"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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:47:13 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Answer: The CAFE standards don't change.

You obviously haven't a clue as to how the CAFE standards work.


Obviously, you don't like the answer.

"Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) is the sales weighted average fuel
economy, expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer's fleet of
passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of
8,500 lbs. or less, manufactured for sale in the United States, for any
given model year. Fuel economy is defined as the average mileage traveled by
an automobile per gallon of gasoline (or equivalent amount of other fuel)
consumed as measured in accordance with the testing and evaluation protocol
set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)."

--
"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