Can I pull this boat?
 

Aw, Harry. those are ridiculous.

You actually click on a link that harry posts? From a guy that wishes people
would commit suicide, I'm sure he doesn't give a rat's ass what he does to
someone's computer. You're a brave man.

--Mike

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Jul 30, 8:32 pm, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
...

The U.S. auto companies are in trouble because their management sucks
and
has sucked for years, and they grossly overpay their mid and upper
level
white collar workers, as do many American corporations.

The bulk of layoffs at GM and Ford right now are white collar jobs.

Ford and GM are "multinational" corporations, and the management there
doesn't give a crap whether they make cars in the USA or not.

Nonsense.

I can understand why you think the way you do Harry. I suspect very
much
that you never held a job that had a bottom line accountability or
responsibility.

You seem to simply observe and complain about those that do.

Eisboch

Are you maintaining that GM, Ford, and Chrysler have been well-run
corporations the last decade or so?

--http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b287/hank100/Videos/?action=view&cu...

- -

http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...action=view&cu...

Aw, Harry. those are ridiculous.

Can I pull this boat?
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..



We obviously have different standards by which we judge corporations.

Probably.

To me the primary responsibility of the management of a corporation like GM
or Ford is to operate in the best interests of it's stockholders. Employees
are obviously important and critical, but the corporation is not designed
specifically for their welfare. It's supposed to make a profit. It's the
way our system works. If they do it right, everyone benefits. A
corporation is not a social service.

It also produces products that are in demand by the market place. If
customers have traditionally wanted big, gas guzzlers because fuel was cheap
in the US, then *that's* what they produce. If they don't, they will lose
market share to someone else that will. Stockholders and employees will
suffer.

Consider Toyota. They started out building small, compact, fuel efficient
(to the standards in the US) cars and trucks.
The US market demanded big, powerful vehicles so Toyota introduced bigger
cars and trucks (like the 381 hp Tundra) in response.

Now with the fairly rapid increase in fuel costs, the market is beginning to
demand smaller, fuel efficient vehicles again.
Companies like GM and Ford are scrambling to deliver, cutting production of
the gas guzzlers.

You just don't like large corporations and you think they are all out screw
everybody.

Eisboch

Can I pull this boat?
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..

The U.S. auto companies are in trouble because their management sucks
and has sucked for years, and they grossly overpay their mid and upper
level white collar workers, as do many American corporations.

The bulk of layoffs at GM and Ford right now are white collar jobs.


Ford and GM are "multinational" corporations, and the management there
doesn't give a crap whether they make cars in the USA or not.

Nonsense.

I can understand why you think the way you do Harry. I suspect very
much that you never held a job that had a bottom line accountability or
responsibility.

You seem to simply observe and complain about those that do.

Eisboch


Are you maintaining that GM, Ford, and Chrysler have been well-run
corporations the last decade or so?



Look for yourself.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=GM&a...g=m&z=66 &y=0

According to the historical stock price, starting in July, 1998, GM paid
a quarterly dividend of 50 cents every quarter until November of 2005.
The stock price appears to have fluctuated roughly between about $30 to
$40 per share. The quarterly dividend then dropped to 25 cents, but has
still been paid every quarter, the last being in May, 2008.
The decrease in the dividend corresponds to a decline in the stock value,
which happens to correspond to the increase in fuel costs.

So, in GM's case, yes, I'd say they are doing a reasonably good job
adjusting to a very difficult and changing market.

I didn't check Ford. Chrysler is a unique situation, having been
acquired by Mercedes, then recently sold to private investors.
I'd agree that Chrysler has not done well as a company over the past 10
years.

Eisboch


We obviously have different standards by which we judge corporations.

GM,. FORD, Etc. Are in deep trouble because of the fixed costs. A major
one is retiree medical costs. Yes they were poorly run. Years ago, when
they had most of the worlds car markets, they gave the unions anything they
asked for. Has come back to bite them in the ass. Toyota, etc. assembling
cars here in the US, have not been here long enough to have much in the
retiree line. GM's union manual is 1000's of pages. defines all the job
categories and what that category can do. Toyotas is about 100 pages and
they can require a worker to what ever job is required. From putting doors
on to sweeping the floor. Must better negotiators. When they should have
layed off people, they kept 1000's on the payroll per union agreements.
They did no work. Bad management is correct.

Can I pull this boat?
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...


GM,. FORD, Etc. Are in deep trouble because of the fixed costs. A major
one is retiree medical costs. Yes they were poorly run. Years ago, when
they had most of the worlds car markets, they gave the unions anything
they asked for. Has come back to bite them in the ass. Toyota, etc.
assembling cars here in the US, have not been here long enough to have
much in the retiree line. GM's union manual is 1000's of pages. defines
all the job categories and what that category can do. Toyotas is about
100 pages and they can require a worker to what ever job is required.
From putting doors on to sweeping the floor. Must better negotiators.
When they should have layed off people, they kept 1000's on the payroll
per union agreements. They did no work. Bad management is correct.



According to people like Harry, GM and Ford didn't give the unions enough.


Eisboch

Can I pull this boat?
 

Eisboch wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...

GM,. FORD, Etc. Are in deep trouble because of the fixed costs. A major
one is retiree medical costs. Yes they were poorly run. Years ago, when
they had most of the worlds car markets, they gave the unions anything
they asked for. Has come back to bite them in the ass. Toyota, etc.
assembling cars here in the US, have not been here long enough to have
much in the retiree line. GM's union manual is 1000's of pages. defines
all the job categories and what that category can do. Toyotas is about
100 pages and they can require a worker to what ever job is required.
From putting doors on to sweeping the floor. Must better negotiators.
When they should have layed off people, they kept 1000's on the payroll
per union agreements. They did no work. Bad management is correct.



According to people like Harry, GM and Ford didn't give the unions enough.


Eisboch



What *I* stated was that the U.S. car makers were poorly managed, with
overpaid white collar mid and upper management. Many large U.S.
corporations grossly overcompensate "management." There have been plenty
of news stories about the tens of millions of dollars paid to top execs
at the same time the companies they run are failing.



--
http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...ent=Voting.flv

- -

http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...istiangene.flv

Can I pull this boat?
 

"HK" wrote in message
...



What *I* stated was that the U.S. car makers were poorly managed, with
overpaid white collar mid and upper management. Many large U.S.
corporations grossly overcompensate "management." There have been plenty
of news stories about the tens of millions of dollars paid to top execs at
the same time the companies they run are failing.



Why were they poorly managed if, in the case of GM, they had record
corporate profits and paid regular, consistent dividends to the shareholders
for most of the past ten years? Plus met all the contractual obligations to
current and retired employees?

Take care of the business ..... the business will take care of you. It's
how it works, and there's nothing wrong with big paychecks for those with
the most responsibility.

Eisboch

Can I pull this boat?
 

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...


What *I* stated was that the U.S. car makers were poorly managed, with
overpaid white collar mid and upper management. Many large U.S.
corporations grossly overcompensate "management." There have been plenty
of news stories about the tens of millions of dollars paid to top execs at
the same time the companies they run are failing.



Why were they poorly managed if, in the case of GM, they had record
corporate profits and paid regular, consistent dividends to the shareholders
for most of the past ten years? Plus met all the contractual obligations to
current and retired employees?

Take care of the business ..... the business will take care of you. It's
how it works, and there's nothing wrong with big paychecks for those with
the most responsibility.

Eisboch


Now *that* is funny. Take care of business and business will take care
of you. I'm sure that song plays well to the millions of American
workers who have lost their jobs because of crappy management, and the
millions who have also lost health care benefits, pension benefits, and
much more, despite giving all they had to "the business," and of course,
let's not forget the millions of American workers who have lost
long-held jobs because corporate management determined it would be
"cheaper" to build or service their product in China, India, or wherever.

Take care of the business for which you work, and, if it gets the
chance, the business for which you work will eliminate your job, your
health care, your pension. Or it will simply underfund its pension
liabilities.

Sorry, but I don't believe that "shareholder equity" is any more
valuable than "worker equity." What many corporations in this country
seem to do best is to discard workers like used paper towels.

Note I said many...I did not say all.


Oh...and there is something wrong, very wrong, with the huge disparity
at many corporations between average pay and "executive" compensation.

Can I pull this boat?
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...


What *I* stated was that the U.S. car makers were poorly managed, with
overpaid white collar mid and upper management. Many large U.S.
corporations grossly overcompensate "management." There have been plenty
of news stories about the tens of millions of dollars paid to top execs
at the same time the companies they run are failing.



Why were they poorly managed if, in the case of GM, they had record
corporate profits and paid regular, consistent dividends to the
shareholders for most of the past ten years? Plus met all the
contractual obligations to current and retired employees?

Take care of the business ..... the business will take care of you.
It's how it works, and there's nothing wrong with big paychecks for those
with the most responsibility.

Eisboch


Now *that* is funny. Take care of business and business will take care of
you. I'm sure that song plays well to the millions of American workers who
have lost their jobs because of crappy management, and the millions who
have also lost health care benefits, pension benefits, and much more,
despite giving all they had to "the business," and of course, let's not
forget the millions of American workers who have lost long-held jobs
because corporate management determined it would be "cheaper" to build or
service their product in China, India, or wherever.

Take care of the business for which you work, and, if it gets the chance,
the business for which you work will eliminate your job, your health care,
your pension. Or it will simply underfund its pension liabilities.

Sorry, but I don't believe that "shareholder equity" is any more valuable
than "worker equity." What many corporations in this country seem to do
best is to discard workers like used paper towels.

Note I said many...I did not say all.


Oh...and there is something wrong, very wrong, with the huge disparity at
many corporations between average pay and "executive" compensation.




"Take care of the business" implies doing a competent job whereby the
focus is on the success of the business. If the business is successful, so
will be the employees.

There's a huge change factor going on here .... the emergence of a global
economy. To remain competitive in it, the cost of doing business has to be
carefully analyzed and optimized. Otherwise, the business will ultimately
fail and everyone's out of a job and benefits.

It has always been interesting to me that those who complain the most about
fat compensation packages are those not earning them.

I never had one, BTW. My reward was the success of the business, and all
of those who participated in whatever capacity benefited proportionally.

Eisboch

Can I pull this boat?
 

Wow. Well, I think I got some good info, maybe a little TOO much. 8O
Look, I am serious, I wouldn’t be taking time out of my schedual to
be here if I wasn’t. I’m new to this stuff, so here I am. I ask
because a good friend of mine is pulling a 25’ shockwave with a newer
F-150 w/ similer specs, with no problems at all. I just don’t want to
get in over my head, literally, at the boat ramp. I know that my
manual says about 13,000 pounds, but the boat just seems big. For
those who think I’m a "Troll", sorry. This is my first time here,
so, don’t know what to say. :? Well thanx for all the usful info.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:10:58 -0700 (PDT), Tim

wrote:

On Jul 30, 12:36 am, "Eisboch" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jul 29, 7:16 pm, "Eisboch" wrote:

wrote in message

...

Do what you will, but you need a bigger truck.

I have to disagree, I think that truck is more than
enough.

A 29' boat with a F-150?

Are you serious?

Eisboch

Yes. Remember that I " wash the trucks as they come of the
truck" ...remember?
(snarky remark you made
discussing
Vipers, and the T-10 Engine)
My Astro Van can pull my 20' tank of a boat, on a twin axle
trailer.
It also launches, and recovers it as well.
Are the F-150s you get in the states de-tuned or something?
Put your
foot in it.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the engine. It has
everything to do
with the suspension, brakes, and rear end ratio. The F-150
is a light duty
truck. I don't know what the 29' boat weighs, but I
suspect it is at least
5000 lbs ..... probably more when engine, gas and gear are
factored in.
The F 150, although maybe "rated" by Ford to be adequate
... isn't, IMO, for
any long distance, hauling of a boat that size.

Eisboch

I pull a 23 ft. Marquis cuddy on a dual axle trailer with a
1990 Merc.
Colony Park Station wagon. fuel enjected 302 (5.0). The
trailer has
good hydrological surge brakes.

I won't say that it's all it can do to pull the boat but it's
enough
for it. Shifting out of OD and no air, it will pull the boat
at 50-55,
but yes, it sucks plenty of gas, I would say that at 50mph it
will
possibly get 8, maybe 10 mpg....*maybe*

I would say that your f-150 WILL pull that 29 footer, but
conveniently? No, and economically, HECK NO!

Mine will pull it - the question is safely.

Everybody has pretty much hit on the main points including
braking,
but the 5.4 is so emissions laden that it has no power at all
- none.

Biggest mistakek I made was buying that truck.

Can I pull this boat?
 

"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...

GM,. FORD, Etc. Are in deep trouble because of the fixed costs. A
major one is retiree medical costs. Yes they were poorly run. Years
ago, when they had most of the worlds car markets, they gave the unions
anything they asked for. Has come back to bite them in the ass.
Toyota, etc. assembling cars here in the US, have not been here long
enough to have much in the retiree line. GM's union manual is 1000's of
pages. defines all the job categories and what that category can do.
Toyotas is about 100 pages and they can require a worker to what ever
job is required. From putting doors on to sweeping the floor. Must
better negotiators. When they should have layed off people, they kept
1000's on the payroll per union agreements. They did no work. Bad
management is correct.



According to people like Harry, GM and Ford didn't give the unions
enough.


Eisboch

What *I* stated was that the U.S. car makers were poorly managed, with
overpaid white collar mid and upper management. Many large U.S.
corporations grossly overcompensate "management." There have been plenty
of news stories about the tens of millions of dollars paid to top execs at
the same time the companies they run are failing.



--
http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...ent=Voting.flv

- -

http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...istiangene.flv

And there are many grossly overpaid incompetent blue collar workers under
union protection. Does anyone bother to add up those costs?