Bailout Observations

[top gun]

Did you read the stupid article? Unbelievable how shamelessly liberals lie, or are unapologetically ignorant.

The fact is Andy that the actual wages are very similar isn't it? In fact the report I read showed that the actual per hour wage at one Toyota plant was $30 per hour compared to a UAW workers $29 and change.

What the difference is, is legacy cost. So let's look at legacy costs. Those were costs negotiated in, in lieu of "at time pay" to pay for workers retirement funds. Seems like a reasonable and compassionate thing to do and it put off the companies from having to pay at the time of these contracts... so they were on-board as well.

Now I'm going to do something I almost never do and agree with you Andy on one portion of your argument. I personally think anything "legacy" in this day and age is a dinosaur benefit that should be phased out.

I say this because in a world economy and the way companies of ever size now buy and sell each other there is just no way of setting up that sort of long tern guarantee anymore. So at least give me that I'm agreeing with you on one fundamental point of your argument OK? We don't always have to be confrontational.

Now here is where we will part company. I believe that since these contracts were already negotiated and agreed to it's the managements responsibility to do the major cuts on their side of the ledger. Just as if they had predicted any other commodity they use was going to be less and they were mistaken. It's their management mistake not the mistake of the working man or woman. If the Union contract was so unworkable that the company would go under then it was managements fiduciary duty to not agree to that contract. Make the Union strike right then and there no matter what happens to the company... because it would happen anyway.

I say (and I see in the papers & on the news) that the Union is ready to continue to agree to cuts as long as, as much is done on the management side. This is TOTALLY fair in my opinion.

 

[BigRob]

O.K., let's see the management-timelines, for all o' those companies "in the ditch".

Well...

Citibank hired a new CEO in 2008, as did Wachovia, as did JP Morgan, shall we continue?

We all know how the Fannie/Freddie CEO debacle turned out. Try doing a little research once in awhile.

 

[BigRob]

Looks like he can't support his claim with any facts.

Looks like you are wrong. And proved yourself wrong on top of that, interesting.

 

[Andy]

The fact is Andy that the actual wages are very similar isn't it? In fact the report I read showed that the actual per hour wage at one Toyota plant was $30 per hour compared to a UAW workers $29 and change.

This ignores the other compensations in the form of benefits. Again, if you provide less company benefits, you can afford to pay more in real dollars per hour. The total cost of employment is the only legitimate measuring stick. Looking at only the hourly wage written on the pay stub, is to see only a fraction of the picture.

What the difference is, is legacy cost. So let's look at legacy costs. Those were costs negotiated in, in lieu of "at time pay" to pay for workers retirement funds. Seems like a reasonable and compassionate thing to do and it put off the companies from having to pay at the time of these contracts... so they were on-board as well.

Now I'm going to do something I almost never do and agree with you Andy on one portion of your argument. I personally think anything "legacy" in this day and age is a dinosaur benefit that should be phased out.

I say this because in a world economy and the way companies of ever size now buy and sell each other there is just no way of setting up that sort of long tern guarantee anymore. So at least give me that I'm agreeing with you on one fundamental point of your argument OK? We don't always have to be confrontational.

A shocking glimmer of intelligence

Now here is where we will part company. I believe that since these contracts were already negotiated and agreed to it's the managements responsibility to do the major cuts on their side of the ledger. Just as if they had predicted any other commodity they use was going to be less and they were mistaken. It's their management mistake not the mistake of the working man or woman. If the Union contract was so unworkable that the company would go under then it was managements fiduciary duty to not agree to that contract. Make the Union strike right then and there no matter what happens to the company... because it would happen anyway.

I say (and I see in the papers & on the news) that the Union is ready to continue to agree to cuts as long as, as much is done on the management side. This is TOTALLY fair in my opinion.[/COLOR]

You must do business totally different than most companies.

Here's how most companies function. You take the cost of producing the product, and subtract that from the price you can sell it at. This is called "profit". From the profits, is where management takes their pay from.

(business 101)

In other words, if the cost of producing a car is $16K, and you can only sell it for $15.5K... does it matter how much management is being paid? No... because the cost of building the car is more than how much the car can sell for. Cost to build is labor + material. Do you see management in that equation? No.

Again, management takes their cut from the profits off of the sales. If the CEO was paid ZERO... the cost to build the car, is still higher than the revenue from the sale. In other words, they are still going bankrupt. What part of this don't you get? Do you operate your business differently?

If anything, by demanding reduced compensation, you reduce the incentive to turn the company around. WaMu for example, the CEO got the job, convinced government to give them a bail out, and then collected his cash and left. WaMu ended up failing WITH Bail-out Baracks tax money giveaway.

 

[Andy]

Looks like you are wrong. And proved yourself wrong on top of that, interesting.

It is amazing to watch someone claim you are wrong, and say you don't have proof, then turn right around and provide the very proof they claimed you didn't have, proving themselves wrong. This is how liberals constantly amaze me with their own sheer ignorance of their very own points.

 

[Unite Our Nation]

Greco,
Is political fighting more important to you than saving our own arses? Seriously. This is how you come across. Don't you think that we should all be considering HOW we can contribute to repairing our economy instead of finger pointing?

As information, the Big 3 do indeed pay TOTAL far more compensation than their rivals...making it IMPOSSIBLE for them to compete. And YES it is the UAW's fault.

He and other Republicans said wages and benefits for employees of Detroit's Big Three should be renegotiated to bring them in line with those paid by Japanese carmakers Toyota, Honda and Nissan in the United States.

Hourly wages for UAW workers at GM factories are about equal to those paid by Toyota Motor Corp. at its older U.S. factories, according to the companies. GM says the average UAW laborer makes $29.78 per hour, while Toyota says it pays about $30 per hour. But the unionized factories have far higher benefit costs.

GM says its total hourly labor costs are now $69, including wages, pensions and health care for active workers, plus the pension and health care costs of more than 432,000 retirees and spouses. Toyota says its total costs are around $48. The Japanese automaker has far fewer retirees and its pension and health care benefits are not as rich as those paid to UAW workers.

Republicans also bitterly opposed tougher environmental rules carmakers would have to meet as part of the House-passed version of the rescue package and the Senate dropped them from its package.

Some Senate Democrats joined Republicans in turning against the House-passed bill - despite increasingly urgent expressions of support from the White House and President-elect Barack Obama for quick action to spare the economy the added pain of a potential automaker collapse"

The above is from CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/11/business/main4661859.shtml

Whether it's $73 (last year) or $69 (current) it doesn't really matter because it's too D@MN MUCH to compete!

 

[top gun]

This ignores the other compensations in the form of benefits. Again, if you provide less company benefits, you can afford to pay more in real dollars per hour. The total cost of employment is the only legitimate measuring stick. Looking at only the hourly wage written on the pay stub, is to see only a fraction of the picture.

No I'm not ignoring it at all but as you look at even your own graph the majority of difference is legacy costs (and that's of course because they've been around much, much longer).

The fact is that there does have to be some change in the overall compensation packages by the American automakers to better compete with the imports. I've never said that wasn't the case... in fact pointed out the problem myself with legacy programs in today's business environment.

The Unions have already acknowlwedged this as well and have been steadily making conscsessions over the last few years as the executives continued to fatten their pay checks and overall benifit and retirement packages.

Union workers costs are obviously only part of the problem. And this isn't Communist China where workers needs are irrelevant.

There has to be a large cut back in executive management wages as well (which would actually help the Unions sell even larger give backs by their members) and the management teams have to produce products the American people actually WANT to buy & can afford to drive. Good quality & modern apperance... good gas mileage... good warranties etc.

I'm just saying EVERYONE has to take the hit together in these companies and not just look at this as a way to bust Unions. Because I can tell you Union workers have done a lot of good for our country and are some of our best most well trained workers.

 

[Andy]

No I'm not ignoring it at all but as you look at even your own graph the majority of difference is legacy costs (and that's of course because they've been around much, much longer).

Japanese also have mult-level pay rates. Unlike domestic Union workers, where every worker is paid exactly the same, Japanese pay workers different rates based on skills needed, experience, difficulty of the job.

In other words, you might find the highest paid Japanese workers to be similar to Union domestic workers, but again, that doesn't tell the whole story.

The Unions have already acknowlwedged this as well and have been steadily making conscsessions over the last few years as the executives continued to fatten their pay checks and overall benifit and retirement packages.

Again, the company is going bankrupt because the cost to produce is higher than the amount it can sell for. How much the overhead is, is completely irrelevant to this dynamic.

Union workers costs are obviously only part of the problem. And this isn't Communist China where workers needs are irrelevant.

Red herring. If the company can not reduce labor costs, it will end up bankrupt, and how will that effect the "needs of the workers"?

There has to be a large cut back in executive management wages as well (which would actually help the Unions sell even larger give backs by their members) and the management teams have to produce products the American people actually WANT to buy & can afford to drive. Good quality & modern apperance... good gas mileage... good warranties etc.

GM has all of these things. People still buy GM cars more than nearly any other manufacture in the US, and by far in the world at larger. GM is the number one auto maker in the world. The problem isn't producing cars people want, it's producing cars people want and still make a profit.

I'm just saying EVERYONE has to take the hit together in these companies and not just look at this as a way to bust Unions. Because I can tell you Union workers have done a lot of good for our country and are some of our best most well trained workers.[/COLOR]

I'm just saying that what matters is labor costs, and nothing else. If labor rates remain the same, and the executives cut their pay to zero, leave their pay alone, or double their pay, the company will fold no matter what. If labor costs are cut, the execs can cut, hike, or leave their pay alone, and the company will survive.

The liberal idiots seem so bent on how much some CEO makes, they are willing to flush logic, reason, and the entire economy (or in this case the company) down the drain for their silly ideology.

 

[Greco]

Greco,
Is political fighting more important to you than saving our own arses? Seriously. This is how you come across. Don't you think that we should all be considering HOW we can contribute to repairing our economy instead of finger pointing?

Well duh, of course. However, you're coming across as a defender of obstuctists. There were Republican senators that voted FOR the Wall Street bailout with no accountablility, no pay reductions, no CEO bonus reductions, etc., then voted against the automotive bailout because factory workers wouldn't have their wages reduced. If there is "political fighting", it's coming from the Republicans.

As information, the Big 3 do indeed pay TOTAL far more compensation than their rivals...making it IMPOSSIBLE for them to compete. And YES it is the UAW's fault.

Hogwash. Your claim is wrong and false.

He and other Republicans said wages and benefits for employees of Detroit's Big Three should be renegotiated to bring them in line with those paid by Japanese carmakers Toyota, Honda and Nissan in the United States.

You don't state who "he" is. But it's a stupid proposition to only expect the factory workers to take a pay hit. Apparently "he" doesn't think the top execuctives should have a pay cut, or no bonuses.

Hourly wages for UAW workers at GM factories are about equal to those paid by Toyota Motor Corp. at its older U.S. factories, according to the companies. GM says the average UAW laborer makes $29.78 per hour, while Toyota says it pays about $30 per hour. But the unionized factories have far higher benefit costs.

GM says its total hourly labor costs are now $69, including wages, pensions and health care for active workers, plus the pension and health care costs of more than 432,000 retirees and spouses. Toyota says its total costs are around $48. The Japanese automaker has far fewer retirees and its pension and health care benefits are not as rich as those paid to UAW workers.

No they don't say that all. That's your interpretation. GM uses the $69 hourly wage, but their number is falsely inflated to include the pensions of RETIRED, not current factory works.

Republicans also bitterly opposed tougher environmental rules carmakers would have to meet as part of the House-passed version of the rescue package and the Senate dropped them from its package.

Well of course they are. Why try to make a vehicle more fuel efficient, less poluting, when campaign contritutors pay you think otherwise?

Some Senate Democrats joined Republicans in turning against the House-passed bill - despite increasingly urgent expressions of support from the White House and President-elect Barack Obama for quick action to spare the economy the added pain of a potential automaker collapse"

The above is from CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4661859.shtml

Whether it's $73 (last year) or $69 (current) it doesn't really matter because it's too D@MN MUCH to compete!

It's also a false and intentionally misleading claim that the the current hourly wage is even close to what Republicans are claiming.

 

[top gun]

Andy;77943]
Again, the company is going bankrupt because the cost to produce is higher than the amount it can sell for. How much the overhead is, is completely irrelevant to this dynamic.

The issue is how to bring down costs. Executive compensation is a COST of doing business whether you understand that or not.

Executive compensation can be funneled right back into the company and hence lower its overall cost of doing business. What you are saying Andy is if you cut the workers to a dollar an hour but paid the CEO $20 trillion dollars a year that company could do just fine because that's not the cost to produce... that's just overhead.

Red herring. If the company can not reduce labor costs, it will end up bankrupt, and how will that effect the "needs of the workers"?

The company must reduce costs. That's not the question. The question is should ALL parties in the company SHARE in this cost cutting. Of course they should. And you look at some of these executive compensation packages and you see one good place to cut real quick.

GM has all of these things. People still buy GM cars more than nearly any other manufacture in the US, and by far in the world at larger. GM is the number one auto maker in the world. The problem isn't producing cars people want, it's producing cars people want and still make a profit.

Andy what's been the top selling car in America for years now? The Toyota Camry.

Used to be the Ford Taurus. The Camry and the Taurus are in the same model class. The Camry cost more than the Taurus.

Americans buy the Camry because it's a much better vehicle... period.

And I can tell you from personal experience. I'd love to drive an American car. I've owned 4 Lincolns and 2 Cadillacs for example. But I drive a Lexus now because it is so superior not only in fit, finish and quietness but gas mileage. It's a full 5 person luxury car that gets 30mpg on the freeway.

American car manufactures just were not thinking ahead. GM came out with Hummer as the Ford Excursion was already being talked about as going extinct. While Toyota and Honda were more into very high quality, problem free, good gas mileage, small and midsize cars & crossover SUV's with good mpg. They still made a large SUV and truck but they were not their focus by any means.

I predict that both the Unions and the Executives will take cuts and significant product line revamping will have to be agreed to, to be given a bailout loan. I have certainty of mind that GM and Ford will come out of this and once again prosper. I have less hope for Chrysler. I think Chrysler may be a dieing breed. But that would open a possibility of more market share for GM & Ford if they had the right vehicles ready to capitalize on it..

 

[Andy]

The issue is how to bring down costs. Executive compensation is a COST of doing business whether you understand that or not.

Executive compensation is taken out of the profits. The labor plus material is higher than the selling price. That is the cost of doing business whether you understand it or not.

Executive compensation can be funneled right back into the company and hence lower its overall cost of doing business. What you are saying Andy is if you cut the workers to a dollar an hour but paid the CEO $20 trillion dollars a year that company could do just fine because that's not the cost to produce... that's just overhead.

Read the chart I posted. Do you see executive pay anywhere in there? No you don't.

Andy what's been the top selling car in America for years now? The Toyota Camry.

Used to be the Ford Taurus. The Camry and the Taurus are in the same model class. The Camry cost more than the Taurus.

Americans buy the Camry because it's a much better vehicle... period.

You are taking one specific model and applying it to the entire industry? Prove that it's much better, without using circular reasoning that "it's much better which is why it sells better, and the reason it sells better is because it's a better car".

And I can tell you from personal experience. I'd love to drive an American car. I've owned 4 Lincolns and 2 Cadillacs for example. But I drive a Lexus now because it is so superior not only in fit, finish and quietness but gas mileage. It's a full 5 person luxury car that gets 30mpg on the freeway.

Now that's for sure. The last good Caddy rolled off the lines in the late 70s. My personal favorite is BMW. If only they made a car big enough for my 6 foot 2 height, I'd get one. I don't know enough about Lincolns to know.

But again, you are taking a very tiny sample of information, and applying it to the entire industry. Most of the information from Consumer reports and Autonews, as well as industry insider magazines, show that quality is nearly on par now.

American car manufactures just were not thinking ahead. GM came out with Hummer as the Ford Excursion was already being talked about as going extinct. While Toyota and Honda were more into very high quality, problem free, good gas mileage, small and midsize cars & crossover SUV's with good mpg. They still made a large SUV and truck but they were not their focus by any means.

Like the Toyota Sequoia? 13/16 MPG

Or Honda Ridgeline? 15/20 MPG

Or how about the Toyota FJ Cruiser? 14/19 MPG

I know! The Toyota Tundra! 13/16 MPG

And lastly the Honda Pilot. 16/22 MPG

What's my point? My point here is that Toyota and Honda, both have invested hundreds of millions into large, massive SUV type vehicles. In fact, it's a bit interesting that Toyota, which has invested the most into large SUVs, is the one manufacture who rivals the big three domestic (if you still consider Chrysler part of the 'big three').

I predict nothing good will come from the bailout. I'd be shocked if GM and Chrysler still don't file bankruptcy even with the federal money. I think Unions, like liberal, don't have a clue how business works, and will stonewall till bankruptcy is unavoidable.

 

[top gun]

Andy;78091]Executive compensation is taken out of the profits. The labor plus material is higher than the selling price. That is the cost of doing business whether you understand it or not.

I don't care where it's taken out of. It's still a cost of doing business.

Read the chart I posted. Do you see executive pay anywhere in there? No you don't.

What possible difference does your chart make? Executive compensation is a dollar amount that the company pays out in doing business. Less out = more company profit.

You are taking one specific model and applying it to the entire industry? Prove that it's much better, without using circular reasoning that "it's much better which is why it sells better, and the reason it sells better is because it's a better car".

You say Americans buy the cars they want. I say good... the Toyota Camry has been the best selling car in America for years. To personally prove it???????? I've driven both the Toyota Camry and other comparable American cars... the Camry seems the better vehicle.

Now I will say with cars like the new Chevy Malibu some are starting to be fairly comparable.

Now that's for sure. The last good Caddy rolled off the lines in the late 70s. My personal favorite is BMW. If only they made a car big enough for my 6 foot 2 height, I'd get one. I don't know enough about Lincolns to know.

Well at least we are seeing the same thing in Cadillac. BMW's are a little stiff riding for me... but the 5 and definitely 7 series should be big enough for anybody be them pricey.

But again, you are taking a very tiny sample of information, and applying it to the entire industry. Most of the information from Consumer reports and Autonews, as well as industry insider magazines, show that quality is nearly on par now.

Sure some say... NEARLY on par NOW. But the bad image is set in people's minds and they have to be AS GOOD OR BETTER to take back any market share.

Like the Toyota Sequoia? 13/16 MPG
Honda Ridgeline? 15/20 MPG
Toyota FJ Cruiser 14/19 MPG
etc.

What's my point? My point here is that Toyota and Honda, both have invested hundreds of millions into large, massive SUV type vehicles. In fact, it's a bit interesting that Toyota, which has invested the most into large SUVs, is the one manufacture who rivals the big three domestic (if you still consider Chrysler part of the 'big three').

Sure they all make a gas guzzler... but you know that certainly is in no way their target audience or anywhere close to their sales leaders in volume.

I predict nothing good will come from the bailout. I'd be shocked if GM and Chrysler still don't file bankruptcy even with the federal money. I think Unions, like liberal, don't have a clue how business works, and will stonewall till bankruptcy is unavoidable.

Well let's hope you're wrong. Conservatives, like Republicans drove us into this ditch. Let's try something new since we already know where the last 8 years of policies brought us, and it ain't good.

 

[Andy]

I don't care where it's taken out of. It's still a cost of doing business.

You don't care alright. You don't understand anything about cost of production at all, and have proven it repeatedly. If you don't care, then stop bothering us with your stupidity.

What possible difference does your chart make? Executive compensation is a dollar amount that the company pays out in doing business. Less out = more company profit.

Do I need to get you a dictionary? Labor + material = cost of production. If cost of production is less than the value of the product, does it matter what the CEO pay is? Let's pretend that CEO has a salary of ZERO.

If labor + material > value of product sold... then explain to me how a CEO getting zero is going to help? Show me Top Gun. You show me how that helps. How is that going to get cost of production lower than income?

IT IS NOT! How the heck did you ever were able to run your own business is beyond me. I'd sure never invest in you. Go back to high school and learn some basic economics.

You say Americans buy the cars they want. I say good... the Toyota Camry has been the best selling car in America for years. To personally prove it???????? I've driven both the Toyota Camry and other comparable American cars... the Camry seems the better vehicle.

Now I will say with cars like the new Chevy Malibu some are starting to be fairly comparable.

Right, you can't prove it's a better car. Thanks for admitting you can't. "seems" is subjective. You made a quantifiable statement, that a subjective word "seems" does not prove.

Sure they all make a gas guzzler... but you know that certainly is in no way their target audience or anywhere close to their sales leaders in volume.

Both have been aggressively advertising their gas guzzlers. This is normal and expected given the higher profit margins on such cars. My point again is that you claim the domestics are the only ones doing this. False. The imports are just as much into it.

Well let's hope you're wrong. Conservatives, like Republicans drove us into this ditch. Let's try something new since we already know where the last 8 years of policies brought us, and it ain't good.

Ignorance, like that shown on this thread, is what is driving us into the ditch. Now we will have a completely ignorant leader to lead the ignorant people into the ditch. Conservatives, would never have handed out billions in a bail out we can't pay for. Nor would we have Union laws driving our domestic industries into the ground. Nor would we have a knee-jerk reationism to Enron that changed the general accounting practices causing the stock market to crash. Nor would we have used our GSEs to support sub-prime loans.

In short, liberalism is what caused all the problems we now face.

 

[Greco]

"In short, liberalism is what caused all the problems we now face."

Here's the winner of the most absurd, ignorant and deep denial post of the year.

 

[Andy]

"In short, liberalism is what caused all the problems we now face."

Here's the winner of the most absurd, ignorant and deep denial post of the year.

Prove it.

Here, I'll start off.

The drop in the stock market was due to change in general accounting practices, known as "mark-to-market". This change resulted in all corporation with contract or other types of assets to have to report less money for those assets. This showed up as a drop in budget income. Thus resulting in lowered stock prices. Since it happened to all companies, the entire stock market lowered.

The cause of the sub-prime loan melt down, started with a change under Clinton, which pushed for more minority home ownership. In order to do this, they lowered the requirements for getting a loan. The result was that companies started offering sub-prime loans, knowing that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, under the direction of the HUD department, would purchase those loans. The result was an explosion of sub-prime loans, which inevitably would crash the market, and that's exactly what happened.

Liberalism... it's a mental disorder. You basically have to ignore all facts, in order to believe in the stupidity of Liberalism.