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
I like my car. Somebody built it for me. I don't want to cut their pensions.
What's it to me if they get a $3000 a month pension, or whatever? They worked hard and are now enjoying their golden years, I got a really nice car with leather seats and an MP3 port and automatic AC.
If the government didn't bail out the auto industry, were they intending to give me a tax return for the money they didn't spend? You know as well as I that it will just go into another 2 billion dollar fighter plane.
Now if the Auto Industry STOLE my money and spent it on beer and cigarettes, I'd be ticked off.
But they didn't (and least I dont' think so). They made Malibus and Volts and Dodge Rams...oops, excuse me.... RAMS....and I'm not paying to air drop food into Detroit, so I'm okay with this.
Retirement benefits should not be unsustainable.
This goes double if the taxpayers are shouldering the risk of their own retirements, plus those of a special class of people who not only get great benefits, but can offload their own retirement risks to those same taxpayers. That is not an equitable system.
I appreciate all of the hard work everybody does. People in private industry risk their lives and save lives, too. Plenty of blue and white collar workers sacrifice themselves physically and emotionally to support their families and to be responsible and productive in our society.
Having "protected classes" of people who soak others is offensive - whether it be the overpaid CEOs (as fintail likes to point out) or workers who get guarantees of benefits for life in a time when most workers don't get those same types of guarantees. But on a dollar value, the numerous retired workers from unionized pension and benefits contracts dwarf the effects on society of upper-management golden parachutes. So if we're going to vilify those people (and I think we should), then we also should be looking at the unsustainable retirements of some workers.
It was these exact types of benefits that helped the D2 fail. Along with clearly poor management and decision-making. But both of those situations contributed to the D2 failures. I think most reasonable people can admit that.
As for the auto industry. It is about 3.5% of our GDP. Not all that important. At least not as important as many people seem to think. Like Australia, how long do you continue to subsidize businesses that are not making money?
And yes we subsidize the military machine with $2 billion aircraft. How many jobs does that create? Military equipment is probably our largest export business, sadly enough. That is about all we sell that other countries want.
Boy do I ever agree with that statement. Not just public employees, but anyone from the greedy CEO to the welfare cheat. Reading about the Aussie solution to failing business, there is a good lesson for US.
Banks nails two of the great myths. First, more taxpayer subsidies cannot save jobs in an uncompetitive industry. How many times does this truth need to be demonstrated in this country? Second, many workers employed in the distribution, sales and servicing of cars do not depend on local manufacturing.
One of the most spurious arguments is that other nations subsidise their car industries. Gosh. Many other nations have busted budgets and uncompetitive industry as well. Since when did the duplication of failed policy abroad become the justification for failed policy at home?
(amen to this statement)
"This is not a new story - it has been going on for a long time. I think people are sceptical about this request for more money from Holden. The public (is) more sceptical about whether subsidies work. I don't think they want governments chasing companies down the road with a blank cheque."
Australia produces only 225,000 vehicles, compared with 407,000 in 2004. Such low volumes are a "real disadvantage" when the industry is becoming more globally competitive.
By comparison, China makes 15.5 million cars, Japan 8.5 million, Germany 5.4 million, Brazil 2.6 million and France 1.7 million.
Much of the argument is that because taxpayer assistance in Australia is less than in other nations, it should be continued. This is nonsense. The only valid argument is whether taxpayer assistance is fair for our society and efficient for our economy.
Now, some eight workers at the plant, which employs about 1,600, say they thought they were simply agreeing to have a secret vote on bringing in the union, when in fact, they were signing cards professing their support for it. The workers also say that when they objected, they were told they had to go to the local union hall in order to reclaim the cards. The National Right to Work Foundation filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board.
You can bet they would face intimidation at the Union Hall.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/27/tennessee-autoworkers-claim-were-tricked-by- - -uaw/
The stakes are enormous. If the VW plant is organized, it would likely begin an ugly domino effect that will lead to all of the nonunion Southern auto plants, and other companies as well, falling to union forces.
So who would be the winners, if the UAW successfully invades?
The union bosses, of course. The South is a plum they've been lusting after for years.
The bosses have watched as private-sector unions have bled out for decades. The UAW alone has lost 75% of its membership since 1980. Fewer dues-paying members mean fewer dollars and perks for the bosses. They are desperate for the cash that makes their lives easy and a return to the raw cartel power, political clout and unearned privilege they once enjoyed.
And the losers? Start with the workers. The VW employees don't want the UAW meddling in their affairs.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/102813-676948-union-tries-to-organize-t- - ennessee-vw-factory.htm
Every industrialized government IN THE WORLD subsidizes industries that need to become competitive in world markets.
If you want an example of the effects of laissez-faire on an auto and motorcycle industry, look no further than the UK.
I think an argument can be made that the UK built crap no one wanted. Much like GM and C. In a LF system you don't tax the corporations into oblivion as the UK does and we are doing. Tax the rich and leave the corporations with enough to expand. High corporate taxes and tax loopholes are the problem in the USA. Gives the advantage to big corps like GE, AAPL and BH to avoid taxes while screwing the little business without a huge staff of tax attorneys. LF Capitalism has been extinct in the USA for almost 100 years.
they were cash poor automakers for the most part, and stuck with antiquated designs. But the talent and intelligence were certainly there. There was no leadership from above, either from the managers or the government.
What's that supposed to mean? Sounds like empty rhetoric.
What's a company supposed to do if no taxes are collected? Build their own roads to get their product to markets? Start their own elementary school to teach their future workers how to read? Install some machine gun nests to protect the plant from the Commies (or the union goonions?)
Would you really accept that in this country, I mean, allow such a thing to happen?
i think most Americans wouldn't stand for seeing, say, Ford Chrysler and GM wiped off the face of the earth by foreign products.
It should be obvious when companies like Apple set up shop in Ireland to avoid horrendous corporate taxes dumped on them by the Feds and the States. There is NO incentive to expand manufacturing in the USA for Apple. Other than a little bragging rights. I am still waiting for this to happen.
Of course the Unions here don't add any enticement to manufacture in the USA.
i think most Americans wouldn't stand for seeing, say, Ford Chrysler and GM wiped off the face of the earth by foreign products.
I would not shed a tear if all three were gone tomorrow. As long as there is a market for cars someone will make them. If the Feds would butt out of the process it would work a lot better. With a legal bankruptcy GM and C could have shed themselves of the over priced old workers. They could have paid the new workers more and made a much better work place. As it is you have some old dude hobbling around the plant making $30 per hour and a hard working younger person making $15 per hour. Very poor way to maintain good people and morale.
How much did you mourn the 4500 UAW workers dumped on the welfare roles in Fremont by our illustrious leader? Those jobs are gone forever. Tesla will never succumb to the UAW.
Besides the D3 have absolutely no vehicle I would be interested in buying. So why should I care if they survive? Especially using my tax dollars to keep them going. The consequences will be NO different if they fail than when the buggy manufacturers closed up shop. Those losing a job usually suffer a while. Now the Feds just rape the tax payers to feed those on welfare.
I'd call that an optimistic stretch. Perhaps in some segments. Truly being competitive would mean gaining market share. Is that occurring? Perhaps for C, but I don't think so for GM.
After all, if a law passed benefits 98% and disadvantages 2%, well that's just not good enough for some Americans. They seem to require some sort of perfect society where nobody gets the short end, ever.
I think Thor, long out of work, is available -- a rugged individualistic type, and tanned, rested and ready:)
I know you want to drag us into a political discussion. Just no way EVER you and I will agree. We live in different Worlds.
Besides, beating on auto unions is beating on a dead horse, as someone else just pointed out. Their influence on American economy is minor in 2013.
If you wanted to spend time on past union abuses, then we would be spending time on past management abuses, and go round and round all over again.
The diminishment of the american middle class is really not part of this topic, as it encompasses far more complex influences than an old, tired labor union.
BUT, that is not the topic. The topic is the UAW. It was the past abuses by the UAW that have had long term effects on the present. I was impacted in a very big way by the 1998 UAW strike. June of 1998 I was in ID driving my 1996 3/4 ton Chevy 4X4 when a deer committed suicide using my truck I loved. It was not drivable and I did not have time to wait around Sun Valley for a repair shop to fix it. I considered buying a Suburban 4X4 when I bought the truck. The GM dealer in Hailey happened to have two that were the last shipped prior to the strike. Well that did not make it easy negotiating for sure. And I ended up with a dark color I would never have ordered. In fairness under the circumstances the dealer did give me a fair trade-in on my 2 year old wrecked PU truck. The UAW pukes cost me at least $3000 more than I would have paid normally. And the strike was while GM was bleeding red ink. For nothing more than their crazy work rules and trying to run the company. So you can blame it on the management for bowing to the UAW, and that would be legitimate. I would have locked them out and proceeded to hire scabs.
Obviously a lot of people did, which is one of the reasons GM failed. Both the management and the union helped do their part. Now can they survive another recession? It's easy to look healthy when the trough is full and you are pigging out. Time will tell.
Speaking of Ford. It looks like they are doing most of their expansion outside the USA. Just gearing up for the UAW to show their ugly teeth.
Germany builds twice as many cars as the USA and pays its labor unions about twice as much as well.
And at VW's Chattanooga plant, starting non-union workers get $14.50 an hour, and $19.50 after 3 years (c. 2010). Average German union worker get $67/hour in wages and benefits. Average US union worker $34 in wages and benefits.
Source: Forbes Magazine, 12/21/2011
The reason? Due to intricate levels of conflict resolution. Management - union relations in Germany are cooperative, and in the U.S., adversarial.
As this interesting article "Remapping Debate" points out (see link), the idea that high wages in the automobile industry is detrimental to its success is rather soundly refuted.
http://www.remappingdebate.org/article/tale-two-systems
" the salient difference is that, in Germany, the automakers operate within an environment that precludes a race to the bottom; in the U.S., they operate within an environment that encourages such a race.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and let us know! Post a pic of your new purchase or lease!
MODERATOR
2015 Subaru Outback 3.6R / 2024 Kia Sportage Hybrid SX Prestige
In the so-called "right to work" states, you do get to work, but in terms of wages, you get screwed IMO.
This article indicates the Germans want a Union push here to protect their diminishing share. I don't think the NLRB will allow a German style work council. It is considered a company union.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304672404579183560759486136
Interestingly the German auto workers are similar to our UAW workers of the past. There was a time the UAW line worker made 2-3 times as much as any other manufacturing or low education job. Will the same happen in Germany? Looks like it already has.
According to a DIW study published last year, wages fell in real terms for all but the top 10 percent of earners in Germany between 2005 and 2010. This had a particularly acute effect on those earning the least. "As a rule, the lowest earners spend the highest portion of their income," study co-author Karl Brenke explains.
Low-wage workers also end up spending a much higher proportion of their income on mandatory health insurance, as any income above €46,000 in annual salary is not subject to premium payments. Thus, while a senior engineer earning €150,000 a year is only required to pay 6.6 percent of his total income in social security contributions, a laborer who makes only a tenth as much ends up paying 20.7 percent.
Increasingly, such wage disparity is leading to social inequality in Germany, a country that strives to ensure prosperity for all.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/low-paid-workers-struggle-despite-ge- rmany-s-booming-economy-a-832724.html
Gee, can I get a grant to come to such brilliant conclusions?
Germany is still having an identity crisis---they really are the 600 lb. gorilla in Europe but are very reluctant to flex their power, for obvious reasons. But someone has to be the European superpower and lead the way and there aren't really any other qualified applicants.
I think the GM mistake was a two tier UAW contract. I have no problem with Scheduled raises. But when the guy at the bottom knows he cannot reach the top, he is not going to work as hard.
I think VW management are going to regret ever giving the UAW a crack in the door to enter. Thankfully this is NOT Germany. I would not do well in that repressive society.
History suggests he is right.
By the way the UAW or Private Sector Unions have not been the cause. They are only as powerful as the Rich allow them to be.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/Jul/28/welfare-capital-of-the-us/
A bankruptcy filing by Desert Hot Springs, a city of 26,000 about 110 miles east of Los Angeles, would make it the third California city along with San Bernardino and Stockton to seek court protection from creditors.
"It's obvious we can't continue with salaries and pensions that are in the stratosphere, no matter how much love there is for our police department," said Russell Betts, a council member.
Aguer said nearly 70 percent of the city's budget was consumed by police costs, most of which were spent on salaries and pension payments to the California Public Employees' Retirement System, or Calpers.
Another city bankrupted by the Unions
It was the overly generous UAW Pension plan that cost the rest of US $27 Billion we will NEVER see again. How long before the UAW plan is back to critical needing another injection of cash? Where is the infusion for the other pension plans that are underfunded?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100929269
The companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 collectively reported that at the end of their most recent fiscal years, their pension plans had obligations of $1.68 trillion and assets of just $1.32 trillion. The difference of $355 billion was the largest ever, S.& P. said in a report.
Of the 500 companies, 338 have defined-benefit pension plans, and only 18 are fully funded. Seven companies reported that their plans were underfunded by more than $10 billion, with the largest negative figure, $21.6 billion, reported by General Electric.
The other companies with more than $10 billion in underfunding were AT&T, Boeing, Exxon Mobil, Ford Motor, I.B.M. and Lockheed Martin. JPMorgan Chase had the largest amount of overfunding, $1.6 billion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/business/pension-plans-increasingly-underfunde- d-at-largest-companies.html?_r=0
The UAW won't be happy to see their earning power decrease though.
However, the real problem is with our SS which is really in debt in future obligations. Tie in the SSI disability being used as unemployment insurance replacement, and we owe trillions projected into the future and it's growing.
I just received an email/newsletter from our Senator Sherrod Brown telling how he wants to increase our social security payments. I remember when SS was only a stipend to add to what people themselves had saved for retirement. Now it's a full-fledged plan and being increased. Soon, it's going to be 1/2 worker for 10 retirees. Think that's going to work?
In summary, I don't get the omission of SS as a government retirement play and being way behind on payment of obligtations for future payments when talking about the various plans for other political entities.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I know 4 men personally under 50 that are on SSI or are in the final stages of getting SSI. I am with you that it is unsustainable.
And for Stever, we have inflation. I don't know of anything we need to survive that has not gone up over the last 5 years. Unless you don't drive and can survive on Beans, Rice and Bananas.
I would not like to see my Teamster Pension lowered. I also would not like to see it go bankrupt. The GM UAW plan was unsustainable. The actuaries should have reduced the payments and dropped the gold plated HC decades ago. They were not paying attention. Same goes for many pension plans. You cannot project 8% increase when interest rates are near zero. The Fed should raise interest back to at least 5%. That would make saving money worthwhile. Instead of gambling in the Stock market.
"Inflation is good for business. It lubricates the wheels of commerce, allowing businesses to set prices at a level at which decent profits can be made. It automatically reduces wages over time, meaning workers have to return to employers each year simply to keep pace with the dropping value of their incomes." (Reuters)
Then again, maybe it's not a great idea if the UAW goes back to Detroit every year to negotiate wages. :-)
SS is an easy fix - just keep raising the age when you can get full benes. Easy from an actuarial standpoint, not so easy politically. Oh, and make it needs based too.
You're welcome, no charge.
The strain on social services and SS and SSI is directly linked to corporations refusing to pay enough to the workforce.
So most American workers have been spinning their wheels, income-wise, for most of their lives. There's the illusion of progress, but the numbers don't back that up for most people.
The starting wage at the BMW plant in SC is $15/hr plus benefits plus overtime. I don't know how it progresses from that point forward.
I'm not going to argue whether the wage of $15/hour is better or worse than $50/hour, but in will say that in our area of SC, for the educational/skill levels being sought out by BMW, the $15 wage is highly competitive locally, and the working conditions are light years ahead of those that many of the current BMW workers experienced in the textile mills as recent as 2 decades ago.
When hiring for new positions is announced, there is always an overwhelming response to the hiring call.
I'll leave it to others to discuss the pros and cons of wage levels.
And, those benefits are funded by the taxpayers.
"The rejection surprised observers from Wall Street to Tokyo, where many had expected the union to back a plan that would have replaced their pension with a second savings-contribution plan and raised healthcare costs in exchange for Boeing locating the 777X factory in Washington state, sustaining an estimated 20,000 jobs for a generation.
"It was a no? Really?" said a Japanese government official who helps to oversee Japan's aerospace industry.
That's a bit simplistic.
Corporations exist to be profitable. Their management is paid for, and expected to, maximize those profits in legal ways. Their "refusal to pay" is really their successfully executing what they are designed to do. It's not as if most of them are doing something illegal, which is one implication of that statement.
If they aren't paying enough then there won't be enough job takers. Seems to me that plenty of people want those jobs at those wages. Are you suggesting that the government should set pay scales?
Change the tax laws if the government feels the tax receipts are inadequate. Of course, those corporations might leave the country and take the jobs with them, too.
Competition is a [non-permissible content removed]. We are competing on a world stage. Those who feel that we could put our heads in the sand and "protect" all of our jobs are kidding themselves.
As a kid, I remember Kennedy talking about how the US had a challenge to meet the future needs for all the engineering jobs that would exist. The nation was proud of landing men on the moon. We all just *knew* things were advancing.
Today we withdraw, we de-emphasize science (global warming? evolution? - nah!), we subsidize sloth, and we watch other countries take the mantle of our previous successes. China has high-speed trains and launches men into orbit. We can't launch anybody into orbit, and we have one pathetic high speed train.
The US has gotten fat and lazy, and is on the decline, while the spoiled children cry how unfair it all is.
Nonetheless, it would be better for the younger workers, than having no job at all.
The vote was 67% to reject, so it wasn't a sham vote at least.
I would say the so called safety net had the negative effect of making people less likely to try harder to move up the food chain. Too many people have more cash to spend taking the easy road. I don't see where the government has tried to protect jobs. The Democrats fought against tariffs in the late 1800s. By the end of the FDR regime we had few tariffs and the burden of running the country was all on the backs of the workers. Now that the 3rd World is emerging with billions of hard working people willing to do what ever it takes. Our workforce has become fat and lazy. Most banana republics are dictatorships, including ours.
tlong Competition is a [non-permissible content removed]. We are competing on a world stage. Those who feel that we could put our heads in the sand and "protect" all of our jobs are kidding themselves.
Today we withdraw, we de-emphasize science (global warming? evolution? - nah!), we subsidize sloth, and we watch other countries take the mantle of our previous successes. China has high-speed trains and launches men into orbit. We can't launch anybody into orbit, and we have one pathetic high speed train.
The US has gotten fat and lazy, and is on the decline, while the spoiled children cry how unfair it all is.
That says a lot about America.
Funny to me when folks blame the big corps, like they were some sort of altruistic grandfather. The left does not want Corporations to be considered people yet they want them to have humanistic traits. ????
Charleston isn't such a bad place to live and work.