yes. In China, you can see these awful little tin cans at the bottom, the big Germans and Japanese in the stratosphere, and some previous generation foreigners in the middle In walks this Buick...probably more than 10x better than a Chery, at a mere 10x the price. The low cars make it look like a better deal. Really low cars make normal cars look better.
"High enough to attract 8 times as many applicants as there were positions ."
In other words, you don't know. I've heard of horribly low end retail jobs attracting applicants in a 100:1 ratio of available positions, too.
"it was said that the GM China Buick production line makes the highest quality GM vehicles anywhere in the world."
By who?
"as Wagoner observed astutely more than a decade ago in Brazil."
And apparently he learned that there, and not from his cookie cutter MBA. So astute. The future is bright! Glory days are just around the corner.
I actually have a few friends and distant relatives in Vancouver, and I visited them from time to time. As for your statement that HK is mainland China when talking about those wealthy Vancouver ethnic Chinese, you obvious do not know the geography or politics involved. Many HongKongers emmigrated to Vancouver in the 90's precisely to escape the 1997 Chinese take-over of HongKong. Most wealthy Vancouver ethnic Chinese were British subjects from the days of HongKong as a British Crown Colony before 1997. Calling them Mainland Chinese would be the worst insult you can throw at them. There's weathy ethnic Chinese, then there's wealthy ethnic Chinese. Hongkong is a place over-run with Rolls-Royce and S-class, whereas in Shanghai and Beijing the common status symbols are the $40k Buick, Audi and Toyota Crown. I took my wife on a trip to Hongkong and China, staying over a month in the three cities less than a year ago.
Labelling is quite a futile effort when you can't even get your labels right. Free market is the most liberal idea there ever has been; every subsequent revision attempt to Adam Smith's liberal ideals of free market has been proven nothing more than old decrept statist feudalism in new disguise. Why is a union worker "more equal" than a non-union worker? Why should the union worker's benefit come before the salaried worker? Because they are vassals of the union bosses and their overlords the politicians. There is nothing liberal about "collective bargaining"; "Collective" means the very antithesis of freedom.
So now you are recanting your earlier statement that Buicks sold in China are just crappy versions of Buicks sold here . . . at least getting closer to reality.
"That $400+ million was net profit" Do we have a link to that? I hadn't heard that
Keep in mind, it was written during the early 2005 market down turn in China; it subsequently recovered in the second half of last year. Buick was also in the midst of product transition early 2005. The Accord referenced in that article is also a very spiffed up version of what have here, selling for $40-50k, better interior appointment than Acura TL as I actually sat in one while in Southern China; Acura is not yet a global brand.
What's more interesting from that article, it seems that, contrary to your assertion that lower cars like the Chery QQ (RMBY32-52k, or US$4-5.5k) make mediocre cars easier to sell, the availability of cheaper cars are actually eating into the market share of full-sized cars.
"High enough to attract 8 times as many applicants as there were positions ."
In other words, you don't know. I've heard of horribly low end retail jobs attracting applicants in a 100:1 ratio of available positions, too.
I actually know it quite well; I talked to a few people who worked there. The dollar amount is quite irrelevent simply because the same amount of dollars can buy so much more in China; a production line job at the Buick factory is quite adequate to sustain a middle-class life style in China, and that's why they are very dedicated and motivated workers. As to your statement of "horribly low end retain jobs," perhaps you should stop hanging out with your "limosine liberal" friends (really "limosine feudal lords"). If there are 100 applicants looking for each open position, perhaps the positions are not so "horribly low end" after all. Try post 1000 job openings on Craigslist or Monster.com, and see how high your hourly wage offer has to be before you get 100 times the applicants in a week, or even 8 times. My guess is that you need to be at $30-50/hr for nose-to-the-grinder jobs in this country in order to get that kind of response in places like NYC (of which Shanghai is the equivalent for China). That's more or less the equivalent they are getting in purchasing power equivalent terms on the GM SAIC Buick production lines.
"Yeah, it's all the unions. The unions create the mediocre designs and the painfully long product cycles."
Only indirectly - and only when the unions have extorted contracts out of the manufacturers which put a higher value on labor than the market will bear.
Unions are useful as an effective deterrent against exploitive management practices.....but there must be a balance between Union demands and the health of the company.
No, not all of the domestics problems are tied to the Unions. A large portion of it IS mismanagement. But that doesn't mean anyone should put their blinders on and refuse to acknowledge at least some UAW culpability.
But you're about as liberal as Nixon. I suppose we should just have a corporate-governed free for all with no regulation, and we'll see out class and income gaps explode. That'll silence the opposition! Corporate interests always act with ethics and responsibility, so it will be a happy ending. I can't wait.
"are just crappy versions of Buicks sold here "
I never said that. I don't think there can be a crappy version of a Buick sold here...NA cars are as dumbed down as can be. But thats the fault of the unions I am sure.
Thanks for that link, that's new to me. I guess I shoulda googled it, as well. I especially like that Geely "Haoqing" - it's a 1994 C class front end. Hilarious. And criminal.
From what I can see, those smaller cars are gaining because more people are entering the market. It's like England in the 30s. All those Austins and little Fords weren't really stealing sales from the upper makes.
"I talked to a few people who worked there. "
What is it you do? Oh, let me guess, this was on your vacation, you decided you'd go find some autoworkers to talk to, just for the heck of it.
When people who I assume have 4+ year degrees are lining up for assembly work, something is wrong with an economy.
"If there are 100 applicants looking for each open position, perhaps the positions are not so "horribly low end" after all"
Or perhaps jobs are just that scarce. There's a lot to the world outside of metro NYC.
How much exactly are those Chinese workers making, then? In raw terms.
I can easily admit union greed if some of the corporate shills can admit bad management, and not every mis-step being because of union influence. And when the workers are asked to sacrifice, so should the semi-workers.
Are union healthcare and pension demands insane? Yes. Someone who puts tires on a mediocre car shouldn't make more than the average person with a 4 year degree. The list can go on. But these people do not force overpaid underworked suits to gift the market with marginal designs and hilarious product life cycles. That's all I am saying.
"But these people do not force overpaid underworked suits to gift the market with marginal designs and hilarious product life cycles."
Do they FORCE the marginal designs and long product life cycles? No.
But they contribute to the problem.
If Manufacturer 'A' has higher fixed labor costs (due to insane union healthcare and pension demands), while Manufacturer 'B' has lower labor costs, and both Manufacturer's produce competing products in the same market, then Manufacturer 'A' will be forced to either sell his product for more (to reflect the higher labor cost), or cut cost out of the design and materials.
There's only so much that can be cut out of the design (to offset high labor cost) before the design gets REAL marginal.
Long product life cycles I believe are much more of a management problem. I think they are an attempt by management to squeeze as much out of their initial product development investment as feasible. This is a mistake. The problem is that the domestics appear to be trying to hit a moving target (competitors product) but due to the long lead time, they constantly appear to be behind the curve.
Pray tell what evidence you have for that? Nixon with his price-controls is no friend of any advocate of Free Market. It's really ironic that you should bring up Nixon. Nixon actually had a support base among the unions through his Labor Secretary Peter Brennan.
I suppose we should just have a corporate-governed free for all with no regulation, and we'll see out class and income gaps explode. That'll silence the opposition! Corporate interests always act with ethics and responsibility, so it will be a happy ending. I can't wait.
Union is already creating income and benefit gap among workers. There is no evidence whatsoever that union ethics is any better than coporate ethics. The difference between the two is that union ownerships are not traded on the open market, therefore there is no open competitions among different unions in an open and free market to make disclosure laws stick and make participants relatively honest. Unions are incorporated too, they just have the added advantage of an exception to the usual laws governing corporations that prevent the form of anti-competitive trusts.
"are just crappy versions of Buicks sold here "
I never said that. I don't think there can be a crappy version of a Buick sold here...NA cars are as dumbed down as can be. But thats the fault of the unions I am sure.
As a matter of fact, yes. Inflexible and expensive labor is what's causing an erstwhile luxury brand in the US to make dated cars that are suitable only for a rental fleet. In post#498, you said the Buick success is due to "a rental fleet LaCrosse must look like a LS compared to a Chery." That is patentedly false as the Buicks sold in China are actually much nicer cars than Buicks sold here.
"I talked to a few people who worked there. "
What is it you do? Oh, let me guess, this was on your vacation, you decided you'd go find some autoworkers to talk to, just for the heck of it.
I have some custom light manufacturing contracts there. It was actually a business trip. In any case, some of my childhood neighbors work for GM China. GM China offers some of the most sought-after jobs there; they have a natural affinity for American employers instead of Japanese employers due to historical/cultural reasons. Little do they know that ultimately, all the UAW commitment will have to come off their sweat and blood.
When people who I assume have 4+ year degrees are lining up for assembly work, something is wrong with an economy.
There is indeed a lot wrong with the Chinese economy, but that's quite beyond the scope of this discussion. Suffice to say, people there want to work for GM China because the pay is good and the work condition is condusive to high employee morale.
How much exactly are those Chinese workers making, then? In raw terms.
About the equivalent of 1500 T-shirts or 500-700 dinner entres at local restaurants per month for line workers; 50% more to double that for shift managers.
"How about if I scan my flight itenery from last year, and will you cease your nonsense after that?"
LOL yeah that would say it all. Sorry, Charlie.
"But they contribute to the problem. "
And just as much so do the unjustifiable dividends paid by GM, especially in a historical sense. How much of this money could have been used to improve the product? What a sickeningly short-term plan. Cookie cutter MBAs strike again.
In your model, 'Manufacturer A' could also actually put forth a genuine effort, make a car that outclasses the competition, and still come out ahead even with the high costs. Less per vehicle, but more sales. But that would require competent and responsible management. Why is this so hard?
"Pray tell what evidence you have for that?"
Your anti-worker pro-corporate pro-overpaid exec stance.
Free markets don't exist.
"Union is already creating income and benefit gap among workers."
It's not the unions. Modern brain-dead conservative thought makes it a sin to question any income gaps or class divisions. Wage pressures are down for most - the average worker is barely pacing inflation - and there isn't much inflation at the moment. Most people aren't union workers anyway.
Answer this - if all unions and labor regulations were removed (a real 'free market') - in regards to wages, benefits, everything, do you think the average citizen would be worse off or better off? Do you think corporate interests would do the right thing? Or would that top 2% just keep growing exponentially while the rest fight for the crumbs? That's where we're headed. The bloodbath will be something.
". There is no evidence whatsoever that union ethics is any better than coporate ethics."
That's not the issue, now is it. Spin spin spin. We're not comparing ethics, we're examining corporate ethics.
" That is patentedly false as the Buicks sold in China are actually much nicer cars than Buicks sold here. "
Well, that wouldn't take much, would it? Do you think if these cars were secretly imported to NA, rebadged as the new Lexus ES or whatever, that they'd succeed?
Labor isn't causing mediocre cars. Lack of competent and responsible management at every level creates this disaster.
So what is it you do? Light manufacturing contracts? And now friends there too, boy, you have them everywhere. I didn't see that coming.
"but that's quite beyond the scope of this discussion."
Not really, and I don't think you have the means to dictate what is appropriate. You mentioned how educated these workers are...maybe it wouldn't be so in an economy that even you admit is broken.
T-shirt and dinner prices are not raw terms. What kind of cash? If you must, make it relative to say the price of a house or car or TV.
...seems for some to be a proxy for a political contest between conservatives and liberals, rather than a fair assessment of what has gone wrong. Too bad, because it helps some to overlook a few obvious points.
As a business guy, I can't see how anyone could possibly leave the management of a failing company off the hook. Not holding management responsible for the losses and falling market share is like blaming the water boy instead of the coach for a team losing the game on Sunday.
I would never say that the UAW is exactly the most efficient organization, that it lacks its own agendas or that it does much to benefit the profitability of GM. But let's face facts --
-The UAW was formed only because GM had a long tradition of abusing the workforce. The cumbersome workrules and emphasis on benefits have their origins in part because managers abused employees in the absence of these rules, and because benefits not only protect employees from worst-case scenario failure, but also create exit costs that should theoretically encourage the company to not "adjust payrolls" (read: fire people en masse) on a whim. If firing someone is expensive, you're more likely to limit your use of termination as a leverage tool.
The shame is that decades of unionization created bureaucracy on the labor side of the table, and management failed to learn that their contempt for the common worker was not a winning formula. GM hasn't just been uncompetitive for the US consumer, but also for the US blue collar worker -- the only reason to work there is for the job security provided by the union, not because management makes it a desirable environment to go earn a paycheck.
If you don't think that the beancounting mentality for the organization isn't reflected in its treatment of people, then think again. When people are an expense to be reduced, rather than an asset in which to invest, you can bet that the inherent contempt is going to affect the relationship. And of course, the only worker who is going to be attracted to that relationship is one who is more interested in a paycheck than helping the company, or who can thrive on the sense of opposition. Is that sort of environment going to be optimal for producing a quality product that, first and foremost, serves the needs of the customer? (And I don't mean Avis.)
And just as much so do the unjustifiable dividends paid by GM, especially in a historical sense. How much of this money could have been used to improve the product? What a sickeningly short-term plan. Cookie cutter MBAs strike again.
You may need to look up what dividends are and what they do. Dividends are what keep shareholders with the company for the long run; otherwise they'd have to sell in order to realize any gain.
"Pray tell what evidence you have for that?"
Your anti-worker pro-corporate pro-overpaid exec stance.
There is a huge difference between anti-union vs. anti-worker. Nixon may have been anti-worker, but certainly not anti-union, exactly the opposite of my position. Wagoner has certainly earned his pay with his Brazil turn-around and China paying off; besides, during this financially difficult time, he voluntarily cut his own pay in half! Are there irresponsible executives in the corporate world? Of course there are. However, it's just not fair to lump Wagoner together with all the strawmen.
Free markets don't exist.
The absence of perfection is no excuse not to pursue what is better. Ideal democracy and freedom is no enjoyed by any country in the world either, but does that mean we should all as well revert to serfdom? Some autocrats of the world would like to assert that, surely I hope we do not share that view here.
Wage pressures are down for most - the average worker is barely pacing inflation - and there isn't much inflation at the moment. Most people aren't union workers anyway.
During periods of productivity growth, nominal wages do go down simply because growing productivity makes the same products cheaper. That's actually where unionism has been making the problem really bad since the late 19th century: nominal wage guarantees in a price declining economic environment is in effect a wage increase, leading to bankruptcies for small corporations that could not absorb the increase. That was what led to the big consolidation and monopolies at the turn of last century. In other words, Unions and big consolidated corporations are symbiotic institutions working together for price support, gouging consumers together.
Answer this - if all unions and labor regulations were removed (a real 'free market') - in regards to wages, benefits, everything, do you think the average citizen would be worse off or better off? Do you think corporate interests would do the right thing? Or would that top 2% just keep growing exponentially while the rest fight for the crumbs? That's where we're headed. The bloodbath will be something.
The answer to your first question is quite simple: yes indeed the average citizens would be much better off. That has been proven imperically in the automobile industry in the last thirty years. UAW share of total car production decreased and the quality of cars average american drive improved.
Now the more theoretical approach ("do you think . . ."): Wealth is not just some static abstract numerical number; it's the claim on human labor and natural resources. If the corporations, or the top 2% as you say, want to derive any benefit from the ownership of wealth, they have to hire some one, many some-ones, and thereby spread the wealth around. Check in your own neighborhood how much an in-home day-care operator makes (she is not unionized) vs. how much a public elementary school teacher makes (she is in a union job); then caculate that on per-child basis. Union does not create jobs; market demand does!
Do you think if these cars were secretly imported to NA, rebadged as the new Lexus ES or whatever, that they'd succeed?
Isn't that what Lexus ES's are?? I thought Euro fans have been claiming Lexus ES's are nothing more than better made Buicks with more luxury appointment and imported from overseas, all these years. LOL
So what is it you do? Light manufacturing contracts? And now friends there too, boy, you have them everywhere.
One of my businesses is designing household art and fashion items. We design them here, and have them custom manufactured over there, then sell both in the US and in China. It takes making a lot of friends to run a successful business. We currently employ half a dozen people in the US, and I might just be in that top 2% that you loathe so much in income terms according to IRS data (it takes only $140k/yr household income to be in the top 5%, and $350k to be in the top 1%). I will never forget my poverty-stricken roots however; I was making less than half of average income in my area less than a decade ago. I pay my workers in the US 3-10 times the minimum wage; and it's not because of union or that I'm nice; that's how much it takes to retain their talent.
T-shirt and dinner prices are not raw terms. What kind of cash? If you must, make it relative to say the price of a house or car or TV.
T-shirts and dinners, refecting the cost of clothing and food, are much more relevant to every day life than house, car or TV, don't you think? in an economy where most people do not own their homes or cars. Rents there are mostly subsidized by the government in Shanghai, a city comparable to NYC in relation to the rest of the country, but that's were GM China has its Buick production line; so the line worker's monthly income would cover rent for more than 20,000 sq.ft at that rate (in NYC, the same living space would cost roughly $60,000/mo). But of course, as anything subsidized by the government's greesy hand, an average person can only claim a small portion at that subsidized rate (that's what you ultimately get from Nixonian price-control) A taxi ride of 5 miles is about the same as the price of T-shirt, just like in NYC. Public transportation is ubiquitous and cost much less. A 20" TV costs about the same as 30 restaurant seated dinners, a little more than the ratio in the US largely because the material/energy-to-labor cost is higher.
Amusing...so are you saying that GM is smart to pay those huge dividends instead of using the money for the future? That's pretty desperate on their part. They could never be accused of thinking in the long term, though. I know what dividends are, thank you very much, and GMs have worked to make them a short term holding, nothing more. The same term the vision of their entire management team uses.
"The absence of perfection is no excuse not to pursue what is better"
OK then, free market's CAN'T exist. Human flaws render them impossible. The same for any remotely pure form of communism, socialism, and even capitalism. Happy? Spare me your philosophy.
"Isn't that what Lexus ES's are?? "
That's not an answer to the question.
" yes indeed the average citizens would be much better of"
That's the info I needed. There's no point in anything more.
That's enough with you, this is a waste yet again...the crony capitalist has reeled me in, answering questions with more questions, and more deflections than a Vezina winner. Keep posting like a paid shill of GM execs, someone needs to I guess. I'll get back to actually talking about cars.
And stop posting like you are some kind of professor. Being a claimed entrepreneur (ROFL) really gives you nothing. Have a nice life, hopefully you'll make it through before things go awry.
Back when Saturn was set up at Spring Hill, it was UAW but worked under a completely separate contract with different work rules, seniority scales, and such. Of course, GM screwed around with that opportunity and sometime in the mid-late 90s the Saturn crew was folded back into the rest of the union under the regular agreements.
I was wondering. Ever ask yourself why health care costs go up so much each year ? I think that the true answer would be very disturbing. Anyone care to comment with a bit of root cause analysis.
I'll tell you one of the reason why. ILLEGAL ALIENS ! :mad: We have millions of uninsured illeagal aliens in this country that come across the border and never heard of birth control. :sick: I and you pick up the tab.
lemko, You'd have to cancel more than the cable pal. I know it doesn't sound like a bunch, but it does have a squeeze effect. My grandfather said he can afford it but even he said with the cost of living that keeps rising his pension is getting smaller and smaller. I however agree it does need to be done.
Amusing...so are you saying that GM is smart to pay those huge dividends instead of using the money for the future? That's pretty desperate on their part. They could never be accused of thinking in the long term, though. I know what dividends are, thank you very much, and GMs have worked to make them a short term holding, nothing more. The same term the vision of their entire management team uses.
That's debatable. Traditionally, dividends were paid because (a) the owners had a right to take some of their profits and (b) the ability to pay dividends were a sign that the company was healthy enough to generate the income needed to pay dividends. In the early days, it would have been difficult to call oneself a "blue chip" company if you didn't pay them. (And if sales are growing, there should be enough cash to pay the shareholders as a reward for their investments.)
Dividends have fallen out of favor in the modern era as investors look more to stock appreciation to secure their gains, but GM's reign precedes this time, and cutting them would have sent a nasty signal. (Of course, now you notice that they've sent that signal -- the dividend has been halved.) But even Microsoft is now paying dividends, given that the company is so large and so profitable, what else would they do with the cash?
But your underlying point remains true. GM should have bit the bullet and cut the dividend a long time ago, but it didn't, probably so that it could support its stock price. But it's becoming clear that the Street is going to want to see better products and increasing market share, particularly as oil prices shift against GM's favor if it's going to feel positive about the company's prospects, so the game is up and the dividend is down. I just wonder when they're going to make the next obvious move, and file BK.
It is also that our country is so stupidly run that they allow them to illegally come here, pay the medical costs, and then give the baby citizenship so the rest of the family can come here to take care of it and be taken care of here.
Same for educating the chillun in the border states. Of course those ideals were led by California.
You are correct in pointing out the union vs. management antagonism for the early years, when Henry Ford and Alfre Sloan were still in charge. For much of the post-war decades of GM domination, however, the relation between the union and the management was much more complex. Union and benefit packages were actually a way for GM to eliminate competition: the smaller carmakers simply could not afford to absorb the cost of copying labor structure pattern set forth by deals done between GM and UAW . . . had to face labor relationship crisis, go bankrupt or be bought out by the dominant players. It's a classic tactic currently being played out by Walmart in its latest support for raising minimum wage, in an effort to kill off grocery competitors and other retailers. There's more than what meets the eye.
I will extend your football team analogy just a bit: the production line workers are like the players (not the waterboy; workers are far more important than that), and management is like the coach just like you said. It takes good effort of both parties to make a winning team. Good players without good coaches will not win Superbowl; on the other hand, a team staffed with mediocre players will never win any big game regardless how great the coaches are. What kind of team players do we all think equal-pay regardless performance will attract?
Abolish all unions and let your company determine your future. "It's not what your company can do for you, but what you can do for your company".....Do you really think your company is going to give a rat about you ????? Your only a badge # in corporate america. I'm blowin away that some of you really believe this. :confuse: Hey in a small private company indeed your employer might have loyalty to its workforce, but in the corporate world most employers are looking at another way to cut costs and that includes finding a foreigner on a visa that can do it cheaper to replace you. Hell some will happily employ illegal aliens. :sick:
I guess you capatalist are getting your way. Unions are shrinking and wages and benefits have regressed for the avg. worker. A uncontrolled capatalisic society with no checks and balance will yield a 3rd world country in due time. We especially in this country will put our walletts first before the good of it's citizens. The exportation of everything (security, jobs, infratstructure, etc) in this country will lead to a real doom and gloom. The Unions have faught against many of these things and because your college degree didn't pay off for you, then you as a individual want everyone else to feel your pain with cuts in there lifestyles.. :confuse: We used to be as a society very jealous of the rich. Now we have settled for being jealous of union members ? :surprise: :confuse:
Dividends were a necessity. GM stocks were held by many "widow and orphan" trusts that bought the stock decades ago and held on for income, dividend income. Remember? Three decades ago, "the generals" were America. Neutron Jack put General Electric in order more than a decade ago. GM has now reformed one of the three sacred covenant it made decades ago, with two more to go, union obligations and creditors (Bankruptcy).
"The absence of perfection is no excuse not to pursue what is better"
OK then, free market's CAN'T exist. Human flaws render them impossible. The same for any remotely pure form of communism, socialism, and even capitalism. Happy? Spare me your philosophy.
Who said free market CAN't exist? Free market is the best way to keep human flaws in check. As to philosophy, you were the one keep jumping the guns trying to label me every which you can think of, all the wrong ones! e.g. labeling me as Nixonian without knowing that Nixon was a labor union supporter.
" yes indeed the average citizens would be much better of"
That's the info I needed. There's no point in anything more.
Well, that's not much of a rebuttal in the face of imperical evidence of the auto industry over the past three decades: the less UAW market share, the better off the car buying public.
That's enough with you, this is a waste yet again...the crony capitalist has reeled me in, answering questions with more questions, and more deflections than a Vezina winner. Keep posting like a paid shill of GM execs, someone needs to I guess. I'll get back to actually talking about cars.
Meaningless labels yet again. You are just trying to deflect an argument that you can not possibly win. For someone who claims to not like philosophy much, you seem to throw philosophical labels around aweful lot, all without knowing what they mean. Labor unions are actually much closer to "Crony capitalism" than free market ever is; in fact, countries practicing crony capitalism are all found in closed markets with patriarchal supposedly protective measures for "their" workers . . . the classical example being South Korea of the 80's early 90's, with very strong unions. The antithesis to Crony Capitalism is actually the Free Market . . . Collectiveness inevitably lead to cronyism.
So your are saying that the average citizen in strong union, socialized(Crony capitalism) country's like Germany, Norway, Canada, Switzerland, are worst off than the average U.S. citizen ????? If you believe that then you gotta get out more. :confuse: Switzerland per capita is the richest country in the world, with Norway being a close second. Where does the U.S. rank ? :P Sheeeesh ! :sick:
First of all, a lot of the companies would not have gotten as large and anonymous as they are if not for unions and their industry-wide benefit requirement driving smaller companies into consolidation and/or bankruptcy.
Secondly, if you think large corporations, with shareholders and tiered management, do not appreciate your individuality, labor unions would treat you more as an individual? Heck, labor unions can't even stand the high school drop-out reading newspaper all day in the next room getting paid any less than you are even if you work your butt off all day. Do you even get a badge for doing real work as opposed to reading paper all day in a job bank?
Thirdly, when you finally wake up one day, and say to yourself, screw it all, I don't want to work for unappreciating employers or indiscrimate labor bosses any more, and I want to start my own business . . . that's when you find out that much of the so-called benefits supposedly won by the unions for all workers are little more than ploys by big entrenched companies to keep smaller companies out of competition. Have you ever checked the price difference in insurance cost for a small business with relatively few employees? It's tremendous. All that and cost of compliance with regulations have to be passed onto consumers and employees alike. And guess what? The less employers out there, the less option for potential workers, and the lower pay for them because less bidders for their labor.
I wonder why I don't see Sweden in that list any more? Isn't that supposed to be the flagship "third-way"? Oh, I see, it just plain failed.
Germany has double-digit unemployment. They finally elected a lady from former East Germany for her staunch opposition to socialism in hopes that those who lived under hard core collectivism can truely apprecate the evils of collectivism, like yours truely.
Norway and Finland are some of the most open free makets in western Europe, along with Ireland, and they are doing much much better than the heavily socialized Germany and France.
Switzerland is actually owned by bankers, and known for unregulated and anonymous off-shore banking. Need I say more? Grand Cayman Island does pretty well too on this side of the pond doing the same sort of thing. Never thought entities like that would be the praise of union supporters.
Thirdly, when you finally wake up one day, and say to yourself, screw it all, I don't want to work for unappreciating employers or indiscrimate labor bosses any more, and I want to start my own business....
brightness, do you really think it's that easy to start your own buisness. If that were the case then invest money in me, to start my dream job of being a GM or Acura New Car Dealer. It simpily takes money to make it. Most of the entrupaneurs fail and with the new bankruptcy law changes their isn't uncle sam to bail you out.
Don't get me started ;-) I'm no friend of bankers, especially with central banking, with the government in their pocket . . . talk about monopolistic power and lack of free market . . . and potential for cronyism.
We all know that starting a business is not easy, so why put more hurdles in the ways of aspiring entreprenurs? Ultimately, it's private sector businesses that give people jobs, right? Unless we can all live in a Utopia where we can all live by pushing paper for the government; that's been tried too, and failed miserably, in Sweden and Denmark, not counting the likes of East Germany or USSR.
Also, the hurdles put in the ways of aspiring entreprenuers affect you even if you do not start your own company. After a small busiess pay for the high cost insurance and the expensive accounts and consultants to be compliant with the paper work, there's less money left for your take-home pay as the employee.
That's why ultimately, all those anti-competitive anti-open market measures ultimately hurt the little guys and gals. The key to understanding it all is realizing that amassing wealth does nobody any good until that wealthy income is spent on something . . . whenever that happens new jobs are created. The rich can not enjoy their money without using it and consequently paying someone, and it's heck lot better when you can choose which rich guy to work for instead of being told there is only one rich man in town. That's called competition and free market, vs. government regulation. With absolute government regulation, there is only one rich man in town, the government.
Norway and Finland are some of the most open free makets in western Europe, along with Ireland, and they are doing much much better than the heavily socialized Germany and France.
That is far from the truth. They only import what they don't have. like bananas, oranges, cars, etc. Kraft "mac and cheese" for example is banned from Norway because of all the garbage "preservatives" it has in it.
Not sure how particular food import restrictions relates to the discussion. Norway and Finland have some of the lowest overall corporate tax rate in western Europe. Also, most items in the consumer basket have to be imported in those countries. Trade-to-GDP ratio is much higher for both countries than for the US.
We discussed that already . . . the different work rules experiement and the fold-back. The Saturn experiement clearly illustrated that good old Prisoners' Delimma: if I were working for GM, I'd want to be part of the union too if everyone around me is union, lest I become the first one to get fired.
The failure of Saturn experiement goes to show that union work rules have to reformed throughout GM for there to be any chance of success.
The failure of Saturn experiement goes to show that union work rules have to reformed throughout GM for there to be any chance of success.
They have been reformed back in 99'especially on the Delphi side of the equation. My aunt only makes $14 an hour and started a few weeks ago. She pays out of her check a portion for health insurance and a 401K. No pension or health insurance when she retires. She can top out at $18 an hour and that is less then what Johnson Controls is paying their UAW members. Without a "good product" line-up like that found from Honda/Acura, or Toyota/Lexus union benefits will be moot. GM has approx $25 billion giver or take in cash reserves and look at the latest R&D over the last 5 years throughout the line-up. There isn't anything yet from Chevrolet, or Pontiac, that can match Toyota or Honda is there ?
Buick, Cadillac, does offer a closer gap, but they also are far more expensive cars. The Saturn Aura however might be a good sign of things to come. The Aura car is UAW built and is targeted at the Camcord, and is proof that GM can build a good afforable car when mamagement puts enough money in R&D.
rockylee wrote: "She pays out of her check a portion for health insurance and a 401K. No pension or health insurance when she retires."
This is what most people, salaried or hourly, face today in most sectors of employment. This is reality! I work for a corporation as a salaried manager and pay a significant amount of money per month for health insurance with high co-pays for doctor visits and presciptions, and the 401k is non-contributory. This means that there is no corporate match at all - only my individual contributions are 401k sheltered. I, too, will have no pension or company health insurance when I retire.
Unfortunately, this is the norm in many areas today. And, $14/hr is not a bad starting wage. Unless you have a Bachelor's degree in my geographical area, the typical starting hourly wage for any job is around $9/hr.
Hopefully your aunt is nowhere near retirement any time soon. Personally, I think it's just aweful to have the bottom finally falling out for a lot of people with not many years left before retirement. Large segments of the industry is as vulnerable as sheep herding in New England in the early 1800's, just before cotton gin made cotton textile replacing wool for the entire clothing industry; or fruit farming in CT and NJ just before inter-state highway system brought Californian and Floridian fruits and veggies.
Camcords are a moving target. IMHO, both Camry and Accord have to move up market to survive the onslaught of the likes of Hyndai and Kia, shortly to be followed by Chinese makes (hopefully GM can pre-empt that and bring their own Chinese made cars here first). As good as Aura is, and I truely hope it will succeed in the market place, the only way to keep some auto making in the US, it has to be premium cars, either that or the premium parts of the carmaking process, like design/engineering/advertising, or some critical components. Either that, or we are all doomed as consumers with a massive dollar devaluation.
rockylee wrote: "She pays out of her check a portion for health insurance and a 401K. No pension or health insurance when she retires."
This is what most people, salaried or hourly, face today in most sectors of employment. This is reality! I work for a corporation as a salaried manager and pay a significant amount of money per month for health insurance with high co-pays for doctor visits and presciptions, and the 401k is non-contributory. This means that there is no corporate match at all - only my individual contributions are 401k sheltered. I, too, will have no pension or company health insurance when I retire.
Unfortunately, this is the norm in many areas today. And, $14/hr is not a bad starting wage. Unless you have a Bachelor's degree in this area, the typical starting hourly wage for any job is around $9/hr.
Well that stinks your company doesn't match anythin on your 401.
I sure hope your salary is up to snuff to supplement your retirement. OUCH !
Just because it's what most people face today doesn't neccessary make it ok, unless your boss it paying you enough extra to let you decide where to invest your money to take the monkey off his/hers back then I find it ok. I personally couldn't imagine my employer not matching my 401K dollar for dollar up to 10%. I honestly believe that is getting by cheap for them. With a stock market that is more shaky than the faults in California, it will take more contributions from your employer to off set inflation, and potential losses.
brightness, What do you think about the seaports deal, and foreign investments buying up infrastructure like highways etc. ?????
I will tell you what I'm hearing down here they are trying to pass a road toll on a highway between Dallas and Austin that will cost a buisnessman or woman approx. $11-14K a year to use the road weekly. :surprise:
I'm very frusterated as a citizen of this country that all are important assets are being baught up by foreign country's. I'm very scared of our future, not just mine, but yours. I'm ready for a 3rd party to run for seats in our government.
My perfect president would be the mentality of independents like Lou Dobbs or Dr. Michael Savage.
Lou Dobbs, I agree with 100% of the time and it feels weird or strange. I am a registered democrat, but find myself moving away from my party over there position on border control, and many other domestic and foreign isssues. I am finding more republicans are seeing the light and even a few are saying it's not worth selling our country for big buisness or allow the continuation of illegal imigration. Call me a protectionist or a isolationist, but deep in my heart I care about the direction of our country. (Canada included)
BTW- My aunt is 46 (I think) so she has quite a few years left. However her job might not be there in the not so distant future. China is manufactoring Multec-3 fuel injectors and rumor is once they can perfect the building of fuel injectors, Delphi might close the doors. The sad thing is she made almost $14 an hour before General Electric shut the doors back in the mid 80's. :surprise: That shows you how little progression the U.S. has made in the last 20+ years and one could actually realistically afford a house without having to put up their great grand child for collateral.
Now a crooked politician, (forget his name) on Lou Dobbs tonight wanted to blame unions over their not being no U.S. company's wanting to take over the seaports. :surprise: Lou Dobbs was like what ???? *laughter* What do unions got to do with U.S. company's buying seaports? *He paused* and said because of labor costs.
Well last time I(Rocky) checked some of the U.S. employees(laborers) on the seaports are Teamsters that are working for foreign country's. However the mamagement is strictly made up of the foreign company.
It's both the UAW and the Management that have created the current problem.
The UAW has made labor costs uncompetitive... And management has done a wonderful job in creating products that no one wants.
If it was simply one problem OR the other, the Big Three could limp along.
IE - a hot product that is a little more expensive than it's competition. Or a dull, cheap, uncomfortable car that was dirt cheap. Either way, the car would sell.
But not a dull, cheap, uncomfortable car that is more expensive than it's competition.
Well we could always import GM cars from China since some of you believe a Chinese Buick, is the equivalent of a Mercedes Benz in structural and overall quality. :surprise: :confuse:
How bout a 3rd problem ? Corporate America and our other baught off cowards in suits (politicians) has made it uncomfortable to live in this country. We pay more and get less for our hard earned money. We are swimming in "Treasury Notes" without a flotation device. :sick:
Got a question: How many of you will buy Chinese Made Cars such as Chin-E Class Mercedes carbon copy's (made by a chinese automaker) or Chinse made GM Buicks ????
I wonder if these carbon copy's will hurt the residuals on Mercedes Benz (not real thing) if imported ?
Lemko, you might get your CSX Lucerne or DTS for $10,000.
However Wagoner, would probably ask the same amount of money as a U.S. built.
brightness, What do you think about the seaports deal, and foreign investments buying up infrastructure like highways etc. ?????
I say, let's sell them the Brooklyn Bridge ;-) Sorry about trying to inject some humor into this serious topic. IMHO, the whole port thing is just a whole lot about nothing. We'd all be in big trouble if we really depend on the port operators for security checks, foreign or domestic, simply because port's profit is dependent on volume . . . that means the less check the better. It's just an opportunity for the political party out of power to attack the one in power; if the Dems were in White House, Clinton would be signing the deal, and the GOP would be crying national security. Bill actually was advising DPW on the purchase.
In reality, I think the purchase is classic late-cycle behavior, just like Mitsubishi spending its wad on buying Rockefeller Center shortly before Japanese stock market crashed in 1989. Those crony capitalists have some of the worst timings in the open free market place. The only people with even worse timng are those writing books and articles bemoaning how all those foreign crony capitalists are about to take over the world . . . rest assured such purchases almost always never pay off; considering that the US marine can take over any port in Dubai on short notice, does anyone actually believe that the UAE is actually going to have any real control over any American ports? as opposed to derive some below-par rent income from a piece of over-priced real estate, having their wad of cash forward-discounted on the current low interest rate on the eve of a long interest rate secular up turn, the worst timing for real estate, yet again! In reality, it's all about dollar repatriation . . . just like those clever schemes to sell Japanese Hawaii real estate in the 80's that are still under water today and ready to take another dive, and all those PriceLine stocks at hundreds of dollars per share to the sheiks in '99 and 2000.
As much as I dislike both political parties, I'm equally afraid of a real third party. Chances are equally good if not better that the third party takes the worst of both parties instead of the best of them. For some strange reason, Nationalism and Socialism both have great traction with the psyche of people in general, the world over. We know the result when the two come together, as they came together 70 odd years ago.
Well I'm not wanting the [non-permissible content removed]'s to take over, BUT I would like to see a "hybrid" demo-repub canidate. I guess some liberaterian canidates are the closest thing to that.
-President Michael Savage in 2008' with Lou Dobbs as his running mate. :P I'd vote for those 2 over the current selection of corruption in both party's. Bill Clinton, is supporting the Dubai ports deal, while Hillary has taken a strong stance against it from the beginning. :mad: at Bill :mad:
Comments
Most wealthy Chinese in Vancouver are immigrants, not much detached from their counterparts at home. It is certainly not a stretch to assume they will have similar tastes. It's a lot different than simple "ancestry" - we have the same basic demographic, just living in different locations.
I guess I just can't see it that way.
Well, if you are handed a slab of beef brisket to work with, can you be blamed for not making the best steak dinner in the world? You can only make ground beef "country-style steak" or at best London Broil with it, and sell for low margin in the low-end of the market. That's what GM faces in the US when the UAW work rules preserve ancient production lines and prevent firing/hiring and retraining of workers.
as 62vette mentions, that Chinese LaCrosse is not the dumbed down American fleet version.
Contrary to your earlier point about Buick success there is due to Chinese acceptance of dumbed down rental fleet versions of American cars.
"GM earned over 400 million dollars from its partnership with SAIC in Shanghai in 2003 alone. "
From how much investment? And how much of that is Buick?
That $400+ million was net profit after amortizing investment and interest payment. Back in 2003, Buick was the main brand, and Chevy was just getting started; Caddy was not there yet.
I was saying that those cars which are not up to the competition in terms of worldwide prestige or innovation look a lot nicer compared to a lowly Chinese car than compared to a lowline US or Euro car. That has to make them an easier sale.
Except those lowly Chinese cars like you cited (Cherry) sell for 1/5 to 1/10 the price of a Buick there. You are not seriously suggesting the introduction of Chevy Aveo makes Lexus LS or Mercedes S class more appealing, are you? How are they even related to one another? Buick's primary competition was Audi A6 (made in China since the mid-1980's) and Toyota Crown (which occupied a similar market position as Lexus ES for the rest of the world out side NA), with BMW 3 and 5 sold in smaller numbers despite local production and MB E class imported (and soon to be produced locally if not already).
I'd be very curious to know the wage and benefits of the average Buick assembler, too.
High enough to attract 8 times as many applicants as there were positions . . . resulting in a produciton line that was fully staffed by college degree holders. Many credit that work force with the high quality of cars that they turn out there; it was said that the GM China Buick production line makes the highest quality GM vehicles anywhere in the world. Quality really sells, anywhere in the world, as Wagoner observed astutely more than a decade ago in Brazil.
Where do you think those HK Chinese came from? HK is mainland China. You're experiencing some kind of confusion.
It doesn't matter...to say that that Buick is a competitor with anything but a lowline 4cyl E class is insane. Pricing structure alone sets the stage.
"Contrary to your earlier point"
I'd beg anyone to find it on par with a Lexus or E class or 5er, its supposed competition.
"That $400+ million was net profit"
Do we have a link to that? I hadn't heard that. I won't ask to see what Wagoner himself did to enable work in China, I know the answer to that.
"Except those lowly Chinese cars like you cited (Cherry) sell for 1/5 to 1/10 the price of a Buick there"
Yes. In China, you can see these awful little tin cans at the bottom, the big Germans and Japanese in the stratosphere, and some previous generation foreigners in the middle In walks this Buick...probably more than 10x better than a Chery, at a mere 10x the price. The low cars make it look like a better deal. Really low cars make normal cars look better.
"High enough to attract 8 times as many applicants as there were positions ."
In other words, you don't know. I've heard of horribly low end retail jobs attracting applicants in a 100:1 ratio of available positions, too.
"it was said that the GM China Buick production line makes the highest quality GM vehicles anywhere in the world."
By who?
"as Wagoner observed astutely more than a decade ago in Brazil."
And apparently he learned that there, and not from his cookie cutter MBA. So astute. The future is bright! Glory days are just around the corner.
So now you are recanting your earlier statement that Buicks sold in China are just crappy versions of Buicks sold here . . . at least getting closer to reality.
"That $400+ million was net profit"
Do we have a link to that? I hadn't heard that
http://www.detnews.com/2005/insiders/0507/21/0auto-255085.htm
Keep in mind, it was written during the early 2005 market down turn in China; it subsequently recovered in the second half of last year. Buick was also in the midst of product transition early 2005. The Accord referenced in that article is also a very spiffed up version of what have here, selling for $40-50k, better interior appointment than Acura TL as I actually sat in one while in Southern China; Acura is not yet a global brand.
What's more interesting from that article, it seems that, contrary to your assertion that lower cars like the Chery QQ (RMBY32-52k, or US$4-5.5k) make mediocre cars easier to sell, the availability of cheaper cars are actually eating into the market share of full-sized cars.
"High enough to attract 8 times as many applicants as there were positions ."
In other words, you don't know. I've heard of horribly low end retail jobs attracting applicants in a 100:1 ratio of available positions, too.
I actually know it quite well; I talked to a few people who worked there. The dollar amount is quite irrelevent simply because the same amount of dollars can buy so much more in China; a production line job at the Buick factory is quite adequate to sustain a middle-class life style in China, and that's why they are very dedicated and motivated workers. As to your statement of "horribly low end retain jobs," perhaps you should stop hanging out with your "limosine liberal" friends (really "limosine feudal lords"). If there are 100 applicants looking for each open position, perhaps the positions are not so "horribly low end" after all. Try post 1000 job openings on Craigslist or Monster.com, and see how high your hourly wage offer has to be before you get 100 times the applicants in a week, or even 8 times. My guess is that you need to be at $30-50/hr for nose-to-the-grinder jobs in this country in order to get that kind of response in places like NYC (of which Shanghai is the equivalent for China). That's more or less the equivalent they are getting in purchasing power equivalent terms on the GM SAIC Buick production lines.
Nice ramble to distract, but I'm not fooled.
Only indirectly - and only when the unions have extorted contracts out of the manufacturers which put a higher value on labor than the market will bear.
Unions are useful as an effective deterrent against exploitive management practices.....but there must be a balance between Union demands and the health of the company.
No, not all of the domestics problems are tied to the Unions. A large portion of it IS mismanagement. But that doesn't mean anyone should put their blinders on and refuse to acknowledge at least some UAW culpability.
"are just crappy versions of Buicks sold here "
I never said that. I don't think there can be a crappy version of a Buick sold here...NA cars are as dumbed down as can be. But thats the fault of the unions I am sure.
Thanks for that link, that's new to me. I guess I shoulda googled it, as well. I especially like that Geely "Haoqing" - it's a 1994 C class front end. Hilarious. And criminal.
From what I can see, those smaller cars are gaining because more people are entering the market. It's like England in the 30s. All those Austins and little Fords weren't really stealing sales from the upper makes.
"I talked to a few people who worked there. "
What is it you do? Oh, let me guess, this was on your vacation, you decided you'd go find some autoworkers to talk to, just for the heck of it.
When people who I assume have 4+ year degrees are lining up for assembly work, something is wrong with an economy.
"If there are 100 applicants looking for each open position, perhaps the positions are not so "horribly low end" after all"
Or perhaps jobs are just that scarce. There's a lot to the world outside of metro NYC.
How much exactly are those Chinese workers making, then? In raw terms.
Are union healthcare and pension demands insane? Yes. Someone who puts tires on a mediocre car shouldn't make more than the average person with a 4 year degree. The list can go on. But these people do not force overpaid underworked suits to gift the market with marginal designs and hilarious product life cycles. That's all I am saying.
We probably agree on quite a few things.
How about if I scan my flight itenery from last year, and will you cease your nonsense after that?
Do they FORCE the marginal designs and long product life cycles? No.
But they contribute to the problem.
If Manufacturer 'A' has higher fixed labor costs (due to insane union healthcare and pension demands), while Manufacturer 'B' has lower labor costs, and both Manufacturer's produce competing products in the same market, then Manufacturer 'A' will be forced to either sell his product for more (to reflect the higher labor cost), or cut cost out of the design and materials.
There's only so much that can be cut out of the design (to offset high labor cost) before the design gets REAL marginal.
Long product life cycles I believe are much more of a management problem. I think they are an attempt by management to squeeze as much out of their initial product development investment as feasible. This is a mistake. The problem is that the domestics appear to be trying to hit a moving target (competitors product) but due to the long lead time, they constantly appear to be behind the curve.
Pray tell what evidence you have for that? Nixon with his price-controls is no friend of any advocate of Free Market. It's really ironic that you should bring up Nixon. Nixon actually had a support base among the unions through his Labor Secretary Peter Brennan.
I suppose we should just have a corporate-governed free for all with no regulation, and we'll see out class and income gaps explode. That'll silence the opposition! Corporate interests always act with ethics and responsibility, so it will be a happy ending. I can't wait.
Union is already creating income and benefit gap among workers. There is no evidence whatsoever that union ethics is any better than coporate ethics. The difference between the two is that union ownerships are not traded on the open market, therefore there is no open competitions among different unions in an open and free market to make disclosure laws stick and make participants relatively honest. Unions are incorporated too, they just have the added advantage of an exception to the usual laws governing corporations that prevent the form of anti-competitive trusts.
"are just crappy versions of Buicks sold here "
I never said that. I don't think there can be a crappy version of a Buick sold here...NA cars are as dumbed down as can be. But thats the fault of the unions I am sure.
As a matter of fact, yes. Inflexible and expensive labor is what's causing an erstwhile luxury brand in the US to make dated cars that are suitable only for a rental fleet. In post#498, you said the Buick success is due to "a rental fleet LaCrosse must look like a LS compared to a Chery." That is patentedly false as the Buicks sold in China are actually much nicer cars than Buicks sold here.
"I talked to a few people who worked there. "
What is it you do? Oh, let me guess, this was on your vacation, you decided you'd go find some autoworkers to talk to, just for the heck of it.
I have some custom light manufacturing contracts there. It was actually a business trip. In any case, some of my childhood neighbors work for GM China. GM China offers some of the most sought-after jobs there; they have a natural affinity for American employers instead of Japanese employers due to historical/cultural reasons. Little do they know that ultimately, all the UAW commitment will have to come off their sweat and blood.
When people who I assume have 4+ year degrees are lining up for assembly work, something is wrong with an economy.
There is indeed a lot wrong with the Chinese economy, but that's quite beyond the scope of this discussion. Suffice to say, people there want to work for GM China because the pay is good and the work condition is condusive to high employee morale.
How much exactly are those Chinese workers making, then? In raw terms.
About the equivalent of 1500 T-shirts or 500-700 dinner entres at local restaurants per month for line workers; 50% more to double that for shift managers.
LOL yeah that would say it all. Sorry, Charlie.
"But they contribute to the problem. "
And just as much so do the unjustifiable dividends paid by GM, especially in a historical sense. How much of this money could have been used to improve the product? What a sickeningly short-term plan. Cookie cutter MBAs strike again.
In your model, 'Manufacturer A' could also actually put forth a genuine effort, make a car that outclasses the competition, and still come out ahead even with the high costs. Less per vehicle, but more sales. But that would require competent and responsible management. Why is this so hard?
"Pray tell what evidence you have for that?"
Your anti-worker pro-corporate pro-overpaid exec stance.
Free markets don't exist.
"Union is already creating income and benefit gap among workers."
It's not the unions. Modern brain-dead conservative thought makes it a sin to question any income gaps or class divisions. Wage pressures are down for most - the average worker is barely pacing inflation - and there isn't much inflation at the moment. Most people aren't union workers anyway.
Answer this - if all unions and labor regulations were removed (a real 'free market') - in regards to wages, benefits, everything, do you think the average citizen would be worse off or better off? Do you think corporate interests would do the right thing? Or would that top 2% just keep growing exponentially while the rest fight for the crumbs? That's where we're headed. The bloodbath will be something.
". There is no evidence whatsoever that union ethics is any better than coporate ethics."
That's not the issue, now is it. Spin spin spin. We're not comparing ethics, we're examining corporate ethics.
" That is patentedly false as the Buicks sold in China are actually much nicer cars than Buicks sold here. "
Well, that wouldn't take much, would it? Do you think if these cars were secretly imported to NA, rebadged as the new Lexus ES or whatever, that they'd succeed?
Labor isn't causing mediocre cars. Lack of competent and responsible management at every level creates this disaster.
So what is it you do? Light manufacturing contracts? And now friends there too, boy, you have them everywhere. I didn't see that coming.
"but that's quite beyond the scope of this discussion."
Not really, and I don't think you have the means to dictate what is appropriate. You mentioned how educated these workers are...maybe it wouldn't be so in an economy that even you admit is broken.
T-shirt and dinner prices are not raw terms. What kind of cash? If you must, make it relative to say the price of a house or car or TV.
As a business guy, I can't see how anyone could possibly leave the management of a failing company off the hook. Not holding management responsible for the losses and falling market share is like blaming the water boy instead of the coach for a team losing the game on Sunday.
I would never say that the UAW is exactly the most efficient organization, that it lacks its own agendas or that it does much to benefit the profitability of GM. But let's face facts --
-The UAW was formed only because GM had a long tradition of abusing the workforce. The cumbersome workrules and emphasis on benefits have their origins in part because managers abused employees in the absence of these rules, and because benefits not only protect employees from worst-case scenario failure, but also create exit costs that should theoretically encourage the company to not "adjust payrolls" (read: fire people en masse) on a whim. If firing someone is expensive, you're more likely to limit your use of termination as a leverage tool.
The shame is that decades of unionization created bureaucracy on the labor side of the table, and management failed to learn that their contempt for the common worker was not a winning formula. GM hasn't just been uncompetitive for the US consumer, but also for the US blue collar worker -- the only reason to work there is for the job security provided by the union, not because management makes it a desirable environment to go earn a paycheck.
If you don't think that the beancounting mentality for the organization isn't reflected in its treatment of people, then think again. When people are an expense to be reduced, rather than an asset in which to invest, you can bet that the inherent contempt is going to affect the relationship. And of course, the only worker who is going to be attracted to that relationship is one who is more interested in a paycheck than helping the company, or who can thrive on the sense of opposition. Is that sort of environment going to be optimal for producing a quality product that, first and foremost, serves the needs of the customer? (And I don't mean Avis.)
You may need to look up what dividends are and what they do. Dividends are what keep shareholders with the company for the long run; otherwise they'd have to sell in order to realize any gain.
"Pray tell what evidence you have for that?"
Your anti-worker pro-corporate pro-overpaid exec stance.
There is a huge difference between anti-union vs. anti-worker. Nixon may have been anti-worker, but certainly not anti-union, exactly the opposite of my position. Wagoner has certainly earned his pay with his Brazil turn-around and China paying off; besides, during this financially difficult time, he voluntarily cut his own pay in half! Are there irresponsible executives in the corporate world? Of course there are. However, it's just not fair to lump Wagoner together with all the strawmen.
Free markets don't exist.
The absence of perfection is no excuse not to pursue what is better. Ideal democracy and freedom is no enjoyed by any country in the world either, but does that mean we should all as well revert to serfdom? Some autocrats of the world would like to assert that, surely I hope we do not share that view here.
Wage pressures are down for most - the average worker is barely pacing inflation - and there isn't much inflation at the moment. Most people aren't union workers anyway.
During periods of productivity growth, nominal wages do go down simply because growing productivity makes the same products cheaper. That's actually where unionism has been making the problem really bad since the late 19th century: nominal wage guarantees in a price declining economic environment is in effect a wage increase, leading to bankruptcies for small corporations that could not absorb the increase. That was what led to the big consolidation and monopolies at the turn of last century. In other words, Unions and big consolidated corporations are symbiotic institutions working together for price support, gouging consumers together.
Answer this - if all unions and labor regulations were removed (a real 'free market') - in regards to wages, benefits, everything, do you think the average citizen would be worse off or better off? Do you think corporate interests would do the right thing? Or would that top 2% just keep growing exponentially while the rest fight for the crumbs? That's where we're headed. The bloodbath will be something.
The answer to your first question is quite simple: yes indeed the average citizens would be much better off. That has been proven imperically in the automobile industry in the last thirty years. UAW share of total car production decreased and the quality of cars average american drive improved.
Now the more theoretical approach ("do you think . . ."): Wealth is not just some static abstract numerical number; it's the claim on human labor and natural resources. If the corporations, or the top 2% as you say, want to derive any benefit from the ownership of wealth, they have to hire some one, many some-ones, and thereby spread the wealth around. Check in your own neighborhood how much an in-home day-care operator makes (she is not unionized) vs. how much a public elementary school teacher makes (she is in a union job); then caculate that on per-child basis. Union does not create jobs; market demand does!
Do you think if these cars were secretly imported to NA, rebadged as the new Lexus ES or whatever, that they'd succeed?
Isn't that what Lexus ES's are?? I thought Euro fans have been claiming Lexus ES's are nothing more than better made Buicks with more luxury appointment and imported from overseas, all these years. LOL
So what is it you do? Light manufacturing contracts? And now friends there too, boy, you have them everywhere.
One of my businesses is designing household art and fashion items. We design them here, and have them custom manufactured over there, then sell both in the US and in China. It takes making a lot of friends to run a successful business. We currently employ half a dozen people in the US, and I might just be in that top 2% that you loathe so much in income terms according to IRS data (it takes only $140k/yr household income to be in the top 5%, and $350k to be in the top 1%). I will never forget my poverty-stricken roots however; I was making less than half of average income in my area less than a decade ago. I pay my workers in the US 3-10 times the minimum wage; and it's not because of union or that I'm nice; that's how much it takes to retain their talent.
T-shirt and dinner prices are not raw terms. What kind of cash? If you must, make it relative to say the price of a house or car or TV.
T-shirts and dinners, refecting the cost of clothing and food, are much more relevant to every day life than house, car or TV, don't you think? in an economy where most people do not own their homes or cars. Rents there are mostly subsidized by the government in Shanghai, a city comparable to NYC in relation to the rest of the country, but that's were GM China has its Buick production line; so the line worker's monthly income would cover rent for more than 20,000 sq.ft at that rate (in NYC, the same living space would cost roughly $60,000/mo). But of course, as anything subsidized by the government's greesy hand, an average person can only claim a small portion at that subsidized rate (that's what you ultimately get from Nixonian price-control) A taxi ride of 5 miles is about the same as the price of T-shirt, just like in NYC. Public transportation is ubiquitous and cost much less. A 20" TV costs about the same as 30 restaurant seated dinners, a little more than the ratio in the US largely because the material/energy-to-labor cost is higher.
Last time I checked the Saturn plant in Springfield was UAW :confuse:
Rocky
"The absence of perfection is no excuse not to pursue what is better"
OK then, free market's CAN'T exist. Human flaws render them impossible. The same for any remotely pure form of communism, socialism, and even capitalism. Happy? Spare me your philosophy.
"Isn't that what Lexus ES's are?? "
That's not an answer to the question.
" yes indeed the average citizens would be much better of"
That's the info I needed. There's no point in anything more.
That's enough with you, this is a waste yet again...the crony capitalist has reeled me in, answering questions with more questions, and more deflections than a Vezina winner. Keep posting like a paid shill of GM execs, someone needs to I guess. I'll get back to actually talking about cars.
And stop posting like you are some kind of professor. Being a claimed entrepreneur (ROFL) really gives you nothing. Have a nice life, hopefully you'll make it through before things go awry.
I'll tell you one of the reason why. ILLEGAL ALIENS ! :mad: We have millions of uninsured illeagal aliens in this country that come across the border and never heard of birth control. :sick: I and you pick up the tab.
Rocky
Rocky
You mean Springhill, don't you?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That's debatable. Traditionally, dividends were paid because (a) the owners had a right to take some of their profits and (b) the ability to pay dividends were a sign that the company was healthy enough to generate the income needed to pay dividends. In the early days, it would have been difficult to call oneself a "blue chip" company if you didn't pay them. (And if sales are growing, there should be enough cash to pay the shareholders as a reward for their investments.)
Dividends have fallen out of favor in the modern era as investors look more to stock appreciation to secure their gains, but GM's reign precedes this time, and cutting them would have sent a nasty signal. (Of course, now you notice that they've sent that signal -- the dividend has been halved.) But even Microsoft is now paying dividends, given that the company is so large and so profitable, what else would they do with the cash?
But your underlying point remains true. GM should have bit the bullet and cut the dividend a long time ago, but it didn't, probably so that it could support its stock price. But it's becoming clear that the Street is going to want to see better products and increasing market share, particularly as oil prices shift against GM's favor if it's going to feel positive about the company's prospects, so the game is up and the dividend is down. I just wonder when they're going to make the next obvious move, and file BK.
Same for educating the chillun in the border states. Of course those ideals were led by California.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Rocky
Yes I saw that on Lou Dobbs a month or so ago. :surprise:
Rocky
I will extend your football team analogy just a bit: the production line workers are like the players (not the waterboy; workers are far more important than that), and management is like the coach just like you said. It takes good effort of both parties to make a winning team. Good players without good coaches will not win Superbowl; on the other hand, a team staffed with mediocre players will never win any big game regardless how great the coaches are. What kind of team players do we all think equal-pay regardless performance will attract?
I guess you capatalist are getting your way. Unions are shrinking and wages and benefits have regressed for the avg. worker. A uncontrolled capatalisic society with no checks and balance will yield a 3rd world country in due time. We especially in this country will put our walletts first before the good of it's citizens. The exportation of everything (security, jobs, infratstructure, etc) in this country will lead to a real doom and gloom. The Unions have faught against many of these things and because your college degree didn't pay off for you, then you as a individual want everyone else to feel your pain with cuts in there lifestyles.. :confuse: We used to be as a society very jealous of the rich. Now we have settled for being jealous of union members ? :surprise: :confuse:
Rocky
"The absence of perfection is no excuse not to pursue what is better"
OK then, free market's CAN'T exist. Human flaws render them impossible. The same for any remotely pure form of communism, socialism, and even capitalism. Happy? Spare me your philosophy.
Who said free market CAN't exist? Free market is the best way to keep human flaws in check. As to philosophy, you were the one keep jumping the guns trying to label me every which you can think of, all the wrong ones! e.g. labeling me as Nixonian without knowing that Nixon was a labor union supporter.
" yes indeed the average citizens would be much better of"
That's the info I needed. There's no point in anything more.
Well, that's not much of a rebuttal in the face of imperical evidence of the auto industry over the past three decades: the less UAW market share, the better off the car buying public.
That's enough with you, this is a waste yet again...the crony capitalist has reeled me in, answering questions with more questions, and more deflections than a Vezina winner. Keep posting like a paid shill of GM execs, someone needs to I guess. I'll get back to actually talking about cars.
Meaningless labels yet again. You are just trying to deflect an argument that you can not possibly win. For someone who claims to not like philosophy much, you seem to throw philosophical labels around aweful lot, all without knowing what they mean. Labor unions are actually much closer to "Crony capitalism" than free market ever is; in fact, countries practicing crony capitalism are all found in closed markets with patriarchal supposedly protective measures for "their" workers . . . the classical example being South Korea of the 80's early 90's, with very strong unions. The antithesis to Crony Capitalism is actually the Free Market . . . Collectiveness inevitably lead to cronyism.
Rocky
Secondly, if you think large corporations, with shareholders and tiered management, do not appreciate your individuality, labor unions would treat you more as an individual? Heck, labor unions can't even stand the high school drop-out reading newspaper all day in the next room getting paid any less than you are even if you work your butt off all day. Do you even get a badge for doing real work as opposed to reading paper all day in a job bank?
Thirdly, when you finally wake up one day, and say to yourself, screw it all, I don't want to work for unappreciating employers or indiscrimate labor bosses any more, and I want to start my own business . . . that's when you find out that much of the so-called benefits supposedly won by the unions for all workers are little more than ploys by big entrenched companies to keep smaller companies out of competition. Have you ever checked the price difference in insurance cost for a small business with relatively few employees? It's tremendous. All that and cost of compliance with regulations have to be passed onto consumers and employees alike. And guess what? The less employers out there, the less option for potential workers, and the lower pay for them because less bidders for their labor.
Germany has double-digit unemployment. They finally elected a lady from former East Germany for her staunch opposition to socialism in hopes that those who lived under hard core collectivism can truely apprecate the evils of collectivism, like yours truely.
Norway and Finland are some of the most open free makets in western Europe, along with Ireland, and they are doing much much better than the heavily socialized Germany and France.
Switzerland is actually owned by bankers, and known for unregulated and anonymous off-shore banking. Need I say more? Grand Cayman Island does pretty well too on this side of the pond doing the same sort of thing. Never thought entities like that would be the praise of union supporters.
brightness, do you really think it's that easy to start your own buisness. If that were the case then invest money in me, to start my dream job of being a GM or Acura New Car Dealer. It simpily takes money to make it. Most of the entrupaneurs fail and with the new bankruptcy law changes their isn't uncle sam to bail you out.
Rocky
We all know that starting a business is not easy, so why put more hurdles in the ways of aspiring entreprenurs? Ultimately, it's private sector businesses that give people jobs, right? Unless we can all live in a Utopia where we can all live by pushing paper for the government; that's been tried too, and failed miserably, in Sweden and Denmark, not counting the likes of East Germany or USSR.
Also, the hurdles put in the ways of aspiring entreprenuers affect you even if you do not start your own company. After a small busiess pay for the high cost insurance and the expensive accounts and consultants to be compliant with the paper work, there's less money left for your take-home pay as the employee.
That's why ultimately, all those anti-competitive anti-open market measures ultimately hurt the little guys and gals. The key to understanding it all is realizing that amassing wealth does nobody any good until that wealthy income is spent on something . . . whenever that happens new jobs are created. The rich can not enjoy their money without using it and consequently paying someone, and it's heck lot better when you can choose which rich guy to work for instead of being told there is only one rich man in town. That's called competition and free market, vs. government regulation. With absolute government regulation, there is only one rich man in town, the government.
That is far from the truth. They only import what they don't have. like bananas, oranges, cars, etc. Kraft
"mac and cheese" for example is banned from Norway because of all the garbage "preservatives" it has in it.
Rocky
The failure of Saturn experiement goes to show that union work rules have to reformed throughout GM for there to be any chance of success.
They have been reformed back in 99'especially on the Delphi side of the equation. My aunt only makes $14 an hour and started a few weeks ago. She pays out of her check a portion for health insurance and a 401K. No pension or health insurance when she retires. She can top out at $18 an hour and that is less then what Johnson Controls is paying their UAW members. Without a
"good product" line-up like that found from Honda/Acura, or Toyota/Lexus union benefits will be moot. GM has approx $25 billion giver or take in cash reserves and look at the latest R&D over the last 5 years throughout the line-up.
Buick, Cadillac, does offer a closer gap, but they also are far more expensive cars. The Saturn Aura however might be a good sign of things to come. The Aura car is UAW built and is targeted at the Camcord, and is proof that GM can build a good afforable car when mamagement puts enough money in R&D.
Rocky
This is what most people, salaried or hourly, face today in most sectors of employment. This is reality! I work for a corporation as a salaried manager and pay a significant amount of money per month for health insurance with high co-pays for doctor visits and presciptions, and the 401k is non-contributory. This means that there is no corporate match at all - only my individual contributions are 401k sheltered. I, too, will have no pension or company health insurance when I retire.
Unfortunately, this is the norm in many areas today. And, $14/hr is not a bad starting wage. Unless you have a Bachelor's degree in my geographical area, the typical starting hourly wage for any job is around $9/hr.
Camcords are a moving target. IMHO, both Camry and Accord have to move up market to survive the onslaught of the likes of Hyndai and Kia, shortly to be followed by Chinese makes (hopefully GM can pre-empt that and bring their own Chinese made cars here first). As good as Aura is, and I truely hope it will succeed in the market place, the only way to keep some auto making in the US, it has to be premium cars, either that or the premium parts of the carmaking process, like design/engineering/advertising, or some critical components. Either that, or we are all doomed as consumers with a massive dollar devaluation.
This is what most people, salaried or hourly, face today in most sectors of employment. This is reality! I work for a corporation as a salaried manager and pay a significant amount of money per month for health insurance with high co-pays for doctor visits and presciptions, and the 401k is non-contributory. This means that there is no corporate match at all - only my individual contributions are 401k sheltered. I, too, will have no pension or company health insurance when I retire.
Unfortunately, this is the norm in many areas today. And, $14/hr is not a bad starting wage. Unless you have a Bachelor's degree in this area, the typical starting hourly wage for any job is around $9/hr.
Well that stinks your company doesn't match anythin on your 401.
I sure hope your salary is up to snuff to supplement your retirement. OUCH !
Just because it's what most people face today doesn't neccessary make it ok, unless your boss it paying you enough extra to let you decide where to invest your money to take the monkey off his/hers back then I find it ok. I personally couldn't imagine my employer not matching my 401K dollar for dollar up to 10%. I honestly believe that is getting by cheap for them. With a stock market that is more shaky than the faults in California, it will take more contributions from your employer to off set inflation, and potential losses.
Rocky
I will tell you what I'm hearing down here they are trying to pass a road toll on a highway between Dallas and Austin that will cost a buisnessman or woman approx. $11-14K a year to use the road weekly. :surprise:
I'm very frusterated as a citizen of this country that all are important assets are being baught up by foreign country's. I'm very scared of our future, not just mine, but yours. I'm ready for a 3rd party to run for seats in our government.
My perfect president would be the mentality of independents like Lou Dobbs or Dr. Michael Savage.
Lou Dobbs, I agree with 100% of the time and it feels weird or strange. I am a registered democrat, but find myself moving away from my party over there position on border control, and many other domestic and foreign isssues. I am finding more republicans are seeing the light and even a few are saying it's not worth selling our country for big buisness or allow the continuation of illegal imigration. Call me a protectionist or a isolationist, but deep in my heart I care about the direction of our country. (Canada included)
BTW- My aunt is 46 (I think) so she has quite a few years left. However her job might not be there in the not so distant future. China is manufactoring Multec-3 fuel injectors and rumor is once they can perfect the building of fuel injectors, Delphi might close the doors. The sad thing is she made almost $14 an hour before General Electric shut the doors back in the mid 80's. :surprise: That shows you how little progression the U.S. has made in the last 20+ years and one could actually realistically afford a house without having to put up their great grand child for collateral.
Now a crooked politician, (forget his name) on Lou Dobbs tonight wanted to blame unions over their not being no U.S. company's wanting to take over the seaports. :surprise: Lou Dobbs was like what ???? *laughter* What do unions got to do with U.S. company's buying seaports? *He paused* and said because of labor costs.
Well last time I(Rocky) checked some of the U.S.
employees(laborers) on the seaports are Teamsters that are working for foreign country's. However the mamagement is strictly made up of the foreign company.
Rocky
It's both the UAW and the Management that have created the current problem.
The UAW has made labor costs uncompetitive... And management has done a wonderful job in creating products that no one wants.
If it was simply one problem OR the other, the Big Three could limp along.
IE - a hot product that is a little more expensive than it's competition. Or a dull, cheap, uncomfortable car that was dirt cheap. Either way, the car would sell.
But not a dull, cheap, uncomfortable car that is more expensive than it's competition.
How bout a 3rd problem ? Corporate America and our other baught off cowards in suits (politicians) has made it uncomfortable to live in this country. We pay more and get less for our hard earned money. We are swimming in
"Treasury Notes" without a flotation device. :sick:
Got a question: How many of you will buy Chinese Made Cars such as Chin-E Class Mercedes carbon copy's
(made by a chinese automaker) or Chinse made GM Buicks ????
I wonder if these carbon copy's will hurt the residuals on Mercedes Benz (not real thing) if imported ?
Lemko, you might get your CSX Lucerne or DTS for $10,000.
However Wagoner, would probably ask the same amount of money as a U.S. built.
Rocky
I say, let's sell them the Brooklyn Bridge ;-) Sorry about trying to inject some humor into this serious topic. IMHO, the whole port thing is just a whole lot about nothing. We'd all be in big trouble if we really depend on the port operators for security checks, foreign or domestic, simply because port's profit is dependent on volume . . . that means the less check the better. It's just an opportunity for the political party out of power to attack the one in power; if the Dems were in White House, Clinton would be signing the deal, and the GOP would be crying national security. Bill actually was advising DPW on the purchase.
In reality, I think the purchase is classic late-cycle behavior, just like Mitsubishi spending its wad on buying Rockefeller Center shortly before Japanese stock market crashed in 1989. Those crony capitalists have some of the worst timings in the open free market place. The only people with even worse timng are those writing books and articles bemoaning how all those foreign crony capitalists are about to take over the world . . . rest assured such purchases almost always never pay off; considering that the US marine can take over any port in Dubai on short notice, does anyone actually believe that the UAE is actually going to have any real control over any American ports? as opposed to derive some below-par rent income from a piece of over-priced real estate, having their wad of cash forward-discounted on the current low interest rate on the eve of a long interest rate secular up turn, the worst timing for real estate, yet again! In reality, it's all about dollar repatriation . . . just like those clever schemes to sell Japanese Hawaii real estate in the 80's that are still under water today and ready to take another dive, and all those PriceLine stocks at hundreds of dollars per share to the sheiks in '99 and 2000.
As much as I dislike both political parties, I'm equally afraid of a real third party. Chances are equally good if not better that the third party takes the worst of both parties instead of the best of them. For some strange reason, Nationalism and Socialism both have great traction with the psyche of people in general, the world over. We know the result when the two come together, as they came together 70 odd years ago.
-President Michael Savage in 2008' with Lou Dobbs as his running mate. :P I'd vote for those 2 over the current selection of corruption in both party's. Bill Clinton, is supporting the Dubai ports deal, while Hillary has taken a strong stance against it from the beginning. :mad: at Bill :mad:
Rocky