KD in CA Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 I love you continually bash unions. You are awesome. Not as much as I love your laughable double standard. Giving money to Citi or AIG is terrible, but you have "no problem" flushing it down the Big 3 toilet.
Joe Miner Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 Not as much as I love your laughable double standard. Giving money to Citi or AIG is terrible, but you have "no problem" flushing it down the Big 3 toilet. Hey, seeing as how Ford hasn't taken any money (yet), I think they should be referred to as the Big 2. Which, in conjunction with your toilet reference seems astoundingly appropriate.
pBills Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 Not as much as I love your laughable double standard. Giving money to Citi or AIG is terrible, but you have "no problem" flushing it down the Big 3 toilet. My double standard. We all know that the big three have screwed up. However it's the blatent wasteful spending that AIG has done even after receiving money that pissed me off. But ok, you are fine with that right?
KD in CA Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 My double standard. We all know that the big three have screwed up. However it's the blatent wasteful spending that AIG has done even after receiving money that pissed me off. But ok, you are fine with that right? Where did I say I was fine with that? In fact where did I say I was fine with any of the insane gov't hand-outs? Why is it blatent wasteful spending at AIG but not at GM?
pBills Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 Where did I say I was fine with that? In fact where did I say I was fine with any of the insane gov't hand-outs? Why is it blatent wasteful spending at AIG but not at GM? I haven't said that GM hasn't screwed up. I said that GM was/is trying to right the ship before and after they received money. AIG was not doing that. They wasted money received from their bail out and now they are asking for more. I hope they get told to jump.
Adam Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 I was fine with that In fact I was fine with gov't hand-outs Before you get all POed about me editing your quote, please consider I put some great thought and some hard work into this- if the wonderful media can pick and choose from quotes and soundbites, why can't we do that? AS a matter of fact, we can have a great many uses for stuff like this- we could have a loan approved if it actually really approved for someone else. Ever been in one of these weird moods?
KD in CA Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 I haven't said that GM hasn't screwed up. I said that GM was/is trying to right the ship before and after they received money. AIG was not doing that. They wasted money received from their bail out and now they are asking for more. I hope they get told to jump. Please cite your sources for all the ship-righting done by GM and corresponding lack thereof by AIG. GM hasn't done sh-- expect continue to operating a money losing business. And I'm sure when GM comes back for another round of cash (they're already asking), you'll want to tell them to 'jump' as well?
pBills Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 You really can't remember AIG's wasteful spending? And cite source? How about closing plants, offering early retirements, selling off brands, working with the UAW on contract concessions? I have already said no I would not say jump to them. They were run through the coals to even ask for money the first time unlike the financial institutions. The CEO's were hammered for simply flying into DC on a private jet. AIG spends hundreds of thousands on multiple retreats and now comes back to ask for more money.
gmac17 Posted March 4, 2009 Posted March 4, 2009 AIG spends hundreds of thousands on multiple retreats and now comes back to ask for more money. you mean on retreats that were largely paid for 6 months ago, and that would have cost hundreds of thousands to cancel? so if you take out the hundreds of thousands of dollars they have wasted, will you be ok with giving them BILLIONS of dollars to them like the auto companies? Because if they didn't go on those retreats i'm sure all would be fine. Just like if the GM guys didn't fly their planes to DC they would be fine (seriously - driving from Detroit to DC in a hybrid for a meeting with Congress is a brilliant use of their time...)
Chef Jim Posted March 4, 2009 Posted March 4, 2009 You really can't remember AIG's wasteful spending? And cite source? How about closing plants, offering early retirements, selling off brands, working with the UAW on contract concessions? I have already said no I would not say jump to them. They were run through the coals to even ask for money the first time unlike the financial institutions. The CEO's were hammered for simply flying into DC on a private jet. AIG spends hundreds of thousands on multiple retreats and now comes back to ask for more money. AIG lost $65bill in the fourth quarter and you've got a problem with them spending a few hundred thousand on a retreat. To steal a line from Spinal Tap "that's nit picking isn't it." By the way it was American General that spent that money on the retreat, one of the few subsidiaries of AIG that is making money.
pBills Posted March 4, 2009 Posted March 4, 2009 AIG lost $65bill in the fourth quarter and you've got a problem with them spending a few hundred thousand on a retreat. To steal a line from Spinal Tap "that's nit picking isn't it." By the way it was American General that spent that money on the retreat, one of the few subsidiaries of AIG that is making money. Yes, I do have them spending a mere few hundred thousand on a retreat. Are you telling me that the business conducted there couldn't be done in their HQ? Did they need the resorts, spas, golf, etc. to figure things out? Come on, to excuse things like that is ridiculous. And honestly, I do not care who paid for the ONE retreat what about the others? Also, how come people didn't bash them for these retreats yet bashed the automakers for flying into DC on a private jet? And really if the parent company is losing money hand over fist why wouldn't the CEO's do the RIGHT thing and cancel the lavish spending no matter who is paying for it?
Chef Jim Posted March 4, 2009 Posted March 4, 2009 Yes, I do have them spending a mere few hundred thousand on a retreat. Are you telling me that the business conducted there couldn't be done in their HQ? Did they need the resorts, spas, golf, etc. to figure things out? Come on, to excuse things like that is ridiculous. And honestly, I do not care who paid for the ONE retreat what about the others? Also, how come people didn't bash them for these retreats yet bashed the automakers for flying into DC on a private jet? And really if the parent company is losing money hand over fist why wouldn't the CEO's do the RIGHT thing and cancel the lavish spending no matter who is paying for it? I've been on these retreats and they are necessary to drive independent sales forces to your company. You want to see American General (again one of the best performing subsidiaries of AIG) to go down in flames too is to eliminate these "retreats". The insurance biz is highly incentivized and for every couple of hundred thousand dollars of incentives that these insurance companies spend generates millions in revenue. They're positive business decisions but I can understand why you were not able to figure this out on your own.
RkFast Posted March 4, 2009 Posted March 4, 2009 I've been on these retreats and they are necessary to drive independent sales forces to your company. You want to see American General (again one of the best performing subsidiaries of AIG) to go down in flames too is to eliminate these "retreats". The insurance biz is highly incentivized and for every couple of hundred thousand dollars of incentives that these insurance companies spend generates millions in revenue. They're positive business decisions but I can understand why you were not able to figure this out on your own. Just like idjits getting on Citicorp to cancel the Mets' stadium naming deal. They see it as wasteful. First of all, it represents less than 5% of Citicorp's marketing budget. But even greater than that is the philisophical notion that things like sales building retreats and basic brand-building marketing efforts like naming rights and community outreach are now seen as "bad" or "wasteful." Got that......for companies in trouble and needing assistance, SALES incentives and advertising is "BAD." Holy sh--.
DC Tom Posted March 4, 2009 Posted March 4, 2009 Just like idjits getting on Citicorp to cancel the Mets' stadium naming deal. They see it as wasteful. First of all, it represents less than 5% of Citicorp's marketing budget. But even greater than that is the philisophical notion that things like sales building retreats and basic brand-building marketing efforts like naming rights and community outreach are now seen as "bad" or "wasteful." Got that......for companies in trouble and needing assistance, SALES incentives and advertising is "BAD." Holy sh--. Not a great example, especially considering the Citi brand right now is already perceived as sh--. Calling attention to a sh-- brand with marketing everyone's already biased against...well, at this point it was arguably a better marketing move to cancel it. The corporate plane deal's a better example. Cancel the delivery of an already purchased asset because it's too expensive now, even though you paid for it up front four years ago. Throw away several million dollars to prove you're fiscally responsible.
IDBillzFan Posted March 4, 2009 Posted March 4, 2009 I've been on these retreats and they are necessary to drive independent sales forces to your company. You want to see American General (again one of the best performing subsidiaries of AIG) to go down in flames too is to eliminate these "retreats". The insurance biz is highly incentivized and for every couple of hundred thousand dollars of incentives that these insurance companies spend generates millions in revenue. They're positive business decisions but I can understand why you were not able to figure this out on your own. It's apparently easier to just give lifetime benefits to retired auto workers and consider that "good business sense" than it is to understand why retreats work the way they do. It's the different between "We're going to spend $200K to provide incentive and training to sales people" versus "We're going to take millions and give it to people who no longer do anything."
Chef Jim Posted March 4, 2009 Posted March 4, 2009 It's apparently easier to just give lifetime benefits to retired auto workers and consider that "good business sense" than it is to understand why retreats work the way they do. It's the different between "We're going to spend $200K to provide incentive and training to sales people" versus "We're going to take millions and give it to people who no longer do anything." And you bring up a good poit regarding training. I may walk away from these retreats 10 pounds heavier but also with some great ideas to bring home to present to my clients to make things better for them and ideas to attract new clients which in turn drives revenue to the company. It's so easy to say these things are wasteful when you've never been on one and especially at the managerial level I've been on them at.
KD in CA Posted March 4, 2009 Posted March 4, 2009 It's apparently easier to just give lifetime benefits to retired auto workers and consider that "good business sense" than it is to understand why retreats work the way they do. It's the different between "We're going to spend $200K to provide incentive and training to sales people" versus "We're going to take millions and give it to people who no longer do anything." Yes, but that money goes into the pockets of "the people". You know, as opposed to the robots that wait tables and clean hotel rooms at the site of the AIG retreat.
Wacka Posted March 4, 2009 Posted March 4, 2009 Retreats even work on a small level. When I was working at Stanford, our department went on one to in Monterey, CA. We heard what all the other labs were doing and it produced some productive collaborations.
Chef Jim Posted March 4, 2009 Posted March 4, 2009 Yes, but that money goes into the pockets of "the people". You know, as opposed to the robots that wait tables and clean hotel rooms at the site of the AIG retreat. So now you're for subsidizing illegals? I'm just sayin'......
Recommended Posts