By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
How are americans suppose to compete with $100 per month wages??? gagrice, would go to Walley World, and buy up a small diesel pick-up made by them. He would be waiting eagerly for those "falling prices" :sick:
-Rocky
-Rocky
The western world should simply refuse to import poisoned slave labor sweatshop goods. The criminal nation of China needs the west a lot more than vice versa. They can move up to approaching western levels of socio-economic justice, we shouldn't have to move down to their level. They must shape up, we shouldn't dumb down.
Of course, the globalists are working to destroy the western world via spurious "free trade" and insane unsustainable immigration, so such unity is unlikely in the face of economic and social problems they have caused. A brave new world is approaching.
To each his own....the rest of the world will not be denied low cost transportation.
Live with it.
Regards,
OW
I read somewhere that Barry plans to give $4800 in tax bonuses to workers earning below a multiple of the poverty wage. And that's for each in a household. So that can be $9600. That's the way I understood the post during the discussion of the various ways the bills deliver the welfare these days by calling it a tax rebate even to those owning no taxes.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Yeah, real depressing all those extra steel worker jobs that will pay taxes here. I guess they will have no purchasing power.
Regards,
OW
For a time, unionized workers can enjoy higher-than-market compensation, and job security. To the extent that union labor costs are higher and therefore the profits of unionized firms are lower (GM, Ford), investment expenditures will flow into the nonunion sector (Toyota, Honda, Nissan, see CD post on Honda's new Indiana plant) and away from unionized firms. As a result, the growth of productivity and employment, as well as market share, will tend to lag in the unionized sector (from 90% market share in the 1960s for the Big 3, to 47% today).
The larger the wage premium of unionized firms and the greater the guarantees of job stability, the greater the incentive to shift production toward nonunion operations (Honda, Toyota). Empirical evidence shows that industries and companies with the largest union wage premiums and greatest guarantees of job stability (Big Three) are precisely the industries and companies with the largest declines in the employment of unionized workers.
Bottom Line: Gains in the short run of higher-than-market wages and benefits, and greater job security, eventually undermine the companies employing unionized workers, destroying hundreds of thousands of union jobs in the long run (172,000 UAW jobs lost at GM alone). The more success a union has in the short-run, the greater the failure in the long run. The discipline of the market eventually dominates and prevails.
Regards,
OW
Lots of rice and dog. Then we can get two - eight hour jobs or four - four part time gigs.
Then there is fact that they are indeed communist. Most of the so called "new millionaires" are but high level communist and their families. We refuse to trade with Cuba. Then the way folks here detest socialism, we should have no problem telling them to become a democracy. Well, that didn't work in Iraq either.
Its just pathetic to allow the multi-nationals to run the country. We have already seen what they can do as they wrote deregulation about eight years ago. The latest is the Citi Bank trying to order a private jet with bail out money, prior it was the Merrill lynch redecorating the executive offices with millions of bail out money, then AIG and the spa, did we forget one? Oh yeah, the outrageous bonuses on Wall Street. They are but kicking sand into the eyes of taxpayers. I expect a TARP1, TARP2, and maybe a TARP3 in this ongoing drama. They have done 20% of the required capitalization of the banking institution's. So much for laissez faire.
I could fix that. If all of the labor pool was union, then the choice would be to leave things alone. Much, like the De Beers diamond cartel. They charge folks for way above market/going rate of diamonds. They are as arrogant as they come in that they put out their stones/package to jewelers and they have no choice but to buy or offend the cartel. Make no mistake about it, when parity is reached in this mindless globalization, unions will have no problem getting the entire work force of the planet represented. Then the discipline of the market eventually dominates and prevails only if there is a substitute.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/198202/diamond
Not really - not if you're talking about China. Ambitious businessmen join the Chinese Communist Party not because they're true believers - hardly anyone outside of Cuba or North Korea takes Communism seriously - but to network with other ambitious businessmen. You'll have a hard time finding any recent CCP member who actually believes in Karl Marx.
So much for laissez faire.
I don't agree, but I will congratulate you for spelling "laissez faire" correctly. You've come a long way in a few short months. No need to thank me, DD. I was just doing my job.
The substitute is balance. There is no need for unions if balance/fair wages is the business model for employment. This will happen very soon since the added cost of representation is wasted on coerce practices that in the end costs more to all parties involved. You don't need high wages if you live within your means both in business and in private. This will be the new age. Markets are adjusting. The rich become poorer and the poorer become richer.
Regards,
OW
Hey, imagineer this one for a sec. GM goes bankrupt and Chryslerberus/Fiat remain, selling Americans the 500 and Jeeps and some Ram pick-em-ups and then some more?
I'd rather see Chryslerberus/Fiat's on the nation's highways and biways than GM socialista-mobiles.
Oh, and my old buddy A. Mulally and Ford have managed to not need a bailout from the Guv-Mint. Shouldn't this be mentioned as a credit to those dudes, huh?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
The laissez faire babble that floats around has nothing to do with liberty or freedom or progress. It will result in a corporate oligarchy. We're heading there already with all of the corporate and financial special interest groups in DC pulling the puppet strings of every worthless political candidate who is allowed to ascend to office. More TARPs, more unjustifiable bonuses and perks. Those guys are terrorists and traitors, and deserve to be punished as such.
If you want to see loss of freedom of speech look no further than across the Canadian border. Of course their constitution does not guarantee that freedom. Our freedom of speech is also being questioned. Maybe we will get another Sedition act.
Mullaly did ONE thing that GM and Chrysler did not do. Hock the family jewels. Even the Ford oval has been hocked for credit. Ford basically has no assets left. The creditors own them. When they go to the government for the loan by the 2nd half of this year we will see they have no assets to get a loan.
What's worse having no assets, or assets that are worthless and $80 billion in debt as GM has? Do you think that GM in a good year has enough assets to cover their debt?
So that ONE move means Mulally earned his strategic value in a way that Wagoner did not, correct? And it's my understanding that GM is insolvent with >$50B in debt. Not sure that is any different than Ford's "basically no assets left". Or is it?
Regards,
OW
If GM goes chapter 7 who gets the assets, in order? The government, bondholders, stockholders?
So right now it looks like GM has loans from the government and the government gets the money first and then the bondholders and then the stock holders.
Ford is in the same boat except the loans came from private loan companies.
GM has borrowed $4 billion so far. Ford just borrowed another $10 billion in addition to Mulally said Ford was in a better situation than its rivals because it borrowed more than $23 billion in 2006, using most of the company's assets as security, including its well-known blue oval logo.
Either way both are in trouble and just because Ford was able to get the money out 3 years ago and GM is taking it now does not tell who is in worse shape.
I guess all I am saying is that do not let the Ford PR people let you think they are in better shape because they have not taken a government loan. They are borrowing as much or more but it comes from a different source. Sure you can be pissed because GM's came from our pocket but do not think that Ford has a better chance of survival.
But my original point is the same, will there be any assets on which the government can loan to Ford on? Supposedly the government has first rights to GM's assets. Who will have Fords?
And the UAW knows this and we will continue to see the Ford UAW give the same concessions as GM's.
Yes - they are loans, secured by assets of the institutions. "After five years, if there appear to be shortfalls or losses to the budget from this program, financial institutions—whether or not they participated in the plan—will be asked to make payments to recoup those losses by legislation to be crafted at the time."
http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/media/TARP_2_Sept_29_08.pdf
Executive incentive pay over $500,000 each will not be tax deductible.
I saw it first hand on my aunt's 1980 Subaru wagon. After the first winter was the blistered paint. Second winter - rust spots the size of golf balls. Third winter - baseball-sized holes. Fourth winter, auntie trades Subie for new Ford.
On secret ballot elections, there is Emplyee Free Choice Act (card check), that Pelosi/Democrats want that would support union organizing such as UAW might like to do. UAW sympathizers in non-union plants would be free to coerce their fellow employees to sign union-yes cards. The card-check procedure would eliminate the need for NLRB conducted secret ballot elections at company plants.
I also might get involved in the construction of facilities to hold kangaroo courts for those accused...it's the American way and all, just being a patriot. Then of course I'll move my HQ to the Caribbean or Middle East to avoid taxes...
As soon as taxpayer $ is used then the taxpayer/legislator/president has the right to complain and stick their nose into. Similarly a stock-holder has the right to stick their nose into cany corporation's business and complain.
I don't know what any of this has to do with the UAW though, other than the UAW of GM and Chrysler now work for a corporation that the government and taxpayer now has a say in.
The UAW and the execs of the D3 now have to figure out how to redistribute the reduced income they have. They can cut advertising, brands, models, executive pay, workers, UAW workers, pay per worker, cut pensioners benefits and pay ...
It should not be up to the government or me to figure that out. That is an internal GM issue. All companies will have to have figure this out during these economic times.
I think the taxpayers should have the right to vote on whether the domestics are unionized or not. If they are staying in business on our money. Seems only fair we should vote on how it gets spent.
Chrysler notified UAW locals of the plan today, said a union source who asked not to be identified. Automotive News obtained a copy of the notice.
Chrysler wants to move veteran workers off its rolls to eventually bring on hires who will earn half the $28-an-hour wage of current veteran workers and half their benefits. The carmaker employs about 38,000 workers represented by the UAW.
Chrysler also must bring its labor costs in line with Japanese transplant automakers by Feb. 17. That's when the company is required to justify a federal rescue loan of $4 billion. General Motors has the same timeline to justify a federal loan commitment of $13.4 billion.
Chrysler spokeswoman Shawn Morgan declined to comment.
The buyout incentives are similar to those offered last year but with a couple of new wrinkles, the union source said.
Retirement-eligible workers who leave will receive a $50,000 incentive plus a voucher of $25,000 for a new Chrysler vehicle, according to the notice. Last year the incentive was $70,000.
Workers who take a buyout and leave with no retiree health care benefits get $75,000 and a $25,000 car voucher, the union source said. The incentive was $100,000 last year.
Another group now is eligible for full retirement benefits: workers age 55 or older with 10 years of service, according to the notice.
This is the age of Aquarius!
Regards,
OW
Actually I don't think anyone other than the workers have that right. Management and stockholders, nor the government vote for the union. The workers make that vote and I believe workers anywhere have the right to be represented by a union, even in a right to work state. The real issue is can they force their co-workers join once they bring the union in. I don't think they can in a RTW state, but in many states, once the union is in they can force all wageearners to at least pay the dues reguardless if they join the union, It's illegal to "break" the union and both sided have rules and laws to follow.
Don't confuse "the business" with "the workers". Management represents the stockholders interest in running the company. The workers are hired to provide the labor necessary, not to run the company and they are simply represented as a group by the union.
I agree!!! I should be able to also have a voice on if I want imports on my shores or not since my taxes without my permission went to fund some of these transplant projects!!!
-Rocky
-Rocky
1080's? Late 1970's to 1980, wasn't the Ford Pinto killing its owners from gas tank explosions? I guess the fear of death diverted the owner's attention away from rust problems....
Do you have any idea what year this is? Were you even alive in 1980?
I'm sorry you are having such a hard time finding a job. Didn't you tell them about your "Master's Degree"?
Of course you are right there. I was wondering what happens when the bankruptcy court voids a UAW contract. I would assume the company and the Union must renegotiate under NLRB laws. Because this bailout along with all the rest is so convoluted and probably illegal by some law on the books. I was just thinking out loud where the taxpayer becomes part owner of the company. I know they are calling it a LOAN. Yet like so many of the Sub Prime loans, we know that GM will never pay it back. This is not the 1980s and GM is not being run by Lee Iococca.
I mean, when a huge worldwide Company already owes several creditor's billions of dollars, why worry about doing the right thing, like Lee Iacocca did in the 80's, and pay back the Fed's?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
You need to complain to your state legislature. I doubt any of your Federal Income tax went to support the Imports. At least not since just after WW2.
You have to know you are fighting a losing battle. Each year the D3 slice more UAW jobs. The US content goes down each year. My Sequoia has more US content than the current top of the content wars. The F150 has the most at 80%. It is down from 95% in 2007, when my Sequoia was 85%. UAW workers in the US are not doing well competing.
In the wake of increased competition in the industry, Chrysler Group, Ford Motor Co., and General Motors Corp. (GM) are no longer referred to as the "Big Three" because their market share of U.S. vehicle sales has been much diminished; the U.S. market share of these carmakers, now dubbed the "Detroit Three," fell below 50% for the first time in July 2007.
While these changes have occurred, the U.S. motor vehicle parts industry has also become more international: Domestic carmakers rely more on imported parts, foreign carmakers increasingly use parts that were produced in the U.S., and foreign parts companies have established production operations in North America. In 2006, about 25% of parts used in the U.S. were imported, and approximately another 25% were produced by U.S.-based operations of foreign parts makers.
In such a context, the distinction between "American" and "foreign" vehicles has become blurred. The press has noted that some models produced by the American-owned Detroit Three carmakers have lower domestic content than vehicles produced in the U.S. by foreign-owned carmakers, such as Honda and Toyota. For example, in model year 2006, the Ford Mustang had 65% domestic content and the Chevrolet Suburban 67%-both less than the Honda Accord at 70% and the Toyota Camry at 80%.
So your grand plan of tariffs could backfire and cost the domestic brands more market share than the imports. If you plan to revolt, better get with it. There is a strong move to document every round of ammo you buy. I don't think guillotines are being outlawed yet.
Last I checked, people vote with their wallets and it's obvious which way they've been voting.
Ha Ha Ha !!!
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/data?pid=avimage&iid=iB_av9KMX1RU