finknottle Posted December 2, 2008 Posted December 2, 2008 Congress keeps talking tough about the conditions they will place on the big 3 before handing our our money. They will get the money in the end because it is Michigan, a politically important state to the Democrats. But in the spirit of Christmas, what conditions would YOU like to see imposed? Here is what I want. We hear a lot of talk about the executives making too much, and that they should take a symbolic pay cut. Fine. How about if we require the average compensation of the big 3 auto workers to be one dollar less than the average compensation of the US auto workers in companies not receiving a bailout? Not only is that fairer to the US employees of Nissan et al, it might actually make a difference.
John Adams Posted December 2, 2008 Posted December 2, 2008 Here is what I want. We hear a lot of talk about the executives making too much, and that they should take a symbolic pay cut. Fine. How about if we require the average compensation of the big 3 auto workers to be one dollar less than the average compensation of the US auto workers in companies not receiving a bailout? Not only is that fairer to the US employees of Nissan et al, it might actually make a difference. Umm what? Really? He's a condition I'd like on the money. When you have just enough money left in the bank to pay off this loan, pay it off and turn the lights out on your way to bankruptcy.
finknottle Posted December 2, 2008 Author Posted December 2, 2008 Why one dollar less? Why not the same? Because they are getting the benefit of the money. The other companies, whose limiting of their expenses played at least some part in their comparitive health, aren't getting diddly for their moderation. And by company I'm including the workers, who choose to live in right-to-work states and not be forced to join the UAW. The big 3 autoworkers should at least reap a symbolic something of what they've sown. Why should they get more than their peers in good times and by federal parachute get the same in bad?
Dan Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 Congress keeps talking tough about the conditions they will place on the big 3 before handing our our money. They will get the money in the end because it is Michigan, a politically important state to the Democrats. But in the spirit of Christmas, what conditions would YOU like to see imposed? Here is what I want. We hear a lot of talk about the executives making too much, and that they should take a symbolic pay cut. Fine. How about if we require the average compensation of the big 3 auto workers to be one dollar less than the average compensation of the US auto workers in companies not receiving a bailout? Not only is that fairer to the US employees of Nissan et al, it might actually make a difference. Actually I think the big 3 CEOs said that if they got the bailout cash, they'd cut their pay to $1/yr. Not sure of of the details, just caught it quickly earlier today/.
KD in CA Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 Actually I think the big 3 CEOs said that if they got the bailout cash, they'd cut their pay to $1/yr. Not sure of of the details, just caught it quickly earlier today/. Big deal. GM lost $23 billion in the last year. That mean his $20MM salary extends GM's life by eight hours. That's not even a drop in the bucket of what needs to happen to turn this disaster around. This move is nothing but a PR stunt designed to fool the media dopes (and probably a lot of Congressional dopes). And never mind that they'll still have huge equity plans that will be worth a ton when the stock comes off 60 year lows, so he'll still be laughing all the way to the bank thanks to our money.
Dan Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 Big deal. GM lost $23 billion in the last year. That mean his $20MM salary extends GM's life by eight hours. That's not even a drop in the bucket of what needs to happen to turn this disaster around. This move is nothing but a PR stunt designed to fool the media dopes (and probably a lot of Congressional dopes). And never mind that they'll still have huge equity plans that will be worth a ton when the stock comes off 60 year lows, so he'll still be laughing all the way to the bank thanks to our money. I completely agree with you. However, the OP suggested they take "one dollar less than the average compensation of the US auto workers in companies not receiving a bailout". I was simply pointing out that they've upped that idea.
KD in CA Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 I completely agree with you. However, the OP suggested they take "one dollar less than the average compensation of the US auto workers in companies not receiving a bailout". I was simply pointing out that they've upped that idea. I believe he was referring to the Big 3 auto workers being paid the same as their counterparts in non-failing business. I completely agree with him too, it's absurd that our tax money will go to enrich people protected by crooked union deals.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 Because they are getting the benefit of the money. The other companies, whose limiting of their expenses played at least some part in their comparitive health, aren't getting diddly for their moderation. And by company I'm including the workers, who choose to live in right-to-work states and not be forced to join the UAW. The big 3 autoworkers should at least reap a symbolic something of what they've sown. Why should they get more than their peers in good times and by federal parachute get the same in bad? That's not true. The Japanese automakers have been subsidized for years by the Japanese gov't. I hope the Yen gets super strong against the dollar.
KD in CA Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 That's not true. The Japanese automakers have been subsidized for years by the Japanese gov't. I hope the Yen gets super strong against the dollar. So what? Foreign gov't subsidize all sorts of business all over the world. Since when does that mean that we need to throw billions of dollars at US businesses to compete?
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 So what? Foreign gov't subsidize all sorts of business all over the world. Since when does that mean that we need to throw billions of dollars at US businesses to compete? Uh... When your companies are going bankrupt and you citizens are being laid off and seeking unemployment benny's.. Duh. Nice... Keep your high ideals/dream world sceanarios while other countries slay us economically. Just as long as it doesn't effect you personally, all is right then?
finknottle Posted December 3, 2008 Author Posted December 3, 2008 Uh... When your companies are going bankrupt and you citizens are being laid off and seeking unemployment benny's.. Duh. Nice... Keep your high ideals/dream world sceanarios while other countries slay us economically. Just as long as it doesn't effect you personally, all is right then? And you can keep your nationalistic ideals too. If Japan wants to pump money into Nissan while Nissan employs workers here, let them. Those employees are just as much citizens as are the workers of the big 3. Or should we have a special rule, where if you work for a foreign company you don't get the same federal largess as somebody working for a US company? And on the flip side, there is talk of the Swedes helping out Saab with a loan. Should GM be penalized for that?
John Adams Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 In the interest of full disclosure, EEI's argument for how the Japanese gov't helps its auto industry is that the gov't keeps its currency value low. It's a stretch but he's sticking to it. I helped him out a few weeks ago by adding an argument that in Japan, the gov't pays for healthcare. He needs all the help he can get for his argument that Consumer Reports (and every other nonaffiliated car review magazine) is part of a conspiracy to dupe the American consumer into thinking that Japanese cars are better than American ones. Because, you know, the American consumer can't make up his mind without Consumer Reports. He supports his argument with anecdotes from some website called sludge. You can't make this stuff up. He voted for Lyndon LaRouche.
DC Tom Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 You can't make this stuff up. He voted for Lyndon LaRouche. So? So'd I. Support Euler! Death to the pagan followers of Isaac Newton and their economic crimes!
John Adams Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 So? So'd I. Support Euler! Death to the pagan followers of Isaac Newton and their economic crimes! Gladwell says a high IQ only gets you so far in his new book: Outliers. He says to think of a high IQ as giving an advantage but only to a point. People with a 130 IQ are not necessarily appreciably worse off than people with a 190 IQ. (Both are better off than someone with a wacka-like 70 IQ). How's that for a thread hijack?
DC Tom Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 Gladwell says a high IQ only gets you so far in his new book: Outliers. He says to think of a high IQ as giving an advantage but only to a point. People with a 130 IQ are not necessarily appreciably worse off than people with a 190 IQ. (Both are better off than someone with a wacka-like 70 IQ). How's that for a thread hijack? Of course, if Gladwell's had ever studied the children of East German scientists, he'd know that only seems true because of measurement error...
John Adams Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 Of course, if Gladwell's had ever studied the children of East German scientists, he'd know that only seems true because of measurement error... He studied Terman's Termites. The evidence is compelling: You are no better than VABills.
KD in CA Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 How's that for a thread hijack? Anything that moves us away from more EEI fantasy about the auto industry and his laughable take on international business is a positive development.
Wacka Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 Gladwell says a high IQ only gets you so far in his new book: Outliers. He says to think of a high IQ as giving an advantage but only to a point. People with a 130 IQ are not necessarily appreciably worse off than people with a 190 IQ. (Both are better off than someone with a wacka-like 70 IQ). How's that for a thread hijack? More of the intolerant bigotry cited in another thread. Am I calling people idiots?
Recommended Posts