Hope lingers to save U.S. autos from econ crisis

[Hobo1]

Sorry for not keeping up with the thread... I am new here and I can see this forum does not send notices of a new reply... anyway...

I have read and personally witnessed what both Andy and Truth have said. I both agree and disagree so let me explain my reasoning.

I agree that the unions have managed to bargain their way into very favorable positions - the cost of labor in the US is too high for manufacturing to complete head to head with foreign labor. I do not see a solution to this. I can't expect domestic auto workers to take a cut in pay or benefit. Clearly they should be receiving a lower salary, but the long tradition in Detroit makes a salary cut virtually impossible. To take a salary cut would be a massive psychological blow to someone who has worked 15 years, has a certain standard of living, and expects full pay and benefits after he retires after 30 years of work. I just don't see how you management could possibly withstand a major cut in labor's salary - workers would either strike or simply refuse to work.

Labor costs are only one problem. I know Detroit uses robotics to manufacture cars - they were kind of forced into that in the past, if I recall. But I still have this feeling (without proof) that Detroit car companies are not on the cutting edge of technology. I know other successful US companies must stay one step ahead of foreign competition with regard to technology. Every year the assembly process should become more and more automated. Consider what a competitive advantage automakers could have if they could assemble the cars in half the time, with half the labor.

I'll bet anything that goal is not in the Detroit automakers business plan. But it should be; and that's one reason why they are not cost competitive.

A second factor is the slowdown in the rate of business growth, particularly domestically. You can have a business that is producing more cars than the foreign automakers, but all businesses rely on growth. Just like a country is in economic trouble when the growth (GDP) slows to zero, so too automakers (and all companies) need to grow to get maximum efficiency out of their fixed assets. A company that is growing can afford to replace old equipment with more modern equipment. They can push their labor and factory efficiency to the maximum limit. Plus, income grows faster, and profits are high. Having excess factory capacity means your capital investments are loosing money. It is meaningless to be the biggest company if your growth trend is flat while your competition's growth trend in climbing.

In summary, America is fundamentally a very strong country because we train our young people to be innovators and to use their imagination. We have a work force that is highly trained and educated. America stays ahead in the world marketplace because of our brains, not our brawn. The automakers are not playing our trump card. In the past, Detroit attracted the best and the brightest - and it kept them on top. But today, our auto companies seem to be a company of old men. I know that because I am an old man and can smell the work of other old men. Old men cannot come up with cutting edge ideas - they're tired. The next generation of cars are not going to come off the drawing boards of a 45 year old designer that was working on the Ford Firebird when he was young. That was a great car, and I drove one until it died... but the brain that was cultivated in the 70's and 80's is out of touch for America in the 21st century.

We should be able to survive and compete in the marketplace, but it is going to require a top to bottom shakeup. Humpty Dumpty may have fallen off the wall, but we still have an egg that can be cooked and eaten. That is, we still have the infrastructure to make cars. The question is, how do you turn a Yahoo into a Google? I don't hold much hope that Detroit will find the next automobile industry equivalent of Google's CEO Eric Schmidt.

 

[Andy]

Sorry for not keeping up with the thread... I am new here and I can see this forum does not send notices of a new reply... anyway...

Actually, you can set it to send you email notification. Now, I don't know if they have a universal setting or not, but if you look at the top of the thread, right below where it says page 2 of 2, you'll see "Rate this Thread", "Search this Thread" and "Thread Tools". Under Thread Tools, you can subscribe to this Thread, which allows you to set Email notifications.

The reason they do not have that on default is because some people don't like their mail box spammed with notifications.

I agree that the unions have managed to bargain their way into very favorable positions - the cost of labor in the US is too high for manufacturing to complete head to head with foreign labor. I do not see a solution to this. I can't expect domestic auto workers to take a cut in pay or benefit. Clearly they should be receiving a lower salary, but the long tradition in Detroit makes a salary cut virtually impossible. To take a salary cut would be a massive psychological blow to someone who has worked 15 years, has a certain standard of living, and expects full pay and benefits after he retires after 30 years of work. I just don't see how you management could possibly withstand a major cut in labor's salary - workers would either strike or simply refuse to work.

Labor costs are only one problem. I know Detroit uses robotics to manufacture cars - they were kind of forced into that in the past, if I recall. But I still have this feeling (without proof) that Detroit car companies are not on the cutting edge of technology. I know other successful US companies must stay one step ahead of foreign competition with regard to technology. Every year the assembly process should become more and more automated. Consider what a competitive advantage automakers could have if they could assemble the cars in half the time, with half the labor.

I'll bet anything that goal is not in the Detroit automakers business plan. But it should be; and that's one reason why they are not cost competitive.

A second factor is the slowdown in the rate of business growth, particularly domestically. You can have a business that is producing more cars than the foreign automakers, but all businesses rely on growth. Just like a country is in economic trouble when the growth (GDP) slows to zero, so too automakers (and all companies) need to grow to get maximum efficiency out of their fixed assets. A company that is growing can afford to replace old equipment with more modern equipment. They can push their labor and factory efficiency to the maximum limit. Plus, income grows faster, and profits are high. Having excess factory capacity means your capital investments are loosing money. It is meaningless to be the biggest company if your growth trend is flat while your competition's growth trend in climbing.

In summary, America is fundamentally a very strong country because we train our young people to be innovators and to use their imagination. We have a work force that is highly trained and educated. America stays ahead in the world marketplace because of our brains, not our brawn. The automakers are not playing our trump card. In the past, Detroit attracted the best and the brightest - and it kept them on top. But today, our auto companies seem to be a company of old men. I know that because I am an old man and can smell the work of other old men. Old men cannot come up with cutting edge ideas - they're tired. The next generation of cars are not going to come off the drawing boards of a 45 year old designer that was working on the Ford Firebird when he was young. That was a great car, and I drove one until it died... but the brain that was cultivated in the 70's and 80's is out of touch for America in the 21st century.

We should be able to survive and compete in the marketplace, but it is going to require a top to bottom shakeup. Humpty Dumpty may have fallen off the wall, but we still have an egg that can be cooked and eaten. That is, we still have the infrastructure to make cars. The question is, how do you turn a Yahoo into a Google? I don't hold much hope that Detroit will find the next automobile industry equivalent of Google's CEO Eric Schmidt.

I personally would wager, that changing the CEO won't help. I base that on how many CEO's and different people within the company have led into this situation. For example, since 1990 there have been five presidents, six vice-chairmen, four CEOs, and five chairmen of the board, and a dozen plus members of the board itself, and that's just GM. Ford has had numerous administrative changes, and Chrysler has been sold twice, with most of top management being replaced both times.

Now, unless we are to assume that these 20 people and unknown dozens of board members, were all losers unable to make things work, then perhaps the problem lies elsewhere.

Unions: By artificially raising prices, and the cost of labor, beyond what supply and demand will support, they have successfully bankrupted their company. Again, the Honda plants are not closing. The KIA plant isn't closing. The non-unionized companies are not going out of business.

The unions will accept lower pay rates, or they will accept un-employment, and further, they'll also lose their pensions if the company goes under.

And by the way, you mention automation, well unions have been strongly opposed to automation in the name of "protecting union jobs". They did a fine job too.

Cost of Labor: There is another reason labor rates are so high. Unemployment compensation, medicare, Social Security, Income Tax, Workmens Comp, and so on.

People seem to get this nutty idea that taxation and labor programs have no direct effect on labor costs. But in reality it has a massive effect, and we're seeing the results now. If we were to reduce or eliminate these drains, the company could easily be profitable.

This to me, is the only solution. Break up the unions, reduce taxes and costly labor programs. GM has to go bankrupt do the first. We have to do the second by no long voting in socialist economy breaker politicians. We'll have to wait 4 years to start on that.

 

[Hobo1]

I was interested to read today that the plan submitted to Congress by General Motors. Their philosophy seems to use the crisis and the threat of bankruptcy to force the company, the unions, shareholders and creditors alike to make some significant sacrifices to save the company from total destruction. The Big Three's Stalemate

As a fiscal conservative and general "hater" of government bailouts, my initial reaction is positive. I am fairly convinced the government is going to give GM bailout money anyway... this seems like one plan that has some possibility of success.

 

[Andy]

I was interested to read today that the plan submitted to Congress by General Motors. Their philosophy seems to use the crisis and the threat of bankruptcy to force the company, the unions, shareholders and creditors alike to make some significant sacrifices to save the company from total destruction. The Big Three's Stalemate

As a fiscal conservative and general "hater" of government bailouts, my initial reaction is positive. I am fairly convinced the government is going to give GM bailout money anyway... this seems like one plan that has some possibility of success.

It's impressive we both read the same thing and came to opposite conclusions. All three have very similar plans.

The GM plan is to take $4 Billion, and then execute a bankruptcy style plan of negotiating reduced debt, and lower pay rates and benefits for labor, as well as closing a bunch of plants, and selling off various name plates.

First, could not GM sell off various name plates, and close a bunch of plants anyway? Why yes they could. For what reason do we need to give them billions in a bail out, to do what they would do under bankruptcy anyway? None. Let them file bankruptcy and close the plants.

Second, they plan to reduce debt by negotiating with lender, and cut labor pay and benefits, and retiree benefits, by negotiating with Unions.

Think about that a second. Why didn't they do those things before? They tired to... but the other parties refused to cooperate. Right.

So put yourself in the place of the unions. You refused to negotiate for reduce pay and benefits before, and now GM just got a cool $4 Billion. Are you going to suddenly consider agreeing to a cut in pay and reduced benefits, when you didn't when they were broke, but now they have $4 Billion in the bank? Of course not.

Similarly, if you are a money lender, and you refused to negotiate down GM's debt before, and now they have a cool $4 Billion. Are you going to be interested in cutting how much they owe now? Of course not. They have $4 Billion from the government! Pay up!

Ford even is under agreement to repay it's lenders immediately. The bail out money would instantly go to paying of debt, regardless of whether Ford ever recovers or crashes.

The bottom line is, all three claim that they would get concessions from both the unions, and their lenders, while having shown no ability to do either in the past. Neither lenders, nor the unions have shown any remote interest in giving the concessions. Finely, neither group would have any motivation for doing so, if the government starts handing out large checks.

This confirms what I already suspected. Namely that bankruptcy is the solution. Without any bail out at all, filing bankruptcy will allow the Big three to force both lenders and Unions to the negotiation table. The bail out will do the reverse and allow all sides to hold their ground, while the slow bleed to continue.

 

[top gun]

In a perfect world I'm a person that strongly believes that the most important track our money should be on is shoring up Social Security, Medicare & creating some type of a National Healthcare System.

Social Security & Medicare is something that will always be needed. We may have to up the age to collect or tweak it in some others ways but these are "have to have" government programs.

National Healthcare is important because if we could take some of the burden off the employers it creates a more competitive labor structure to compete against the rest of the world. What we have now is a race to the bottom and that's just not acceptable. No one can expect American workers to work and live in America on Korean or Chinese wages. If Healthcare costs were not a big business factor the playing field levels somewhat. This and better trade agreements are crucial.

All this said if we can waste $12 Billion Dollars a month for 6 years on the lie called Iraq and if we can bail out Wall Street... then I think a LOAN to the Big Three Automakers is probably going to happen and it does affect a lot of jobs.

I agree that American automakers have been way out of it pushing Hummers and trucks instead of more fuel efficient vehicles, Hybrids and new technology. That's why there should be some REAL STRINGS to this LOAN... not like just handing it to Treasury Sec Paulson.

American automakers really need to consolidate. It's ridiculous to have a Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon... THEY ARE IDENTICAL except for the badge. This isn't the 60's or the 70's anymore when you could sell enough Cameros & Firebirds that it made sense. It's time to fight the foreign competition in a smarter, better product way and not just repetition of the same product.

 

[Pidgey]

Rather than us peons having to fork over money that we won't see any tangible good from, they might as well just do a lottery where a number of folks with money in the bank or exceptional credit who haven't bought a new car in the last few years are forced to buy a car from the Big Three. At least then some of us would actually have something to show for the rape.

 

[Pidgey]

In a perfect world I'm a person that strongly believes that the most important track our money should be on is shoring up Social Security, Medicare & creating some type of a National Healthcare System.

Social Security & Medicare is something that will always be needed. We may have to up the age to collect or tweak it in some others ways but these are "have to have" government programs.

National Healthcare is important because if we could take some of the burden off the employers it creates a more competitive labor structure to compete against the rest of the world. What we have now is a race to the bottom and that's just not acceptable. No one can expect American workers to work and live in America on Korean or Chinese wages. If Healthcare costs were not a big business factor the playing field levels somewhat. This and better trade agreements are crucial.

All this said if we can waste $12 Billion Dollars a month for 6 years on the lie called Iraq and if we can bail out Wall Street... then I think a LOAN to the Big Three Automakers is probably going to happen and it does affect a lot of jobs.

I agree that American automakers have been way out of it pushing Hummers and trucks instead of more fuel efficient vehicles, Hybrids and new technology. That's why there should be some REAL STRINGS to this LOAN... not like just handing it to Treasury Sec Paulson.

American automakers really need to consolidate. It's ridiculous to have a Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon... THEY ARE IDENTICAL except for the badge. This isn't the 60's or the 70's anymore when you could sell enough Cameros & Firebirds that it made sense. It's time to fight the foreign competition in a smarter, better product way and not just repetition of the same product.

Read this one:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/07/Kotlikoff.pdf

 

[Andy]

In a perfect world I'm a person that strongly believes that the most important track our money should be on is shoring up Social Security, Medicare & creating some type of a National Healthcare System.

Social Security & Medicare is something that will always be needed. We may have to up the age to collect or tweak it in some others ways but these are "have to have" government programs.

Oh gee, I thought that Social Security and Medicare were successful programs and as such, needed no "shoring up" which implies they are not working.... what's the deal?

National Healthcare is important because if we could take some of the burden off the employers it creates a more competitive labor structure to compete against the rest of the world. What we have now is a race to the bottom and that's just not acceptable. No one can expect American workers to work and live in America on Korean or Chinese wages. If Healthcare costs were not a big business factor the playing field levels somewhat. This and better trade agreements are crucial.

False theory. If healthcare expenses were the problem, then the Honda plants in the US would be facing the same problems as GM, Ford, and Chysler. They are not. Thus that BS theory is wrong.

Further, no one suggested that US auto workers need to live on Korean or Chinese wages. Again... the Honda plant is doing fine, and they are not paid so little.

The answer is Unions. The Honda plant is not unionized and is doing fine.

All this said if we can waste $12 Billion Dollars a month for 6 years on the lie called Iraq and if we can bail out Wall Street... then I think a LOAN to the Big Three Automakers is probably going to happen and it does affect a lot of jobs.

The Rockefeller report proved conclusively there was no lie. What you just said was a lie, but the reasons for going in Iraq were not.

I agree that American automakers have been way out of it pushing Hummers and trucks instead of more fuel efficient vehicles, Hybrids and new technology. That's why there should be some REAL STRINGS to this LOAN... not like just handing it to Treasury Sec Paulson.

The domestic companies' lineup has been truck-heavy, but Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz and BMW have all spent billions of dollars on pickups and SUVs because trucks are a large and historically profitable part of the auto industry. The most fuel-efficient full-size pickups from GM, Ford and Chrysler all have higher EPA fuel economy ratings than Toyota and Nissan's full-size pickups.

Further, there is a reason for this. Trucks are money makers, and for the big three, small and compacts sedans, are not. Unlike Honda, the unions have forced up the cost to make small cars, unprofitable. Naturally the big three gravitated towards trucks that still had a profit margin.

Finely, the domestic auto manufactures, have more hybrids on the market, than any foreign company.

 

[top gun]

Oh gee, I thought that Social Security and Medicare were successful programs and as such, needed no "shoring up" which implies they are not working.... what's the deal?

Well I don't know who ever said that? I think everyone knows that until the Baby Boomers get through the system there will be a rather large shortfall... then the numbers start to turn back around after that.

What was said was going with a Bush (Republican) invest yourself throw it all into the stock market approach (right before the bottom dropped out of the stock market by the way) was the epitome of stupidity.

So the deal is that we work together on a fair solution which will probably include both raising the age to collect to 68 or 70 for people of a certain age now and also still add some additional federal dollars.

But the idea of not having a governmental Social Security system is not even an option.

False theory. If healthcare expenses were the problem, then the Honda plants in the US would be facing the same problems as GM, Ford, and Chysler. They are not. Thus that BS theory is wrong.

Nothing false about it. Different companies have built in different structures. Honda workers probably wouldn't be getting paid the wages they are now if the Big Three didn't pay what they do (once again a race to the bottom if somebody doesn't stick up for the regular working guy) because there is some work to pay relativity in the auto industry. Plus the Executive Compensation is also different with many overseas companies.

I was watching the Senate hearing today and they were showing that the companies are not all that far apart. Average pay for UAW workers is about $28 per hour... Toyota was the other example at about $25 per hour.

Further, no one suggested that US auto workers need to live on Korean or Chinese wages. Again... the Honda plant is doing fine, and they are not paid so little.
The answer is Unions. The Honda plant is not unionized and is doing fine.

It's not just the Unions... although they do sometimes contribute to the underlying problem. It's the same thing with sports. Ticket prices keep going up. Players (workers) keep getting more & more money... but the front office would just take all that profit "in good times" if they didn't. It's a combination of things.

Right now everyone is down. Toyota was down like 34% for example. And Honda & Toyota are a couple of the "most like" American companies. We have flooding of imports like Hyundai and KIA where there's a HUGE overseas labor cost & trade imbalance in play.

The Rockefeller report proved conclusively there was no lie. What you just said was a lie, but the reasons for going in Iraq were not.

Dude give that up... you've been saying that for years and you got your hat handed to ya in both of the last not one but two elections. Bush said (and had Powell lie about) WMD's and also said Iraq was a part of 9-11. All lies and more... I know I've posted it several times there were like 95 separate documented untrue "in my neck of the woods we call that lying" official statements in all. Thank God that whole pubbie group is now completely kicked out of town!

The domestic companies' lineup has been truck-heavy, but Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz and BMW have all spent billions of dollars on pickups and SUVs because trucks are a large and historically profitable part of the auto industry. The most fuel-efficient full-size pickups from GM, Ford and Chrysler all have higher EPA fuel economy ratings than Toyota and Nissan's full-size pickups.

Still no foresight into what was going to happen. Saying you have a Silverado that gets 20mpg (and my district office alone has a fleet of 15 of them) is no feather in anyone's cap. And again not the Unions falt... they build what management tells them to build.

Further, there is a reason for this. Trucks are money makers, and for the big three, small and compacts sedans, are not. Unlike Honda, the unions have forced up the cost to make small cars, unprofitable. Naturally the big three gravitated towards trucks that still had a profit margin.

Yet again though... no excuse for the problem at hand. Had the Executives not been as greedy up till now and had a business plan that focused on mpg they would most likely not be in bridge loan territory now.

Finely, the domestic auto manufactures, have more hybrids on the market, than any foreign company.

Yeah but not a lot of great mpg Hybrids. Escalades, Yukons, Escapes & Mariners. I'm not saying that these things aren't good for what they are. They're just not the answer to $4.00 and more gas when it comes to town.

Bottom line if we could get some type of a National Healthcare system in place to take that out of the US business equation and both the Management side & Union side took some reasonable cuts and our trade agreements were more beneficial to to American companies and our tax policies penalized companies leaving the US... things would be much, much better long term in competing with the rest of the world where there will never be a comparison unless we all just race to the bottom.

 

[Andy]

Well I don't know who ever said that? I think everyone knows that until the Baby Boomers get through the system there will be a rather large shortfall... then the numbers start to turn back around after that.

What was said was going with a Bush (Republican) invest yourself throw it all into the stock market approach (right before the bottom dropped out of the stock market by the way) was the epitome of stupidity.

Stock market isn't broke. Social Security, and the government, is broke. Further, each time they "fix" it, the benefits go down, and the taxes go up. What's going to happen when Social Security runs out of money for good?

I'll tell ya what You stick with Social Security, and I'll keep my 401K. We'll see who's broke

So the deal is that we work together on a fair solution which will probably include both raising the age to collect to 68 or 70 for people of a certain age now and also still add some additional federal dollars.

The age limit automatically increases as is... and it's still going broke. If you raise the retirement age any faster, most will die before they can retire. This is your idea of a good system? Have it so most people die before they can retire on it? I have a better idea. I'll keep my 401K and retire whenever I darn well feel like it. You can flip burgers at Wendy's till you can collect.

But the idea of not having a governmental Social Security system is not even an option.

Of course not. It only worked for the first 200 years of our nations existence. And now your planning to increase the age limit till most of the population dies before it's available. So no, it can't possible work to not have one at all.

Nothing false about it. Different companies have built in different structures. Honda workers probably wouldn't be getting paid the wages they are now if the Big Three didn't pay what they do (once again a race to the bottom if somebody doesn't stick up for the regular working guy) because there is some work to pay relativity in the auto industry. Plus the Executive Compensation is also different with many overseas companies.

I was watching the Senate hearing today and they were showing that the companies are not all that far apart. Average pay for UAW workers is about $28 per hour... Toyota was the other example at about $25 per hour.

Kia is opening a plant in the US with starting rates at $14/hr. You are not convincing me.

Moreover, you are ignoring something very important. It's not the specific hourly wage, which has been higher, but comparable for many years. It's the massive benefits above the hourly wage that is killing domestic autos. Non-union auto companies pay as much as $30 less per hour of wage, than the big 3. That is a massive difference.

Dude give that up... you've been saying that for years and you got your hat handed to ya in both of the last not one but two elections. Bush said (and had Powell lie about) WMD's and also said Iraq was a part of 9-11. All lies and more... I know I've posted it several times there were like 95 separate documented untrue "in my neck of the woods we call that lying" official statements in all. Thank God that whole pubbie group is now completely kicked out of town!

What you just said was untrue. Do I need to read to you the report by the democrats again? If what you claim is true, then the democrats have lied even more. Are all your democrats liars as well? If so, how is getting rid of one liar good when you are keeping the 200 plus other liars? Or does it matter at all that they all lied? Perhaps you only care of republicans lie and not democrats? A twisted sort of "your party can't lie, but mine can" theory of politics? What exactly is your excuse here for how your party acted?

How about Germany, Israel, Briton, and all the others that agree? Let me guess they were all in on it. Bush went all around the whole world to convince everyone, including your own party, to all lie so that you could come on this forum and explain it all to us. Why yes, of course. It all makes sense now.

Still no foresight into what was going to happen. Saying you have a Silverado that gets 20mpg (and my district office alone has a fleet of 15 of them) is no feather in anyone's cap. And again not the Unions falt... they build what management tells them to build.

BMW, Toyota, Honda, and a massive list of other foreign car makers also spent billions on developing large trucks and SUVs. I suppose they all lacked foresight to.

Yet again though... no excuse for the problem at hand. Had the Executives not been as greedy up till now and had a business plan that focused on mpg they would most likely not be in bridge loan territory now.

Greedy... such a stupid thing to say. If they focused on MPG, they would only do so to earn money, which according to you would be greedy. I suppose GMs Chevy Aveo was not an example of greed? What a dumb statement. I suppose all the Hybrids they have available was not an example of greed either.

Bottom line if we could get some type of a National Healthcare system in place to take that out of the US business equation and both the Management side & Union side took some reasonable cuts and our trade agreements were more beneficial to to American companies and our tax policies penalized companies leaving the US... things would be much, much better long term in competing with the rest of the world where there will never be a comparison unless we all just race to the bottom.

Yeah, you can't wait to pay those 40% health care taxes that other countries pay for their national care. Not to mention the people dying in the waiting room. What a great plan!

Tax policies penalized companies leaving the US! LOL!!!! Bwahaha!! Economic stupidity! Wow.... wow!

Do you not get that the reason companies leave the US is because staying would force them out of business? Here they are, crashing around us, and your plan is to penalize them into staying?!?! LOL!!! I can almost see the GM board of directors now....

Ok we can either stay and file for bankruptcy... or move over seas and survive.... Oh no, we might have a huge tax penalty if we leave!.... ok so when do we leave again?

You really run your own business? You really can't figure out this basic economics problem, yet you run a business? This is shocking. Pretend a moment, that you were losing money every month, but might be able to survive if you left the state. Now pretend the state passed a law to tax the hell out of you if you left... how would this play for you? Oooo avoid taxes by staying and going bankrupt.... or leave, pay tax, and survive elsewhere.... Such tough choices...

No wonder our country is in such bad shape. Something proven true, is assumed a lie given by the entire planet... companies going bankrupt can be taxed into staying... and unions costing $30/hr labor more then non-union companies, are not the cause of crashing auto companies...

Liberalism really is a mental disorder.

 

[top gun]

Stock market isn't broke. Social Security, and the government, is broke. Further, each time they "fix" it, the benefits go down, and the taxes go up. What's going to happen when Social Security runs out of money for good?

I'll tell ya what You stick with Social Security, and I'll keep my 401K. We'll see who's broke

Depends what you have stock in... a lot of paper is now worthless. You think any polititian... any person... will ever again even consider the stock market as an alternative to S.S. and I'd say you missed your med cart.

As far a 401K I invest there too... but S.S is not going to be replaced by it.

The age limit automatically increases as is... and it's still going broke. If you raise the retirement age any faster, most will die before they can retire. This is your idea of a good system? Have it so most people die before they can retire on it? I have a better idea. I'll keep my 401K and retire whenever I darn well feel like it. You can flip burgers at Wendy's till you can collect.

It's the way it was originally set up. There was a collection to probable life span ratio. People live a lot longer now. Come on you know these things.

Just take a breath and stop floundering around trying to cover the Bush tracks of Fraud & Trickery and you'll do a lot better.

As far as the automakers I would have assumed you were a Free Market guy. Or obviously Free Market only when it's convenient. These Union contracts you're spending soooooo much time crying about were negotiated by the companies themselves.

And furthermore a lot of the problems weighing them down now are not current wages or benefits is pensions & healthcare and the like POST employment.

And who wanted that?????????? THE CORPORATIONS WANTED THAT in lieu of pay increases at the time. They chose to put it off.

I personally think in this day and age all that post employment stuff is out of date because you never know in a world economy if ANY company will be around and doing well forever. But it's the epitome of the word weak to blame the workers for trying to get good wages when the company at the time was racking in money hand over fist.

Let's see if everyone doesn't learn something and give up some things. It's time to stop this finger pointing and actually try and get things to work for a minute. I watch both management and labor today up on the Hill talking very soberly about cuts needing to be made everywhere by both sides. And we all know the types of vehicle that are going to be produced are going to be a lot more progressive.

Hang in there son. We're going to work this out!

 

[BigRob]

Just for the record, Bush's plan was not to "throw all your money in the stock market." That is a complete misrepresentation.

Further, you can put your money in an FDIC savings account and make more than double the return than you would paying into Social Security. On top of that, you could put it in a CD and make even more, all risk free.

Maybe you want a 1% return on your investment, but I don't.

 

[Andy]

Depends what you have stock in... a lot of paper is now worthless. You think any polititian... any person... will ever again even consider the stock market as an alternative to S.S. and I'd say you missed your med cart.

Here's a challenge... find any 10 year time frame in which the stock market lost money?

A person planning to retire on Social Security will end up broke. I know this because I delievered medication to social security homes, and they were nasty, disgusting, dirty, understaffed, run down places. If that's your plan, go for it. That will not be my end.

It's the way it was originally set up. There was a collection to probable life span ratio. People live a lot longer now. Come on you know these things.

The universal average is right around 70 years. Oddly, the Bible even says our lives will be roughly 70 years. When the retirement age goes above that, most people will die before they collect. We're at that now, and they will undoubtedly cut the program more to keep it solvent.

Just take a breath and stop floundering around trying to cover the Bush tracks of Fraud & Trickery and you'll do a lot better.

The evidence is against your lies.

As far as the automakers I would have assumed you were a Free Market guy. Or obviously Free Market only when it's convenient. These Union contracts you're spending soooooo much time crying about were negotiated by the companies themselves.

Apparently you know little about Union laws.

And furthermore a lot of the problems weighing them down now are not current wages or benefits is pensions & healthcare and the like POST employment.

Funny how everyone in the know, and the data we have, all seem to disagree with you.

And who wanted that?????????? THE CORPORATIONS WANTED THAT in lieu of pay increases at the time. They chose to put it off.

Without unions, they wouldn't have had to make a trade off at all. Further, without unions, they could have eliminated the problems by now, preventing it from getting this far.

I personally think in this day and age all that post employment stuff is out of date because you never know in a world economy if ANY company will be around and doing well forever. But it's the epitome of the word weak to blame the workers for trying to get good wages when the company at the time was racking in money hand over fist.

This isn't about some lame concept of "blame". This is about cause and effect. The unions demanded specific compensation, and as a result caused the companies to be unprofitable and fail. Do you want to learn what caused the situation and how to avoid it? Or do you wish to toss around empty rhetoric and point fingers?

Let's see if everyone doesn't learn something and give up some things. It's time to stop this finger pointing and actually try and get things to work for a minute. I watch both management and labor today up on the Hill talking very soberly about cuts needing to be made everywhere by both sides. And we all know the types of vehicle that are going to be produced are going to be a lot more progressive.

No... the type of vehicles that are going to be produces are the ones they can sell, as it's always been. To suggest they will ignore what the people want in the name of progression, is another example of ignorant thinking.

Hang in there son. We're going to work this out!

Hopefully with a little more knowledge and a little less ignore liberalism.

 

[top gun]

Just for the record, Bush's plan was not to "throw all your money in the stock market." That is a complete misrepresentation.

Further, you can put your money in an FDIC savings account and make more than double the return than you would paying into Social Security. On top of that, you could put it in a CD and make even more, all risk free.

Maybe you want a 1% return on your investment, but I don't.

Whoa WHOA WHOA... It absolutely WAS going to allowable to invest your retirement in the stock market in a Bush retirement scheme world.

Was it EVER said that you could only take your retirement money and put them in FDIC covered instruments????????? You know better... come on.

If everyone were to have to take the same amount being taken out now and invest in only a 100% secured instrument that could not be accessed until retirement age this would not be an issue... but that wasn't the scheme.

 

[top gun]

Here's a challenge... find any 10 year time frame in which the stock market lost money?

Doesn't have to be everybody. Just has to be anybody. The Stock Market is no guarantee for everybody at anytime. S.S. was created to give the elderly just some protection against poverty stricken old age. People should absolutely also delve into addition retirement funding sources whether that be home equity or 401K or whatever. But S.S. is the bottom line safety net.

The universal average is right around 70 years. Oddly, the Bible even says our lives will be roughly 70 years. When the retirement age goes above that, most people will die before they collect. We're at that now, and they will undoubtedly cut the program more to keep it solvent.

The Bible... you think that's the medical predictor of the future. AMAZING!

This isn't about some lame concept of "blame". This is about cause and effect. The unions demanded specific compensation, and as a result caused the companies to be unprofitable and fail. Do you want to learn what caused the situation and how to avoid it? Or do you wish to toss around empty rhetoric and point fingers?

In a worldwide economy both management & Union thinking has to change somewhat... but that in no way means the ability of workers to organize or worker protections are not necessary. How bout this... no one in management can make over say 100 times total compensation including all benefits (no stock options or golden parachutes) of what the average hourly workers wage is? That means the top guy at GM, Ford & Chrysler could only make a measly $2,800,000 per year.

Management and the Unions will learn that there is a way to get to a profitable conclusion once again. It's not just those terrible greedy workers.

No... the type of vehicles that are going to be produces are the ones they can sell, as it's always been. To suggest they will ignore what the people want in the name of progression, is another example of ignorant thinking.

Keep shining that 82 Buick of yours Andy... keep shining that 82 Buick!