GM going under

[NewbieJr 540]

Tough question. The traditional American way was to let the market adjust itself and let good companied prosper and poor companies disappear. By that logic, it's a no brainer......let them go bankrupt.

 

However, there's more to be considered here. With all those employees being out-of-work, and the countless other companies that would close along with them (tire manufacterers, upholstery makers, and on and on), the ripple effect it would have on our already horrible economy would be devastating. Billions in unemployment benefits, reduced retail spending, etc.

 

What are your thoughts on this?

[RLLD 3,455]

The American way is actually to interfere where possible with the markets, our present position being a direct result of the government falling prey to the special interests of bankers who for years ran the table on legislation designed to free them up to leverage ever more heavily and take ever more from consumers.

 

The "let it ride" philosophy died shortly after the 1920's, and such notions became completely lost after the gold standard was dropped

[jerryskids 5,213]

We "should" let them die. And I say this with my BIL employed there, so I hope they survive.

[NewbieJr 540]

The American way is actually to interfere where possible with the markets, our present position being a direct result of the government falling prey to the special interests of bankers who for years ran the table on legislation designed to free them up to leverage ever more heavily and take ever more from consumers.

 

The "let it ride" philosophy died shortly after the 1920's, and such notions became completely lost after the gold standard was dropped

So, what's your opinion on how the government should handle GM?

[RLLD 3,455]

So, what's your opinion on how the government should handle GM?

 

GM must be allowed to fail, this is creative destruction of the marketplace, and to avoid it through bailouts, or prop them up with higher tariffs on imports does not force them to improve, what you get is an entity that cannot compete, and must be bailed out.....

 

Of course the result will be thousands of people laid off.....but if you are paying common laborers $72 a focking hour, then you cannot compete, simply can NOT be done.....the union pressures on GM are their undoing. So if the sh!tstain union-zealots want to keep up their stupidity then they can see those jobs all shift elsewhere, and maybe they can paint fences instead....

 

GM died long ago, but you and I are still paying through our taxes to prop them up so goobers can draw $72 an hour to perform simplistic and repetetive tasks that pretty much anyone could do...

[Blitzen 0]

Tough question. The traditional American way was to let the market adjust itself and let good companied prosper and poor companies disappear. By that logic, it's a no brainer......let them go bankrupt.

 

However, there's more to be considered here. With all those employees being out-of-work, and the countless other companies that would close along with them (tire manufacterers, upholstery makers, and on and on), the ripple effect it would have on our already horrible economy would be devastating. Billions in unemployment benefits, reduced retail spending, etc.

 

What are your thoughts on this?

 

What we believe is irrelevant. They WILL be bailed out.

 

What you need to hope for is that the bailout includes clauses to force them to stop producing cars that are totally not designed for today's consumer. If they get bailed out and continue making the same cars, they will be back at the trough in a few months.

 

What we are witnessing right now is the total failure of the current blend of capitalism. For those of you saying that if there was total deregulation and if markets were left on their own, capitalism would be great, it might be but you will never ever ever ever see that happen. That would mean all countries, including the USA, dropping all protectionism/subsidies and that will never happen. So stop pining for it and start thinking about what the best system would be. I still think the international meeting on the economy on the 15th will not yield anything but a commitment to meet again at a later time.

[posty 2,296]

If we bail out GM, who will be the next company that wants their bailout? We are going to have to stop somewhere and say "No"...

[Blitzen 0]

GM must be allowed to fail, this is creative destruction of the marketplace, and to avoid it through bailouts, or prop them up with higher tariffs on imports does not force them to improve, what you get is an entity that cannot compete, and must be bailed out.....

 

Of course the result will be thousands of people laid off.....but if you are paying common laborers $72 a focking hour, then you cannot compete, simply can NOT be done.....the union pressures on GM are their undoing. So if the sh!tstain union-zealots want to keep up their stupidity then they can see those jobs all shift elsewhere, and maybe they can paint fences instead....

 

GM died long ago, but you and I are still paying through our taxes to prop them up so goobers can draw $72 an hour to perform simplistic and repetetive tasks that pretty much anyone could do...

 

The average Chinese manufacturing employee makes about 70 cents an hour. Even if GM employees made minimum wage, the jobs would still leave, albeit more slowly. Do you think all manufacturing jobs in North America should be paid at less than 70 cents an hour to compete? Personally, as more and more jobs (not just manufacturing jobs) leave for China and India, I think you will see more and more protectionism. Fundamentally, North Americans should be asked/forced to lower their standards and developing countries should be asked to raise theirs. We cannot all live the North American way.

[Blitzen 0]

If we bail out GM, who will be the next company that wants their bailout? We are going to have to stop somewhere and say "No"...

 

I think icons will get bailed out but not others. Government will have to decide what an icon is.

[Fighting 4 a Championship 0]

GM has been sliding into the toliet since Roger Smith started running it into the ground with his arrogant way to do things. Was not a fan of the movie "Roger and Me", but it was actually very factual. My Grandfather commented long ago, (he was a retired GM executive at the time) that the government started all this financial bailout crap when Chrysler was iun trouble in the mid to late 70's. He stated then, that the goverment should keep it's nose out, if a company can't be responsible enough to keep themselves out of hot water, then they should fail, be it my company, my competitor or any other company.

 

I agree with this that the government set a bad precendent back then in bailing Chrysler out, Lee Iacocca was a mastermind coming over to Chrysler from Ford and saving the company on the government's dime. Hated the man, but respect what he was able to do. Now GM is in this position, should they be allowed to fail, YES, will they be allowed to, NO.

 

The GM deal is different in that the government only bailed out Chrysler by guaranteeing loans made to the company, not actually loaning the company any money itself. They will be actually loaning GM money like they did with the banks.

 

We're bailing out the banks, we're bailing out the airlines, we're bailing out the automakers, we're bailing out stupid people who don't know how to manage money, we're bailing out CEO's who don't know how to manage money. WHERE DOES IT END ?????

 

Unfortunately, I think GM will be bailed out, they are in the position they are in because of their inability to negotiate with the unions, provide much too large a pension plan for their employers (2nd best only to the government).

 

There is too much collateral damage that will happen if GM actually is allowed to fail, the politicians won't let it happen to their communities.

[posty 2,296]

I think icons will get bailed out but not others. Government will have to decide what an icon is.

 

Boy what a fustercluck that will become...

[jerryskids 5,213]

The average Chinese manufacturing employee makes about 70 cents an hour. Even if GM employees made minimum wage, the jobs would still leave, albeit more slowly. Do you think all manufacturing jobs in North America should be paid at less than 70 cents an hour to compete? Personally, as more and more jobs (not just manufacturing jobs) leave for China and India, I think you will see more and more protectionism. Fundamentally, North Americans should be asked/forced to lower their standards and developing countries should be asked to raise theirs. We cannot all live the North American way.

There is no easy solution. The reality is that countries like China and India (and others) have sound manufacturing infrastructures and are willing to work for a lower standard of living, and have had those for some time. We've been artificially maintaining the illusion that this is not happening, much as we did with the mortgage crisis. If our laborers are making 100X the competition as you assert, that is a broken model. We are in a world economy, folks. We can try to mask it by raising tariffs etc., but that is sticking a finger in a bursting dike.

 

How can GM become competitive in a global economy? Reduce the 4738027 makes and models? Find a niche and excel? I don't hear these things, what I hear in general is "Jim has been pressing the "go" button in the factory for 30 years, he's got a 4 br house with HD TVs, cell phones, 3 cars, etc. he needs to maintain, we need to help him out!@#"

[RLLD 3,455]

The average Chinese manufacturing employee makes about 70 cents an hour. Even if GM employees made minimum wage, the jobs would still leave, albeit more slowly. Do you think all manufacturing jobs in North America should be paid at less than 70 cents an hour to compete? Personally, as more and more jobs (not just manufacturing jobs) leave for China and India, I think you will see more and more protectionism. Fundamentally, North Americans should be asked/forced to lower their standards and developing countries should be asked to raise theirs. We cannot all live the North American way.

 

Relief from the inappropriate union labor standards is the biggest piece of a large puzzle. Paying equitable salary for services rendered is pivotal to the competitiveness of GM. I in no way suggested that domestic employees should receive 70 cents per hour, but this is the new global economy, we either adjust to it or we are consumed by it.

 

Keep in mind that our standard of living is currently built upon debt, piles of it, not wealth..... the very people who are handing us our lunch in manufacturing are the ones to whom we also owe trillions of dollars.

 

The notion of asking foreign nations to raise their labor standards, while admirable, is a fools pursuit, they will do what they please. It is the sense of entitlement we tend to hold in this nation that must be placed aside.

[Vikings4ever 496]

There is too much collateral damage that will happen if GM actually is allowed to fail, the politicians won't let it happen to their communities.

Like I've said, politicians don't care how much they have to screw us over in the future, as long as they get reelected.

[MedStudent 56]

I would only bail out a company if the company was critical for our national security. Its time to let one of these car companies die. They make dumb decisions. don't keep bailing them out. Support new innovative companies instead.

[nospk 230]

I need to jump in to this mess as a GM employee.

Not a union worker, I'm a product design group leader.

 

Here is what we are being asked to share with those of you who

do not know the facts and myths about the current crisis.

 

From plants to parks. From dealerships to driveways. From gas stations to grocery stores. What happens in the automotive industry affects each and every one of us. In fact, the collapse of the U.S.-based auto industry wouldn't just impact the nearly 355,000 Americans directly employed by the Big Three. One out of every 10 people in America is employed in a service that is related to the U.S. auto industry. If a plant closes, so does its suppliers, the local stores, the hot dog vendors, and the local restaurants.

 

The effect would be devastating in ways of which you never have thought:

 

Nearly 3 million jobs would be lost in the first year alone – with another 2.5 million to follow over the next two years

Personal income in the United States would drop by more than $150.7 billion in the first year

The cost to local, state, and federal governments could reach $156.4 billion over three years in lost taxes, and unemployment and health care assistance

Domestic automobile production would more than likely fall to zero – even by international producers, due to supplier bankruptcies

The credit crisis that is affecting us all is wounding the U.S. auto industry in many different ways. Carmakers can’t get loans to restructure and to produce new advanced technology vehicles. Suppliers and dealers can’t get loans for routine business, and customers can’t get loans for new cars.

 

Here is another source for those of you who want to know more facts:

gmfactsandfiction

[jerryskids 5,213]

I need to jump in to this mess as a GM employee.

Not a union worker, I'm a product design group leader.

 

Here is what we are being asked to share with those of you who

do not know the facts and myths about the current crisis.

 

From plants to parks. From dealerships to driveways. From gas stations to grocery stores. What happens in the automotive industry affects each and every one of us. In fact, the collapse of the U.S.-based auto industry wouldn't just impact the nearly 355,000 Americans directly employed by the Big Three. One out of every 10 people in America is employed in a service that is related to the U.S. auto industry. If a plant closes, so does its suppliers, the local stores, the hot dog vendors, and the local restaurants.

 

The effect would be devastating in ways of which you never have thought:

 

Nearly 3 million jobs would be lost in the first year alone – with another 2.5 million to follow over the next two years

Personal income in the United States would drop by more than $150.7 billion in the first year

The cost to local, state, and federal governments could reach $156.4 billion over three years in lost taxes, and unemployment and health care assistance

Domestic automobile production would more than likely fall to zero – even by international producers, due to supplier bankruptcies

The credit crisis that is affecting us all is wounding the U.S. auto industry in many different ways. Carmakers can’t get loans to restructure and to produce new advanced technology vehicles. Suppliers and dealers can’t get loans for routine business, and customers can’t get loans for new cars.

 

Here is another source for those of you who want to know more facts:

gmfactsandfiction

Why is it all or nothing? What is GM doing to lower costs, cut makes/models, streamline, become more efficient? Is the union willing to take less money for its employees? AT $70/hour that is $145K/year. Would they be willing to work for half and only make $72K, but still have a job?

[Voltaire 4,567]

GM has been sliding into the toliet since Roger Smith started running it into the ground with his arrogant way to do things. Was not a fan of the movie "Roger and Me", but it was actually very factual. My Grandfather commented long ago, (he was a retired GM executive at the time) that the government started all this financial bailout crap when Chrysler was iun trouble in the mid to late 70's. He stated then, that the goverment should keep it's nose out, if a company can't be responsible enough to keep themselves out of hot water, then they should fail, be it my company, my competitor or any other company.

 

I agree with this that the government set a bad precendent back then in bailing Chrysler out, Lee Iacocca was a mastermind coming over to Chrysler from Ford and saving the company on the government's dime. Hated the man, but respect what he was able to do. Now GM is in this position, should they be allowed to fail, YES, will they be allowed to, NO.

 

The GM deal is different in that the government only bailed out Chrysler by guaranteeing loans made to the company, not actually loaning the company any money itself. They will be actually loaning GM money like they did with the banks.

 

We're bailing out the banks, we're bailing out the airlines, we're bailing out the automakers, we're bailing out stupid people who don't know how to manage money, we're bailing out CEO's who don't know how to manage money. WHERE DOES IT END ?????

 

Unfortunately, I think GM will be bailed out, they are in the position they are in because of their inability to negotiate with the unions, provide much too large a pension plan for their employers (2nd best only to the government).

 

There is too much collateral damage that will happen if GM actually is allowed to fail, the politicians won't let it happen to their communities.

 

ummm... Chrysler paid all those loans back, with interest, on time.

[nospk 230]

Why is it all or nothing? What is GM doing to lower costs, cut makes/models, streamline, become more efficient? Is the union willing to take less money for its employees? AT $70/hour that is $145K/year. Would they be willing to work for half and only make $72K, but still have a job?

Here is a part of a message from the President of GMNA to address your question.

 

As you know, we have taken the tough, necessary actions over the last few years to strengthen our competitive position. With our UAW partners we have reshaped our business and will have reduced our structural costs by more than $13 billion by 2010 and have closed the quality and efficiency gaps with our competitors. We also are building products that have received great customer acceptance and acclaim, as we have seen with the Chevy Malibu, Cadillac CTS and our family of crossovers. And, there’s more to come with the Chevy Volt which will position GM as a global technology leader as well as more hybrids and fuel efficient passenger cars like the Chevy Cruze.

[Mungwater 588]

Why is it all or nothing? What is GM doing to lower costs, cut makes/models, streamline, become more efficient? Is the union willing to take less money for its employees? AT $70/hour that is $145K/year. Would they be willing to work for half and only make $72K, but still have a job?

 

This is what I want to know too, but we all know they aren't willing to do that.

 

I read a story somewhere that there was this lady, who was a HS dropout, who worked for one of the car manufacturers, pushing the stamp on the dashboard machine. She was making over 75K a year, and was upset that she was let go, and couldn't find comparable work.

 

They've been riding high hog, now their bills are due, I say fock em.

[Voltaire 4,567]

I would only bail out a company if the company was critical for our national security. Its time to let one of these car companies die. They make dumb decisions. don't keep bailing them out. Support new innovative companies instead.

 

Well that's an interesting argument... national security...

 

I hope you know the role GM, Ford, and Crysler played in the 1940s to retool and produce all our military equipment.

 

It's not that the government "keeps bailing them out." The government bailed out Chrysler, once, and it was a huge success.

 

A big problem is that people rely on loans to buy cars and nobody is lending. And that's, hopefully, a temporary situation. Unions took a huge pay cut recently, also negotiated a huge settlement to retiree benefits. Things are sorting themselves out.

 

Thee companies just need to get through these next few years, they're in short term trouble, but they're not basket cases.

[MicktheGreat 1]

What we believe is irrelevant. They WILL be bailed out.

 

What you need to hope for is that the bailout includes clauses to force them to stop producing cars that are totally not designed for today's consumer. If they get bailed out and continue making the same cars, they will be back at the trough in a few months.

 

What we are witnessing right now is the total failure of the current blend of capitalism. For those of you saying that if there was total deregulation and if markets were left on their own, capitalism would be great, it might be but you will never ever ever ever see that happen. That would mean all countries, including the USA, dropping all protectionism/subsidies and that will never happen. So stop pining for it and start thinking about what the best system would be. I still think the international meeting on the economy on the 15th will not yield anything but a commitment to meet again at a later time.

I think this is absolutely right.

 

Unchecked capitalism has certainly hurt GM and the other car companies. However, a huge portion of the blame rests with the "minds" at GM who lacked the foresight to predict, prepare for, and fully pursue the transition away from big, behemoth vehicles and towards smaller, more economical, more fuel-efficient cars.

 

GM and the American auto industry should be on the cutting-edge of designing and producing vehicles for the next generation of drivers -- teenagers, young professionals, and young families. However, these American companies have been stubborn to adapt and insist on producing the same old, tired, gas-guzzling models. The result is that these younger drivers -- many of whom are on a tight budget -- are turning to Toyota and other foreign car-makers who have the market (nearly) cornered on economical driving. Instead of being on the cutting-edge of pragmatic automotive technology, we're playing some serious catch-up; and it seems like we're losing ground every day.

 

Wrestling this new (and the next) generation of American drivers away from these foreign car companies and back to American automobiles MUST be the #1 goal of American automakers, if many of them hope to survive. And, whether you like it or not, the way you will do that is by replacing the huge, gaudy models with more practical, efficient models.

 

[Voltaire 4,567]

Why is it all or nothing? What is GM doing to lower costs, cut makes/models, streamline, become more efficient? Is the union willing to take less money for its employees? AT $70/hour that is $145K/year. Would they be willing to work for half and only make $72K, but still have a job?

 

That agreement was reached when ... nine months? a year ago?

[Voltaire 4,567]

I think this is absolutely right.

 

Unchecked capitalism has certainly hurt GM and the other car companies. However, a huge portion of the blame rests with the "minds" at GM who lacked the foresight to predict, prepare for, and fully pursue the transition away from big, behemoth vehicles and towards smaller, more economical, more fuel-efficient cars.

 

GM and the American auto industry should be on the cutting-edge of designing and producing vehicles for the next generation of drivers -- teenagers, young professionals, and young families. However, these American companies have been stubborn to adapt and insist on producing the same old, tired, gas-guzzling models. The result is that these younger drivers -- many of whom are on a tight budget -- are turning to Toyota and other foreign car-makers who have the market (nearly) cornered on economical driving. Instead of being on the cutting-edge of pragmatic automotive technology, we're playing some serious catch-up; and it seems like we're losing ground every day.

 

Wrestling this new (and the next) generation of American drivers away from these foreign car companies and back to American automobiles MUST be the #1 goal of American automakers, if many of them hope to survive. And, whether you like it or not, the way you will do that is by replacing the huge, gaudy models with more practical, efficient models.

 

 

That message is delivered and they're working on straigtening that out now.

 

But the point of the manufacturing hybrids is the same as the point of manufactuing SUVs ... they're following market demands and making the vehicles that people want to buy.

[MedStudent 56]

Well that's an interesting argument... national security...

 

I hope you know the role GM, Ford, and Crysler played in the 1940s to retool and produce all our military equipment.

 

GM and Ford also retooled in Germany and produced military equipment for the Nazis.

[Blitzen 0]

Relief from the inappropriate union labor standards is the biggest piece of a large puzzle. Paying equitable salary for services rendered is pivotal to the competitiveness of GM. I in no way suggested that domestic employees should receive 70 cents per hour, but this is the new global economy, we either adjust to it or we are consumed by it.

 

Keep in mind that our standard of living is currently built upon debt, piles of it, not wealth..... the very people who are handing us our lunch in manufacturing are the ones to whom we also owe trillions of dollars.

 

The notion of asking foreign nations to raise their labor standards, while admirable, is a fools pursuit, they will do what they please. It is the sense of entitlement we tend to hold in this nation that must be placed aside.

 

Why is it OK to ask a manufacturer in a foreign country to respect basic environmental guidelines to be able to sell their goods in your country (which a lot of countries are already doing) but so impossible to ask that they pay their employees better? If they can't show their employees have better wages/living conditions, they can't ship into your country. If enough countries start asking for this, they'll start looking at it. If we never ask for it, well then they'll never have to do it of course. This isn't science fiction...IKEA already got into enough trouble that they had to change the working conditions of those producing their goods to quiet down the critics. They prolly still cut corners in some places but at least some of the corners that would have been cut aren't anymore. Many companies are now employing FSC certified wood to make their goods. Not saying FSC is the cat's meow but think about it: FSC basically started with 3-4 people in a basement in Mexico if I recall correctly deciding they would like to force companies to use wood harvested in a certain way. If 3-4 people can get their minds together and force companies to do this, why would it be so hard for governments worldwide to force countries to raise their standards?

 

You're not saying that we should pay people 70 cents an hour but we won't truly be competitive until we do. I guess my question for everyone would be: are you willing to VERY significantly reduce your standard of living to be competitive? Or would you rather your government took measures to force other countries to raise their standards so yours wouldn't have to drop as much?

[kilroy69 995]

You have to save them. Its sick but we cant allow them to fail. It would wreak havoc on our economy in the U.S. and it would KILL the state of Michigan. Like I said if you do in fact step in and save them you HAVE to have them retool ALL of their plants to make more fuel efficient cars/trucks.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

The major problem the automakers face is perception.

 

For decades, Detroit was cars. Nobody from my grandparents generation owned a foriegn car, ever. They still drive lincolns and caddy's to this day.

 

But about 20-30 years ago, foriegn competition (The Japanese first, but then Korea) started making better cars than we did. Its just a fact that the "brand name" of Ford and GM are in the toilet for cars. Trucks, SUV's, and Vans are all that anybody buys from them. They have a reputation, whether deserved or not, of being or poor quality. Plus, most American sedans and compacts are ugly as sh!t when compared to their foriegn competitors. Hell, even a Hyundai looks better than a Ford or GM car.

 

Chrysler has begun to turn itself around by employing better looking designs, and improving quality (mainly, sadly, by putting mitsubishi and mercedes engines and transmissions in their cars.)

 

Ford and GM have been ignoring trends for way too long. When they were getting their asses handed to them by Honda and Toyota in the small car market, they were able to compensate by dominating the largely domestic only truck, SUV, and Van market. Well, the foriegn companies are competing with them in those markets now, and those markets are disappearing as gas prices rise.

 

Make a product people want to buy. Its that simple. Of course, the fact that detroit starts out with a sh!tload of cost in the car due to pensions, bloated salaries, and insurance sure as sh!t doesn't help them build an attractive, dependable car at a competative price.

[jerryskids 5,213]

Interestingly, my company is in the financial shiotter as well. Within the past 6 weeks we've whacked our CEO and his entire staff, and had > 10% layoffs. But if my company shut its doors tomorrow, the entire electronics industry would come to a screeching halt for quite a while. Intel, IBM, Qualcomm, TI... every major electronic company uses our products. Hell, even the auto companies. I wonder if our new temp CEO office is looking to get some bailout cha-ching.

[edjr 5,583]

Why is it all or nothing? What is GM doing to lower costs, cut makes/models, streamline, become more efficient? Is the union willing to take less money for its employees? AT $70/hour that is $145K/year. Would they be willing to work for half and only make $72K, but still have a job?

 

145k a year? sounds like the salary of your everyday message board user.

[nospk 230]

A big problem is that people rely on loans to buy cars and nobody is lending. And that's, hopefully, a temporary situation. Unions took a huge pay cut recently, also negotiated a huge settlement to retiree benefits. Things are sorting themselves out.

 

Thee companies just need to get through these next few years, they're in short term trouble, but they're not basket cases.

This guy understands the situation the best.

Most people cannot afford to pay cash for a new car.

Now they cannot get a loan either.

Resulting in no cars being sold, no money coming in, and a lot of money still going out.

[kilroy69 995]

Interestingly, my company is in the financial shiotter as well. Within the past 6 weeks we've whacked our CEO and his entire staff, and had > 10% layoffs. But if my company shut its doors tomorrow, the entire electronics industry would come to a screeching halt for quite a while. Intel, IBM, Qualcomm, TI... every major electronic company uses our products. Hell, even the auto companies. I wonder if our new temp CEO office is looking to get some bailout cha-ching.

ill take a wild guess and say Spartan Electronics.

[jerryskids 5,213]

This guy understands the situation the best.

Most people cannot afford to pay cash for a new car.

Now they cannot get a loan either.

Resulting in no cars being sold, no money coming in, and a lot of money still going out.

So because our economy has gone in the crapper and people can't get loans, we should... pay them to exist? If GM thinks everything will be roses by 2010 if we just give them a few bazillion dollars, I want to see a business plan. I want to see the UAW phased out, I want to see how the above credit crisis is resolved in that time, and I want to see a plan of how they pay us back over time. With interest.

 

Fock, we hire special prosecutors when a president gets a hummer. We should hire "special venture capitalists" for these bailouts. Seriously. I don't want some idiot senator making this call; I want somebody who understands a business plan.

[edjr 5,583]

This guy understands the situation the best.

Most people cannot afford to pay cash for a new car.

Now they cannot get a loan either.

Resulting in no cars being sold, no money coming in, and a lot of money still going out.

 

I just bought a brand new car, I got a loan, I did pay 1/2 up front, but I still got a loan.

 

eta: and I bought a Mitsubishi :fy:

[RLLD 3,455]

Why is it OK to ask a manufacturer in a foreign country to respect basic environmental guidelines to be able to sell their goods in your country (which a lot of countries are already doing) but so impossible to ask that they pay their employees better?

By all means ask away, but you might as well be playing the lottery, they may listen, but they do not act, nor will they. As I prefer to deal in reality, I recognize that the only way to achieve competitiveness is to pay people who make cars an amount equitable to the service they provide. Further, for us all to stop living on credit as though it were wealth, we are not 'wealthy', we are debtors......our standard of living is a smokescreen....

 

If they can't show their employees have better wages/living conditions, they can't ship into your country. If enough countries start asking for this, they'll start looking at it. If we never ask for it, well then they'll never have to do it of course.

This will never happen, again, its a wonderful thought, but in practice will never transpire at anything more than a company-level action

 

 

This isn't science fiction...IKEA already got into enough trouble that they had to change the working conditions of those producing their goods to quiet down the critics. They prolly still cut corners in some places but at least some of the corners that would have been cut aren't anymore. Many companies are now employing FSC certified wood to make their goods. Not saying FSC is the cat's meow but think about it: FSC basically started with 3-4 people in a basement in Mexico if I recall correctly deciding they would like to force companies to use wood harvested in a certain way. If 3-4 people can get their minds together and force companies to do this, why would it be so hard for governments worldwide to force countries to raise their standards?

Because macroeconomics are far more complex and combative, right now we are consuming far more than we produce because of bullsh!t wage influences and bullsh!t credit raping by the banks. Debt is not wealth.......

 

 

You're not saying that we should pay people 70 cents an hour but we won't truly be competitive until we do.

Wrong, you do not need to match pound for pound, even if you did such folly currency fluxuations would foil your attempts to make it work. You simply need to adjust wages to a reasonable level, commensurate with the work being performed. Its only a start, but it would bring the most immediate and profound impact

 

I guess my question for everyone would be: are you willing to VERY significantly reduce your standard of living to be competitive? Or would you rather your government took measures to force other countries to raise their standards so yours wouldn't have to drop as much?

I am compensated appropriately for my education, experience and position in correlation with others of commensurate qualifications and position. If I were performing some mundane and repetitive action every day.....flipping burgers, pouring coffee, stocking a shelf or placing a tire on a car.....then minimum wage is sufficient...

[nospk 230]

I just bought a brand new car, I got a loan, I did pay 1/2 up front, but I still got a loan.

 

eta: and I bought a Mitsubishi :fy:

just being how long ago? and at what interest rate?

and you can go fock yourself d!ck.

what a fockin loser you are.

[jerryskids 5,213]

just being how long ago? and at what interest rate?

and you can go fock yourself d!ck.

what a fockin loser you are.

He's a loser for buying a Mitsubishi?

[Blitzen 0]

All I can say RLLD is that the FSC folks would still be sitting in their basements if they thought like you. Of course the changes would be company by company because that is who is hiring the employees. Trying to tell China that the people who work there should be better treated is useless. Putting the pressure on the companies to make changes is not.

 

Who decided that how much you get paid is appropriate in the bigger scheme of things? Maybe all of the people at your level are also paid way more than they should.

 

Not sure that systems where a few make a ton of cash while most of the plebe make next to nothing have been all that stable in the past.

 

Also would people with less education have any rights to work under reasonable working conditions under your system? Or should they just be willing to accept any working condition because they aren't as educated as you?

 

Why should government even set a minimum wage? Shouldn't the market simply adjust wages on its own? Why is the current minimum wage reasonable for less educated people?

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

While I am not expert on the economy, I am inclined to say let them fail. They could have been more forward thinking. Foreign companies adjusted to the needs of a growing world wide energy crisis. Those who wanted to see it saw it. Those who wanted more profit for the month looked away. Living in Cali, the SUV/Hummer crowds wanted bigger and bigger despite the fuel milage. And the GM's and Ford's were more than happy to provide them forsaking the future for a dollar today.

 

Had they thought more about the future, perhaps, they'd be producing cars that got 40 MPG and competing with forgeign companies. Alas, Hyundai is selling in droves because they produce a cheap car that gets good gas milage. While GM crys for a bailout.

 

eff em.

[jerryskids 5,213]

All I can say RLLD is that the FSC folks would still be sitting in their basements if they thought like you. Of course the changes would be company by company because that is who is hiring the employees. Trying to tell China that the people who work there should be better treated is useless. Putting the pressure on the companies to make changes is not.

Sure it is. And if somehow you WERE successful, the effect would be a higher price of those goods for us.

Who decided that how much you get paid is appropriate in the bigger scheme of things? Maybe all of the people at your level are also paid way more than they should.

Maybe. Free markets have a way of fixing these sorta things.

Not sure that systems where a few make a ton of cash while most of the plebe make next to nothing have been all that stable in the past.

If you are thinking, say, communist USSR, I agree. Example of a capitalist society failing as such?

Also would people with less education have any rights to work under reasonable working conditions under your system? Or should they just be willing to accept any working condition because they aren't as educated as you?

We have laws, OSHA, etc. protecting workers from unreasonable conditions. Unions made sense 75 years ago, they are unnecessary and detrimental now.

Why should government even set a minimum wage? Shouldn't the market simply adjust wages on its own? Why is the current minimum wage reasonable for less educated motivated people?

They shouldn't. Yes. It isn't.

 

HTH