"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:10:45 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
troll sh*t removed

And now Harry and Nancy want to use it to bail out the UAW.


Do you believe that we should allow the Big Three to fail? I'm kinda on
the
fence about this... on the one hand, I think we should, because they got
themselves into this mess. On the other hand, this would displace millions
of people.... not exactly the best thing to do in the current economy.

Absolutely. The big three will never be competitive with the built in
costs
of what they've given away in the past, including bloated wages,
unsustainable pensions, ongoing payments to former workers not to work,
capital costs of non-operating plants...you name it. Throwing more money
at
them just postpones the reckoning and increases its ultimate cost. When
the
Japanese have a $30 an hour advantage in the amount they pay their U.S.
workers, the big 3 are never going to compete.

Yes, the stockholders would get wiped out, or more likely squeezed down to
a
very small percentage of ownership, with creditors becoming the equity
owners. And management would likely be tossed our. But companies in
Chapter
11 don't generally go out of business (though some do). They continue in
business under new owners. If the car companies could shed nonproductive
assets, get rid of legacy costs and costs of paying people not to work,
reduce their debt service costs and costs of capital, and relocate
operations to right to work states there's no reason they couldn't become
competitive, and without a taxpayer bailout.


Well, I agree that companies don't necessarily go completely under, but my
main concern, which was voiced by both conservative and liberal economists,
is that people would likely not want to buy such a big-ticket item from
companies with uncertain futures. For example, I was considering a
big-screen tv... couple of grand, from Circuit City. But, they're in Chap.
11, so the question is should I be concerned, even though the warranty is
thru the manufacturer. Probably not. But, with autos it's a bit different.
If consumers decided not to risk it, then the sales would go to zero or
close to zero (not that they're going gangbusters now). Then, we would have
massive layoffs, not just the UAW, but throughout the stream of suppliers,
dealers, etc. It run into the millions. If this were to happen in good
economic times, then I would be less concerned. But, this isn't the
situation.

I think the Big Three could be competitive, which is what they're trying to
do, for example, by removing the benefits part to a separate trust (I
believe that's what they're calling it). The UAW and other unions would
clearly need to be willing (and they seem willing) to recognize the problems
and renegotiate their packages.

Do you think that this is the time to throw an even greater number into the
unemployment lines?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:38:38 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I think the Big Three could be competitive, which is what they're trying
to
do, for example, by removing the benefits part to a separate trust (I
believe that's what they're calling it). The UAW and other unions would
clearly need to be willing (and they seem willing) to recognize the
problems
and renegotiate their packages.

I haven't heard anything about a willingness to give up having the big
three
pay wages to people who aren't working. Have you? Do you really think the
UAW is going to agree to something that would close that $30 an hour wage
gap? I don't think so.

I have a very hard time believing that any company would pay someone not to
work. It certainly can't be significant, given the other huge benefit costs,
which is the major contributor to the cost of their autos/trucks. What's the
percentage? I'd be interested to know. As far as giving up part of their
wages, it seems to me that if one has a choice between a job that pays a bit
less vs. not having a job, it's a no-brainer.

Do you think that this is the time to throw an even greater number into
the
unemployment lines?

We can do it now at a cost, or later at much greater cost. I opt for the
former.

Do you really believe that dumping 3-5 million jobs is a cost we can stand
right now... not to mention an estimated the tax base loss of $200B or more?
You might be right that the cost later will be higher, perhaps even quite a
bit higher, but it seems to me we would be better able to afford it later.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:54:13 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:38:38 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I think the Big Three could be competitive, which is what they're trying
to
do, for example, by removing the benefits part to a separate trust (I
believe that's what they're calling it). The UAW and other unions would
clearly need to be willing (and they seem willing) to recognize the
problems
and renegotiate their packages.

I haven't heard anything about a willingness to give up having the big
three
pay wages to people who aren't working. Have you? Do you really think the
UAW is going to agree to something that would close that $30 an hour wage
gap? I don't think so.

I have a very hard time believing that any company would pay someone not to
work. It certainly can't be significant, given the other huge benefit costs,
which is the major contributor to the cost of their autos/trucks. What's the
percentage? I'd be interested to know. As far as giving up part of their
wages, it seems to me that if one has a choice between a job that pays a bit
less vs. not having a job, it's a no-brainer.

Do you think that this is the time to throw an even greater number into
the
unemployment lines?

We can do it now at a cost, or later at much greater cost. I opt for the
former.

Do you really believe that dumping 3-5 million jobs is a cost we can stand
right now... not to mention an estimated the tax base loss of $200B or more?
You might be right that the cost later will be higher, perhaps even quite a
bit higher, but it seems to me we would be better able to afford it later.

Jon, Dave's obsession with the people on the bottom of the pile making
any money is a red herring and nothing more. Labor is not even
remotely at the core of GM's problems.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:54:13 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:38:38 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I think the Big Three could be competitive, which is what they're trying
to
do, for example, by removing the benefits part to a separate trust (I
believe that's what they're calling it). The UAW and other unions would
clearly need to be willing (and they seem willing) to recognize the
problems
and renegotiate their packages.

I haven't heard anything about a willingness to give up having the big
three
pay wages to people who aren't working. Have you? Do you really think
the
UAW is going to agree to something that would close that $30 an hour
wage
gap? I don't think so.

I have a very hard time believing that any company would pay someone not
to
work. It certainly can't be significant, given the other huge benefit
costs,
which is the major contributor to the cost of their autos/trucks. What's
the
percentage? I'd be interested to know. As far as giving up part of their
wages, it seems to me that if one has a choice between a job that pays a
bit
less vs. not having a job, it's a no-brainer.

Do you think that this is the time to throw an even greater number into
the
unemployment lines?

We can do it now at a cost, or later at much greater cost. I opt for the
former.

Do you really believe that dumping 3-5 million jobs is a cost we can stand
right now... not to mention an estimated the tax base loss of $200B or
more?
You might be right that the cost later will be higher, perhaps even quite
a
bit higher, but it seems to me we would be better able to afford it later.

Jon, Dave's obsession with the people on the bottom of the pile making
any money is a red herring and nothing more. Labor is not even
remotely at the core of GM's problems.


Neither is labor at the core of the solution.

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:54:13 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:38:38 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I think the Big Three could be competitive, which is what they're
trying
to
do, for example, by removing the benefits part to a separate trust (I
believe that's what they're calling it). The UAW and other unions would
clearly need to be willing (and they seem willing) to recognize the
problems
and renegotiate their packages.

I haven't heard anything about a willingness to give up having the big
three
pay wages to people who aren't working. Have you? Do you really think
the
UAW is going to agree to something that would close that $30 an hour
wage
gap? I don't think so.

I have a very hard time believing that any company would pay someone not
to
work. It certainly can't be significant, given the other huge benefit
costs,
which is the major contributor to the cost of their autos/trucks. What's
the
percentage? I'd be interested to know. As far as giving up part of their
wages, it seems to me that if one has a choice between a job that pays a
bit
less vs. not having a job, it's a no-brainer.

Do you think that this is the time to throw an even greater number into
the
unemployment lines?

We can do it now at a cost, or later at much greater cost. I opt for
the
former.

Do you really believe that dumping 3-5 million jobs is a cost we can
stand
right now... not to mention an estimated the tax base loss of $200B or
more?
You might be right that the cost later will be higher, perhaps even quite
a
bit higher, but it seems to me we would be better able to afford it
later.

Jon, Dave's obsession with the people on the bottom of the pile making
any money is a red herring and nothing more. Labor is not even
remotely at the core of GM's problems.


Neither is labor at the core of the solution.


None of these posters have a clue. All are at least slightly brainwashed
into thinking socialism is the answer or part of the answer.

They are 100% wrong!

The answer is a 100% belief in a free market economy, 100% support of a free
market economy and 100% implementation of a free market economy. Crybabies
please leave the building! A free market economy is Darwin's evolutionary
survival of the fittest applied to the market place. Any other system allows
survival of the less fit and the unfit to the detriment and eventual
downfall of the system. Too much dead weight for even the superbly fit to
carry.

It's that simple!

Wilbur Hubbard

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:22:38 -0500, said:

Labor is not even
remotely at the core of GM's problems.

Perhaps you could take you suggestions for how to make money when you're
paying your workers $30 an hour more than the competition to management's
attention. I'm sure they'd be all ears.


Sell better cars.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:45:39 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:


Sell better cars.

Good idea, Jon. They could import some of those cars from abroad, and
people
would buy them.

Oh, wait a minute. Those cars wouldn't be built in UAW plants, so the car
companies couldn't count them against their CAFE requirements.


?? You asked how they can make money. I answered. Not my fault if you don't
like the answer.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:45:10 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Sell better cars.

Good idea, Jon. They could import some of those cars from abroad, and
people
would buy them.

Oh, wait a minute. Those cars wouldn't be built in UAW plants, so the
car
companies couldn't count them against their CAFE requirements.


?? You asked how they can make money. I answered. Not my fault if you
don't
like the answer.

On the contrary--I like your answer. Now if the Congress critters would
just
make it possible by changing the silly CAFE laws to allow it to happen....


?? Toyota/Honda/Kia, etc. have the same standards. Where's the beef?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:16:10 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

On the contrary--I like your answer. Now if the Congress critters would
just
make it possible by changing the silly CAFE laws to allow it to
happen....


?? Toyota/Honda/Kia, etc. have the same standards. Where's the beef?

Case 1: Ford imports a car it bought from Mazda, and that Mazda also sells
under its own name. Ford sells it in the U.S. under the name Portege or
(or
some such thing).

Case2: Ford instead licenses the design from Mazda, has the cars built in
Brazil by Brazilian workers, and imports and sells the cars in the U.S.

Case 3: Ford licenses the design from Mazda and builds that same car in
the
U.S. using UAW workers.

Question: What are the implications for Ford's meeting CAFE standards in
each case?


Answer: The CAFE standards don't change. Therefore, the cars that have good
quality, more so in the case of Ford, sell better, not quite so dependent
upon price.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:16:10 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:


?? Toyota/Honda/Kia, etc. have the same standards. Where's the beef?

Another Wendy's reference! Chairman Dave must be loving this!

It's from an old political add, but yes, Wendy's also.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com