Automotive Bridge Loan Passes the House

[kallend 2,230]

Quote

Why would anyone in Detroit think that a "car czar" in Washington, DC knows how to build cars...

Who in the management suite at GM actually knows how to build a car?

Who in Washington has actual hands-on experience doing anything they are in charge of?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

there are 2 problems, greedy exec's and greedy unions.

That's the easy answer, fact is this: executive compensation doesn't amount to a hill of beans compared to the expenses GM has to pay out to the work force, plus job bank, plus retirees.

CEO Wagoner is head of a $180B global company. One guy, making millions.
The union force is over 100,000 employees (but I'll calculate based on 150,000)...average non-benefit wage of $30/hr, that's $62,400/year, that's $10B, before benefits, before materials, before lights, before anything. Add benefits, that's $22B...before materials, before lights, before anything...even before the legacy payments.

Where does the business model need improvement?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,173]

>That's the easy answer, fact is this: executive compensation doesn't amount
>to a hill of beans compared to the expenses GM has to pay out to the work
>force, plus job bank, plus retirees.

"Greed" does not equal "expense." A greedy CEO might decide to make cars out of cheaper material or cut down on safety devices to save money, hoping that he can show a savings to stockholders and be rewarded financially - even if such an action would be detrimental in the long run. That decision, made out of greed, might well cost the company far more (in the long run) than a "hill of beans."

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>That's the easy answer, fact is this: executive compensation doesn't amount
>to a hill of beans compared to the expenses GM has to pay out to the work
>force, plus job bank, plus retirees.

"Greed" does not equal "expense." A greedy CEO might decide to make cars out of cheaper material or cut down on safety devices to save money, hoping that he can show a savings to stockholders and be rewarded financially - even if such an action would be detrimental in the long run. That decision, made out of greed, might well cost the company far more (in the long run) than a "hill of beans."

That's also the easy answer. Your ideas are good for the short term...

These guys aren't as short term as you think. Why do you think Ford is foregoing loans at this time? It's because Mullaly saw the writing on the wall a couple years ago and leveraged the company to the hilt. My compliments to Ford for being proactive. Their burden is much less now, but still hard decisions need to be made.

You can demonize the CEOs all you want, they aren't all like WorldCom or Adelphia or Enron...in fact, quite the opposite.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,173]

>These guys aren't as short term as you think.

Some are, some aren't. As in any other avocation, there are good CEO's and bad ones.

>Why do you think Ford is foregoing loans at this time? It's because Mullaly saw
>the writing on the wall a couple years ago and leveraged the company to the hilt.

Agreed. Mullaly was one of the good ones; Roger Smith, with the 1984 reorg and the GM10 catastrophe, was one of the bad ones.

>You can demonize the CEOs all you want, they aren't all like WorldCom or
>Adelphia or Enron...in fact, quite the opposite.

Of course. As with any other job title, there are good ones and bad ones.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>These guys aren't as short term as you think.

Some are, some aren't. As in any other avocation, there are good CEO's and bad ones.

>Why do you think Ford is foregoing loans at this time? It's because Mullaly saw
>the writing on the wall a couple years ago and leveraged the company to the hilt.

Agreed. Mullaly was one of the good ones; Roger Smith, with the 1984 reorg and the GM10 catastrophe, was one of the bad ones.

>You can demonize the CEOs all you want, they aren't all like WorldCom or
>Adelphia or Enron...in fact, quite the opposite.

Of course. As with any other job title, there are good ones and bad ones.

Why so pragmatic? Are you incapable of admitting that the cost of building a car is what is crippling GM or Ford?

Why did you buy a Toyota Prius instead of a Ford Escape Hybrid?

Will your next hybrid be Japanese or American?

Once you examine the answers, then ask why.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,230]

Quote

Quote

>That's the easy answer, fact is this: executive compensation doesn't amount
>to a hill of beans compared to the expenses GM has to pay out to the work
>force, plus job bank, plus retirees.

"Greed" does not equal "expense." A greedy CEO might decide to make cars out of cheaper material or cut down on safety devices to save money, hoping that he can show a savings to stockholders and be rewarded financially - even if such an action would be detrimental in the long run. That decision, made out of greed, might well cost the company far more (in the long run) than a "hill of beans."

That's also the easy answer. Your ideas are good for the short term...

These guys aren't as short term as you think. Why do you think Ford is foregoing loans at this time? It's because Mullaly saw the writing on the wall a couple years ago and leveraged the company to the hilt. My compliments to Ford for being proactive. Their burden is much less now, but still hard decisions need to be made.

You can demonize the CEOs all you want, they aren't all like WorldCom or Adelphia or Enron...in fact, quite the opposite.

What you totally fail to comprehend is the psychological effect of greedy CEOs on the rest of the workforce.

Compare the compensation of US CEOs with Japanese CEOs, and the ratio of (CEO compensation):(Average worker compensation).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Compare the compensation of US CEOs with Japanese CEOs, and the ratio of (CEO compensation):(Average worker compensation).

Comparing cultural issues between Japan and the USA explains a lot, from top to bottom, but pretty much useless. As much as I love Japanese culture, they are not burdened with many of the diversity issues which we as American's uniquely deal with. Of course, we know you don't see a problem with the union role in this.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,230]

Quote

Quote

Compare the compensation of US CEOs with Japanese CEOs, and the ratio of (CEO compensation):(Average worker compensation).

Comparing cultural issues between Japan and the USA explains a lot, from top to bottom, but pretty much useless. As much as I love Japanese culture, they are not burdened with many of the diversity issues which we as American's uniquely deal with. Of course, we know you don't see a problem with the union role in this.

So now "diversity" explains the big disparity in CEO compensation? Ingenious, but you are grasping at straws.

As far as union role: I think the unions behaved EXACTLY the way any psychologist would have predicted them to behave, under the circumstances. Faced with incredibly greedy CEOs, why should the unions behave altruistically?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[n23x 0]

Quote

Why did you buy a Toyota Prius instead of a Ford Escape Hybrid?

Because it's not a (no offense) American made piece of shit?

I bought, and will continue to buy toyota's because:

1.) they last >300k miles without major service issues.
2.) they run smooth, consistant and reliable over a wide operational range
3.) the interior fit and finish is significantly nicer than anything I've seen from the big 3.
4.) All hand controls are ergonomically well thought out, for EASY, simple operation.

I had the displeasure of renting a 08' chevy pickup. It had <1500 miles on it. The interior was a piece of shit. They tried to put leather on it, and it looked like stevie wonder sewed the goddamn thing together. Every push tab-fixed plastic molding felt weak underneath, like I could break it with a modate tap. Driving in the mountains that thing was fucking ridiculous. Cruise control was inadequate and demonstrated instability ON FLAT ROADS! I stopped before going over Vail pass due to overheating. AND it got terrible mileage.

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[TheAnvil 0]

Still unwilling to face the facts about unions and American manufacturing, eh?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Why did you buy a Toyota Prius instead of a Ford Escape Hybrid?

Because it's not a (no offense) American made piece of shit?

I bought, and will continue to buy toyota's because:

1.) they last >300k miles without major service issues.
2.) they run smooth, consistant and reliable over a wide operational range
3.) the interior fit and finish is significantly nicer than anything I've seen from the big 3.
4.) All hand controls are ergonomically well thought out, for EASY, simple operation.

I had the displeasure of renting a 08' chevy pickup. It had <1500 miles on it. The interior was a piece of shit. They tried to put leather on it, and it looked like stevie wonder sewed the goddamn thing together. Every push tab-fixed plastic molding felt weak underneath, like I could break it with a modate tap. Driving in the mountains that thing was fucking ridiculous. Cruise control was inadequate and demonstrated instability ON FLAT ROADS! I stopped before going over Vail pass due to overheating. AND it got terrible mileage.

Being a mechanic, i know each auto maker has good and bad cars. being an american, if you have an employment problem and drive a foriegn car, you deserve it.

[kallend 2,230]

Quote

Still unwilling to face the facts about unions and American manufacturing, eh?

Vinny, it is you who is out of touch with reality.

Given the circumstances and the lack of competence of management, the unions behaved perfectly rationally. And it IS the job of management to manage the workforce. If the workforce is supposed to manage itself, managers would be superfluous.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DanG 1]

Quote

being an american, if you have an employment problem and drive a foriegn car, you deserve it.

Bullshit.

Are you a capitalist or not? If the US car companies would make a competitive car, then I'd buy one. They don't, so my free market dollars go where they belong: to the company that makes the best product.

Relying on the "Buy American" crap is one of the reason's the car companies felt safe making an inferior product all these years. They failed to learn the lesson from the Japanese car invasion of the 70's and 80's and are still paying the price.

I proudly own a Toyota and a Subaru. I'm also strongly against bailing those idiots in Detroit out.

- Dan G

[TheAnvil 0]

And when management is precluded from managing its workforce by unions, then unions are detrimental to the company.

Ahhhh...such an easy line of reasoning. Amazing you don't get it...or see what unions have done to the Detroit 3.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,173]

>Are you incapable of admitting that the cost of building a car is what is
>crippling GM or Ford?

Nope. Are you incapable of admitting that some of that cost is due to mismanagement?

>Why did you buy a Toyota Prius instead of a Ford Escape Hybrid?

Better gas mileage - and I didn't need an SUV.

>Will your next hybrid be Japanese or American?

I think my next car will either be American or German at this point - and it won't be a hybrid.

>Once you examine the answers, then ask why.

Because they have the technology I am looking for.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

>Will your next hybrid be Japanese or American?

I think my next car will either be American or German at this point - and it won't be a hybrid.

>Once you examine the answers, then ask why.

Because they have the technology I am looking for.

If it is American will it be from one of the big three?

[billvon 3,173]

>If it is American will it be from one of the big three?

Probably not. I'd be looking at a Model S (Tesla.)

Of course, now that the bailout has taken money promised to Tesla and given it to the big 3, that car may never be built.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I SO hope you're right! Some of the news early this AM indicates it's in for a fight in the Senate.

Sure would be nice to see the Republicans in the Senate fight spending. They seem to have forgotten how to do that for the last 8 years.

Apparently they are only able to do that when the Dems are in power - instead of all the time like they should be.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Of course, now that the bailout has taken money promised to Tesla and given it to the big 3, that car may never be built.

So does that mean you are in favour of government money for some auto manufacturers, but not others.

[billvon 3,173]

>So does that mean you are in favour of government money for some
>auto manufacturers, but not others.

I am definitely in favor of loans given to technology companies that will help us:

1) reduce pollution
2) regain our leadership in automotive technologies
3) launch small businesses

Heck, I'd even be in favor of a similar $500 million loan to the Big Three if they used that money specifically for development of BEV's, and they repaid it at market rates.

[TheAnvil 0]

This is true. It's why their own base is enraged with them. If the alternative weren't far worse most of them would be voted out in a landslide.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kallend 2,230]

Quote

And when management is precluded from managing its workforce by unions, then unions are detrimental to the company.

That is so LAME I find it hard to believe you wrote it. If management allowed unions to get to that position, the fault is management's. Period.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TheAnvil 0]

So the truth is lame, eh? I think you just don't want to face it. It is pretty fucking lame when unions harm the hand that feeds them. Pretty fucking pathetic.

Maybe you could take your pro-union vies to a meeting of former shareholders of Eastern Airlines, whose unions forced it into bankruptcy. At least two of the big three will be joining Eastern in bankruptcy, though they'll hopefully pull out of it, unlike Eastern.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kallend 2,230]

Quote

So the truth is lame, eh? I think you just don't want to face it. It is pretty fucking lame when unions harm the hand that feeds them. Pretty fucking pathetic.

Maybe you could take your pro-union vies to a meeting of former shareholders of Eastern Airlines, whose unions forced it into bankruptcy. At least two of the big three will be joining Eastern in bankruptcy, though they'll hopefully pull out of it, unlike Eastern.

The job of management is managing the company, including its employees, INCLUDING ITS UNION EMPLOYEES. If they can't do it, the managers should be fired, not given golden parachutes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.