Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:05:45 -0400, wrote:

You keep bitching about how your 401k is losing money. If you had
simply bought IBM stock you would be getting 2-3% return from
dividends alone.

Now who would have thought that a big manufacturing company in the US
could possibly have been successful over so many years. Maybe
because of good management, good products, good people, good service
and no unions (that I know of) ?


I thought IBM was an Indian company now.
Heard that's where their largest workforce is.
http://localtechwire.com/business/lo...gpost/8155238/
This is old 2006 info
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...ees/index.html
But it's probably wrong. The IBM number looks global.
You could have as well mentioned Ford, Boeing, GE, UPS, GM, etc.
They all provide more jobs for Americans.
Wouldn't fit in with the union-bashing though.
Can't remember the last time I bought an IBM product made in the U.S.
Maybe the original IBM pc had parts made in the U.S.
Bought a couple "IBM" hard drives made in some Singapore sweatshop about
8 years ago. They both failed pretty quick. Junk.
Not having a union over there didn't help a bit.
Probably the design engineers in the U.S. screwed the pooch.
That might be why they're moving so much to India.
There's one thing easier than bashing unions though.
Picking stocks after their performance is known, and fancying yourself a
genius.

Jim - Tripe isn't only found in sausage.

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:26:42 -0500, Jim wrote:

But it's probably wrong. The IBM number looks global.
You could have as well mentioned Ford, Boeing, GE, UPS, GM, etc.
They all provide more jobs for Americans.
Wouldn't fit in with the union-bashing though.

I might agree with your list if you had left off GM. There is no
possible way that GM can be regarded as successful.

I'm not necessarily a union basher either since there are some that
are responsible. I actually belonged to the CWA at one brief time in
my life. Non-union manufacuring however is definitely one of the many
keys to IBM's success.

Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:26:42 -0500, Jim wrote:

But it's probably wrong. The IBM number looks global.
You could have as well mentioned Ford, Boeing, GE, UPS, GM, etc.
They all provide more jobs for Americans.
Wouldn't fit in with the union-bashing though.

I might agree with your list if you had left off GM. There is no
possible way that GM can be regarded as successful.


Ok, GM *was* very successful. And they could come back.
Any company can fail at any time.
Are you familiar with Citigroup?
GM and Citigroup were booted from the DJIA the same day.
Two years prior everybody was calling them "successful" companies.
Instead they became Gov Motors and GovGroup.
Same can happen to IBM.

Is Citigroup a union shop?
Probably not. The Fed doesn't continually print interest free money for
GM as they've done for Citigroup.
GM has to turn a profit on tangible goods to pay off the gov.
Citibank can just produce some balance sheets, smear them with pig
lipstick, and hand them over to Obama's Fed Reserve Wall Street guys at
lunch in the Fed Reserve dining room.
Their pals.

"Tim, looks like we could use another interest free $10 billion.
Print the cash up ASAP. As usual, we'll use it to buy your Treasuries
and you pay us +3%. For the good of the economy, you know.
And please give my compliments to your chef."
These guys make union "mobsters" look like pikers.
Even Al Capone didn't get a taxpayer-paid chef.

You're familiar with "As goes GM, so goes the nation."
Might be true, might not be.
Tell you one thing for sure, this country wouldn't even miss Citigroup.

I'm not necessarily a union basher either since there are some that
are responsible. I actually belonged to the CWA at one brief time in
my life. Non-union manufacuring however is definitely one of the many
keys to IBM's success.


Maybe, maybe not. Since IBM's never been union, you don't know.
It's your right to guess about it. That's all you got.
IBM's primary revenue generator has been services for many years.
Most of their manufacturing has been in cheap overseas labor markets for
many years.
Besides, somehow chip production, nano-technology and research engineer
unions never really got off the ground.
BTW, ballerinas never got their union going either.

What we do know is toxic Citigroup is non-union and a massive failure.
So is non-union toxic Goldman and non-union toxic AIG.
All still loaded with toxic assets and being propped up by the Fed.
And we also know that many, many non-union manufacturers have gone bust.
Anytime I see knee-jerk union bashing I question it.
Way too easy to blame "others' for everything you think is wrong.

Here's the top 10 U.S. bankruptcies.
You pick the ones killed by unions.
I'll pick the ones killed by management.
They're all mine. Every single one.


Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. 2008-09-15 $639,063,000,800
Washington Mutual 2008-09-26 $327,913,000,000
Worldcom Inc. 2002-07-21 $103,914,000,000
General Motors Corporation 2009-06-01 $82,300,000,000
CIT Group 2009-11-01 $71,019,200,000
Enron Corp.* 2001-02-12 $63,392,000,000
Conseco, Inc. 2002-12-18 $61,392,000,000
Chrysler LLC 2009-04-30 $39,300,000,000
Texaco, Inc. 1987-04-12 $35,892,000,000
Financial Corp. of America 1988-09-09 $33,864,000,000

Jim - Facts are easy to come by. But it's even easier to wing it.

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:05:02 -0500, Jim wrote:

Here's the top 10 U.S. bankruptcies.
You pick the ones killed by unions.
I'll pick the ones killed by management.
They're all mine. Every single one.


Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. 2008-09-15 $639,063,000,800
Washington Mutual 2008-09-26 $327,913,000,000
Worldcom Inc. 2002-07-21 $103,914,000,000
General Motors Corporation 2009-06-01 $82,300,000,000
CIT Group 2009-11-01 $71,019,200,000
Enron Corp.* 2001-02-12 $63,392,000,000
Conseco, Inc. 2002-12-18 $61,392,000,000
Chrysler LLC 2009-04-30 $39,300,000,000
Texaco, Inc. 1987-04-12 $35,892,000,000
Financial Corp. of America 1988-09-09 $33,864,000,000

Jim - Facts are easy to come by. But it's even easier to wing it.

Speaking of winging it, what makes you think that Texaco went
bankrupt? They merged with Chevron in 2001, very succesful at the
time of the merger, still successful as a merged entity today.

In 1987, Texaco was forced to file for Chapter 11 because it could not
afford to pay a jury award to Pennzoil. That award had been knocked
down by a judge from $10.53 billion. Pennzoil successfully sued
Texaco for jumping its planned merger with Getty Oil, in part, by
moving the case to local court near its headquarters. The jury awarded
triple damages.

Texaco sought protection under federal bankruptcy laws in order to buy
time and negotiate a better settlement with Pennzoil. Subsequently,
Texaco was able to settle with Pennzoil at a reduced payment of $3
billion. In April of 1988, Texaco emerged from bankruptcy and
continued to expand their market share.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=cvx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texaco

Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:05:02 -0500, Jim wrote:

Here's the top 10 U.S. bankruptcies.
You pick the ones killed by unions.
I'll pick the ones killed by management.
They're all mine. Every single one.


Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. 2008-09-15 $639,063,000,800
Washington Mutual 2008-09-26 $327,913,000,000
Worldcom Inc. 2002-07-21 $103,914,000,000
General Motors Corporation 2009-06-01 $82,300,000,000
CIT Group 2009-11-01 $71,019,200,000
Enron Corp.* 2001-02-12 $63,392,000,000
Conseco, Inc. 2002-12-18 $61,392,000,000
Chrysler LLC 2009-04-30 $39,300,000,000
Texaco, Inc. 1987-04-12 $35,892,000,000
Financial Corp. of America 1988-09-09 $33,864,000,000

Jim - Facts are easy to come by. But it's even easier to wing it.

Speaking of winging it, what makes you think that Texaco went
bankrupt? They merged with Chevron in 2001, very succesful at the
time of the merger, still successful as a merged entity today.


Go argue with the Wall Street Journal, wiki, etc.
That's where the chart is from.
Next you'll be claiming GM and Chrysler didn't go bankrupt either.
FYI, Chapter 11 is bankruptcy.
You don't get to make up your own bankruptcy rules on rec.boats.
Speaking of Dodge, nice one avoiding answering why so many non-union
companies go bankrupt.
I'd do the same - if I was prone to dodging and cherry picking.
I'm not.
So I'll just assume you didn't answer because you can't blame a union.
That's clear enough.

Jim - Done here.