"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:57:08 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


But guess what? The union work-a-bees need non-union work-a-bees (as
consumers) more than the other way around. And non-union work-a-bees
plan
for their financial future in other ways. When the rug is pulled out from
everybody, why do non-union work-a-bees need to contribute to the welfare
and job security of union work-a-bees? Hmmmmmmm?



They shouldn't have to, but the most onerous part is the sub-pay, and
has to be eliminated. It's one thing to do a loan for workers,
another for those making full pay and not working.


Know what? I think that issue ... the (up to) 95% pay to stay home due to
lack of work is what ticks off most people more than anything else.

Want to see how stupid I am about these things? I always thought that the
pay that union members received while not working due to slowdowns was
funded by the unions by the dues they collected. That wouldn't bother me
at all. But, as I now understand it, it's the company that pays, based on
a contract agreement made back in the '80s.

I guess when the economy is trucking along and GM is making money, few
concern themselves with this kind of thing. It's when things turn to crap
and GM wants the rest of us taxpayers to cough up the money, it gets some
attention.

I know, (for Harry's benefit), the union has conceded to temporarily
terminate this practice and may even consider permanently eliminating it in
future reorganization contract negotiations. But, when the 3 musketeers
first went before congress begging for money, it was in place, to the best
of my knowledge.

Eisboch

Don White wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"Boater" wrote in message
...
I understand *that* problem...I'm wondering what *those people* who no
longer believe in "the market" can do to prevent further losses in their
401k portfolios. I would want to withdraw the funds and put them into
something with more integrity than the stock market.

That's a question asked everyday on the various financial planning TV and
radio talk shows.
Without exception, all the "experts" advise people to leave their
investments alone.
They sometimes recommend shifting to less risky, lower yield type
investments, but they all say *DO NOT* take your money out.

I don't know. I keep mine in a hidden mattress.

Eisboch


Being a somewhat cynical person, I wonder whos' best interests those
financial people are looking after...the poor sap who sees his investment
shrinking with every monthy report...or the system they've set up with their
rich fee structure.




Gee, that's a toughie! :)

Fee's'R'Us.

Same sort of advice you'll get from "financial advisers" who sell
product. They're going to sell you the products that generate fees for
them.

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 10:44:34 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



I know, (for Harry's benefit), the union has conceded to temporarily
terminate this practice and may even consider permanently eliminating it in
future reorganization contract negotiations. But, when the 3 musketeers
first went before congress begging for money, it was in place, to the best
of my knowledge.

I don't know that they've conceded that yet. The union pres is good
at dodging questions. Being a former member, I can tell you that UAW
is a tough, old-fashioned union. Militant, and hard as hell to back
down on anything. The devil will be in the details.
Corker is tough though, and I don't think the Reps in the Senate will
let that go. Could even filibuster.

--Vic

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:44:34 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


I guess when the economy is trucking along and GM is making money, few
concern themselves with this kind of thing. It's when things turn to
crap and GM wants the rest of us taxpayers to cough up the money, it
gets some attention.

It's hard to defend the jobs bank, but it has to be put into
perspective. It goes back to the 1984 contract, and it wasn't one-
sided. The company got productivity and flexibility increases. The time
in the jobs bank was supposed to be for retraining and community
projects. IMO, clearly it's time to end this, but in the big picture
it's small potatoes.

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...A01-351179.htm

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:45:26 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Don White wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"Boater" wrote in message
...
I understand *that* problem...I'm wondering what *those people* who no
longer believe in "the market" can do to prevent further losses in their
401k portfolios. I would want to withdraw the funds and put them into
something with more integrity than the stock market.

That's a question asked everyday on the various financial planning TV and
radio talk shows.
Without exception, all the "experts" advise people to leave their
investments alone.
They sometimes recommend shifting to less risky, lower yield type
investments, but they all say *DO NOT* take your money out.

I don't know. I keep mine in a hidden mattress.

Eisboch


Being a somewhat cynical person, I wonder whos' best interests those
financial people are looking after...the poor sap who sees his investment
shrinking with every monthy report...or the system they've set up with their
rich fee structure.




Gee, that's a toughie! :)

Fee's'R'Us.

Same sort of advice you'll get from "financial advisers" who sell
product. They're going to sell you the products that generate fees for
them.

Even the media is part of it.
There's a guy on CNN - Ally Vishi or something like that - who does
the financial, "Wall Street" pieces.
A few weeks ago - I think the DJ was still over 10000, he actually
advised buying because stocks were "so low."
I couldn't believe it.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...


Savings and SS were the factors I used in planning retirement.
Never bought into the equity craze.

Ditto. When lightning struck and we benefited from the sale of my company,
we put a sizeable chunk away in long term, relatively low yield CD's in
several insured accounts. We also invested in some real estate, which even
with the downturn in home prices, is serving us well. We also gifted quite
a bit to family members and still occasional do at appropriate times. The
rest is in some simple, money market savings accounts, spread out to make
sure it's all insured.

I got a lot of flack for being dumb when we decided to go this conservative
way. Our accountant, who suddenly became a "financial planner" when we sold
the company, tried to convince me that shrewd investments would multiply our
money and we were being foolish.

I told him I was happy with what we had. I didn't need more money. And,
the last thing in the world I was going to do after busting 'em for all
those years was to let someone else manage it for me. Contrary to rumors
spread here, I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth and I know what
it's like to be without.

Eisboch

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:57:08 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

Cars are cars and trucks are trucks. I don't have a particular brand
loyalty.

I do - which probably colors my distaste for the GM bailout. :)

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 07:07:36 -0500, BAR wrote:

Boater wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 16:51:16 -0600, wrote:

Frankly, I don't give a damn about GM. During normal times, I'd say
let them go under, but in these times, I think the risk of letting
them fail is too big. The bridge *loan* they are talking about is
1/10 what we have already spent on Wall Street, and only a couple of
months of the spending we've been doing in Iraq for years.
I understand and I don't think it's funny at all - it is very serious.

However, I've been through this - I'm, and you, are old enough to
remember '56 which was as bad if not worse than now. We all survived,
our father's got new jobs and life went on.

Too bad we've lost more than a million jobs in the last year. But I am
sure there are jobs aplenty for everyone, including the aging GM workforce.
It is amazing that as the population increases and more of the youth
come onto the rolls of job seekers that we don't have 50, 75 or 100
million people out of work. If we are to believe the naysayers then our
percentage of jobless in the USA would increase over time without ever
decreasing. The strange thing is that it keeps fluctuating between 4%
and 7% regardless of the size of our population?

Can you explain any of this Harry?

When you add in the 20-40 million illegal immigrants into the equation, who
will work for minimum wage, it's easy to see why unemployment of US
citizens is so high.


Ahh...it's the fault of the illegal immigrants. I knew it!

snerk

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 07:07:36 -0500, BAR wrote:

Boater wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 16:51:16 -0600, wrote:

Frankly, I don't give a damn about GM. During normal times, I'd say
let them go under, but in these times, I think the risk of letting
them fail is too big. The bridge *loan* they are talking about is
1/10 what we have already spent on Wall Street, and only a couple of
months of the spending we've been doing in Iraq for years.

I understand and I don't think it's funny at all - it is very serious.

However, I've been through this - I'm, and you, are old enough to
remember '56 which was as bad if not worse than now. We all survived,
our father's got new jobs and life went on.


Too bad we've lost more than a million jobs in the last year. But I am
sure there are jobs aplenty for everyone, including the aging GM workforce.

It is amazing that as the population increases and more of the youth
come onto the rolls of job seekers that we don't have 50, 75 or 100
million people out of work. If we are to believe the naysayers then our
percentage of jobless in the USA would increase over time without ever
decreasing. The strange thing is that it keeps fluctuating between 4%
and 7% regardless of the size of our population?

Can you explain any of this Harry?

When you add in the 20-40 million illegal immigrants into the equation, who
will work for minimum wage, it's easy to see why unemployment of US
citizens is so high.
--
John H.

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 07:49:54 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 04:32:22 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Boater" wrote in message
...

My understanding is that the Toyota we have was not built by non-union
workers in the USA.

Why did I choose it? Because at the time I purchased it, the
corresponding
Ford and GM vehicles were too large.


I assume you bought a used Tundra.

Eisboch


I believe he said he had a 4Runner.
--
John H.


Oh. I was wrong. I thought he mentioned a Tundra.
I assume it is an older, used model.

Eisboch


Well, he's had it about six years, and it is used only to tow boats at
Breezy Point.

Horse****.
--
John H.