Detroit & The Effects Of Gm/ford

[Buffalow]

Due to the recent economic slump, especially in the Auto-industry, the city of Detroit seems to be on the edge of a huge plummet. Although the city has been on the decline for years, it was able to survive. However, with the lifeblood of the Detroit economy, the Automotive industry, faced with an insurmountable struggle, what do you think will happen to not only Detroit, but the state of Michigan as a whole?

[Korriken]

The car companies brought it on themselves for not bitchslapping the union leaders and putting them in their place. I would say its hard as hell to stay competitive when you're paying your workers $73 an hour. Not to mention when your assembly line is full of union workers, its EASY for the union to march in and say, "do this or we'll shut you down"

If I were these companies, I would throw the union workers out of the shops and bring in non union workers and pay them a fair wage and not allow them to extort the company into oblivion.

[Buffalow]

I agree that the companies have been mismanaged and that Ford and GM have definitely lost their touch when it comes to making good, quality, affordable cars that people want. But can you blame the Union workers when they have been used to getting what they want from a generally strong company in the past 50 years?

[marchohare]

Hell, they're not even car companies anymore. They're hedge funds disguised as manufacturers.

Let 'em fall. It's way past time for some new business blood in this country.

[Korriken]

At 11/18/08 09:07 PM, marchohare wrote:

Let 'em fall. It's way past time for some new business blood in this country.

Amen. let em crash and burn like so many companies before them. Studebaker came crashing down, no one saved them. Lehman Brothers... hell the government ties ropes to it and pulled it down themselves. AIG is on life support with no signs of cranial function. its only a matter of time before they pull the plug.

Its inevitable that companies fall and others take their place. problem is, the government thinks its their job to keep these huge companies going. If you haven't turned a profit in 10 years, whats to make you think you can in the next 10?

[Buffalow]

Yeah, but the difference between the AIG's and the Lehman Bros is that their employment levels weren't nearly as high as GM and Ford. Thousands, if not Millions of workers are directly impacted by these companies on a daily basis. Shouldn't the government be concerned about them?

[marchohare]

At 11/18/08 09:36 PM, Gwarfan wrote: Shouldn't the government be concerned about them?

The government couldn't care less about workers. If they try to claim that, they're lying.

The government cares about major shareholders. Period.

[Korriken]

At 11/18/08 09:36 PM, Gwarfan wrote: Yeah, but the difference between the AIG's and the Lehman Bros is that their employment levels weren't nearly as high as GM and Ford. Thousands, if not Millions of workers are directly impacted by these companies on a daily basis. Shouldn't the government be concerned about them?

no. when one company crashes, another will spring up in its place. Their failure will also deal a harsh blow to unions, considering the unions and their outright extortion of the companies are largely to blame for the companies falling in the first place. You figure if the workers weren't being paid an average of $73 an hour, maybe more like $30, what others get, it would cut down on a LOT of overhead and perhaps then they could actually be able to make some profit.

It doesn't take an expert to see that paying someone more than twice what the competition pays is just bad business.

[Buffalow]

The unemployment level in the 1930's is what worsened the Depression after the stock market crashed and the banks closed. The government has to get involved eventually, like what FDR did, start the CCC and other government funded programs that, although didn't free us of the Depression, they sure helped to get people jobs.

[Imperator]

At 11/18/08 09:01 PM, Gwarfan wrote: But can you blame the Union workers when they have been used to getting what they want from a generally strong company in the past 50 years?

Yes. Yes you can.
The people's complete inability and unwillingness to learn new skills and diversify the economy is why the state has been crashing over a 20 year period.

It's also why nearly 1 in 2 college grads jet the FUCK outta here.

Auto and Tourism were the two biggies here.
High gas pretty much killed them both.

And now we're floundering.

[JudgeDredd]

At 11/18/08 08:40 PM, Gwarfan wrote: ..what do you think will happen to not only Detroit, but the state of Michigan as a whole?

You mean in the case of a 'perfect storm'? Sounds like a job for FEMA! (Failing Economy Mismanagement Agency) .. a-la New Orleans; nighttime curfew, mandatory seizure of strategic assests, mass evac of citizens to neighbouring states, fedral assistance packages, national guard callout, lockdown and roadblocks..

Nuthin' to wurry 'bout.

[bobomajo]

Wanker free market hypocrites, they go on about "fuck it man, let the market take care of shit, let us do our own thing". Harvesting the fruits of a wild market, once the market goes bad. They suddenly have a change of heart, "c'mon man you gotta help the struggling companies, if you don't the economy will get worse and you don't want that... do you?". I find it despicable that the US government would hand out an extremely large amount of money to the people that caused this situation in the first place. Thats like having a salesman stab you then, tries to sell you bandages. They wanted a wild market I say they should get it, adleast maybe they and the government will learn their lesson for another 70 years. If the concern is people being put out of work 700B could have gone a long way to generating substainible employment, not just bailing out companies that probably don't have a future, since socialism is the current trend why not increase business tax, and provide free healthcare while their at it.

[Minarchist]

At 11/18/08 09:52 PM, Gwarfan wrote: The unemployment level in the 1930's is what worsened the Depression after the stock market crashed and the banks closed. The government has to get involved eventually,

Why? Government involvement is partially to blame for this in the first place. Why is the auto industry expanding the south but dying in Michigan? It has to do with the cancer of a government we have in Michigan.

like what FDR did, start the CCC and other government funded programs that, although didn't free us of the Depression, they sure helped to get people jobs.

The government creates jobs by diverting capital from other industries, thus destroying at least as many jobs as they create. And so what if people have government jobs? There's no new wealth being generated by them, so in the end, government "make work" schemes, while they may benefit the people that get the jobs, are damaging to the economy and everyone else in it.

FDR only prolonged the Great Depression and set this country on a disastrous course with programs like Social Security, since it's so hard to end a government program once it has been created.

At 11/18/08 10:05 PM, Imperator wrote: It's also why nearly 1 in 2 college grads jet the FUCK outta here.

The endless winters don't help either. By the way, it's nice to see a fellow Wolverine on here.

[Garthredbunlove]

At 11/18/08 09:01 PM, Gwarfan wrote: Ford and GM have definitely lost their touch when it comes to making good, quality, affordable cars that people want.

Maybe people don't want them, but they're far better quality than you're suggesting.

Btw, I read an article in the letter to the editor section of the wall street journal today on how GM has been trying to turn themselves around. I'm too lazy to read it and type it up for you, but apparently they've cut around half the jobs they once had. They have things like the Volt, an electric car. They have all sorts of research going on. And all sorts of shit.

They do need to get the unions the fuck out of there thou. I was listening to a radio station, and the guy brought up a good point. This truck driver called in and said that he worked 12 hour days for $15 an hour, and he's on the road 5 days a week. Union workers get $25 an hour, work 8 hour days and get to go home to their family when they're done, and all they're doing is working the assembly line.

[Buffalow]

Someone brought up the point that the companies in the South are flourishing, while ones in the North are dying. Are we seeing a reverse of the economic norm in this country for the past 150 years?

[Garthredbunlove]

At 11/19/08 04:41 PM, Gwarfan wrote: Someone brought up the point that the companies in the South are flourishing, while ones in the North are dying. Are we seeing a reverse of the economic norm in this country for the past 150 years?

Not only that, but the blacks in the north have started enslaving white people.

[Alphabit]

Unions are shit. They wreck everything they touch. GM should have been lining up some non-union replacements for every single one of their union employees before kicking them out by surprise.
A company must be run in the interest of its shareholders and its customers, not in the interest of its employees - if an employee isn't pulling their weights, they should be kicked out. Unions are making us lazy workers; while we're having it easy in the office, standards of service have declined and the economy has sowed down as a result.

Unions are overprotective and they should let companies do their jobs.

[Der-Lowe]

I found an article against the GM bailout here, the author compares it to the Japanese case in 1990.

[Al6200]

At 11/20/08 04:46 AM, Alphabit wrote: Unions are shit. They wreck everything they touch. GM should have been lining up some non-union replacements for every single one of their union employees before kicking them out by surprise.
A company must be run in the interest of its shareholders and its customers, not in the interest of its employees - if an employee isn't pulling their weights, they should be kicked out. Unions are making us lazy workers; while we're having it easy in the office, standards of service have declined and the economy has sowed down as a result.

Unions are overprotective and they should let companies do their jobs.

Yes. If you're interested in anti-union literature, I recommend you read Ayn Rand / Alan Greenspan. Rand is incredibly critical of unions, and one of her most cherished books, "Atlas Shrugged" lays out her philosophy of rational thought and economic freedom.

That said I am not 100% anti-union. I think that unions can be an effective mechanism within a company of communicating employee's interests to the company and building an effective and mutual relationship between both parties. The problem is when the unions become monopolies, and the restraints on their power goes out the window. Just look at the teacher unions.

I propose that we make unions legal, but make it illegal to let unions collaborate to dominate an entire industry. Consider it anti-trust legislation for unions.

[killxp]

At 11/22/08 03:25 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At 11/20/08 04:46 AM, Alphabit wrote: Unions are shit. They wreck everything they touch. GM should have been lining up some non-union replacements for every single one of their union employees before kicking them out by surprise.
A company must be run in the interest of its shareholders and its customers, not in the interest of its employees - if an employee isn't pulling their weights, they should be kicked out. Unions are making us lazy workers; while we're having it easy in the office, standards of service have declined and the economy has sowed down as a result.

Unions are overprotective and they should let companies do their jobs.

Yes. If you're interested in anti-union literature, I recommend you read Ayn Rand / Alan Greenspan. Rand is incredibly critical of unions, and one of her most cherished books, "Atlas Shrugged" lays out her philosophy of rational thought and economic freedom.

That said I am not 100% anti-union. I think that unions can be an effective mechanism within a company of communicating employee's interests to the company and building an effective and mutual relationship between both parties. The problem is when the unions become monopolies, and the restraints on their power goes out the window. Just look at the teacher unions.

: I propose that we make unions legal, but make it illegal to let unions collaborate to dominate an entire industry. Consider it anti-trust legislation for unions.

That is the basic problem we have here. I agree with your logic but one side will ALWAYS try to overcome the other. Unions were made so that companies could not treat employees as slaves and employees could have a say in what they thought was right or wrong. Without unions these large corporations would try to squeeze every penny out of every employee. Keep wages at the minimum, offer little or obsolete benefits and forever keep their employees in fear of losing their jobs.

On the other hand, unions that have become too strong will keep demanding more and more from employers. They will not stop at a healthy medium. I mean $30/hours would be great to live comfortably and all three companies offer benefits as per state and federal law, $40 is pushing it, $50 is a dream come true and $60 is double what you can do with comfortably. At $76/hour you cost more than you are asked to produce.

In the end, I suppose it all comes down to greed. Corporate or Union. Greed is tearing up our economy and will, no ... IS destroying everyone and everything. We can only hope to ... I don't know ... maybe survive long enough for the next administration to soften the blow so we don't spiral into depression. Neither knows when to stop. They could both be comfortable but when more is possible they will never be content and continue to glutton as long as they do not have to deal with immediate consequences. Damn, I hope I don't sound too cynical, definitely not too optimistic but I'm no cynic.

I agree with your logic as I said earlier because it is the ideal argument to get back on track with the corporations and unions but I just don't see it coming to be when either the corporations or unions become too strong and one will always be stronger.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 11/22/08 03:25 PM, Al6200 wrote:

I propose that we make unions legal, but make it illegal to let unions collaborate to dominate an entire industry. Consider it anti-trust legislation for unions.

i think 'Labor market Superstitions' By Thomas Dilorenzo is probably the easiest educational source. or watch some of the sections in 'BULLSHIT' by Penn and Teller.

[Al6200]

At 11/22/08 09:12 PM, killxp wrote:

That is the basic problem we have here. I agree with your logic but one side will ALWAYS try to overcome the other. Unions were made so that companies could not treat employees as slaves and employees could have a say in what they thought was right or wrong.

Employers do this without unions, although unions arguably can help to improve relations between employees and management.

Without unions these large corporations would try to squeeze every penny out of every employee. Keep wages at the minimum, offer little or obsolete benefits and forever keep their employees in fear of losing their jobs.

That's true of unskilled labor, but skilled labor and professionals generally aren't unionized (although there are exceptions). The companies couldn't just reduce benefits and wages indefinitely, because skilled labor is unique and there's competition in hiring them.

On the other hand, unions that have become too strong will keep demanding more and more from employers. They will not stop at a healthy medium. I mean $30/hours would be great to live comfortably and all three companies offer benefits as per state and federal law, $40 is pushing it, $50 is a dream come true and $60 is double what you can do with comfortably. At $76/hour you cost more than you are asked to produce.

Yeah, 60k is a lot for unskilled labor, and 150k is basically doctor-level salary (which requires 10 years of tough schooling).

In the end, I suppose it all comes down to greed. Corporate or Union. Greed is tearing up our economy and will, no ... IS destroying everyone and everything. We can only hope to ... I don't know ... maybe survive long enough for the next administration to soften the blow so we don't spiral into depression. Neither knows when to stop. They could both be comfortable but when more is possible they will never be content and continue to glutton as long as they do not have to deal with immediate consequences. Damn, I hope I don't sound too cynical, definitely not too optimistic but I'm no cynic.

I think that's exactly why we need to create checks and balances, a new square deal for labor. They can still join unions, but the unions can't go completely crazy because their company still needs to compete with other companies.

I agree with your logic as I said earlier because it is the ideal argument to get back on track with the corporations and unions but I just don't see it coming to be when either the corporations or unions become too strong and one will always be stronger.

Perhaps, but I think that we could still do a lot of good by at least trying to balance them out.

[ReiperX]

Neither side is perfect.

Unions have been very greedy, taking much more than they should be, and this is one reason that other car companies are doing better. Without a union the employees actually have to earn their place in a company. In many unions, it is just too difficult to actually fire someone because a lot of the BS.

On the other hand, the American car companies have been sitting on their hands for the longest on not increasing fuel economy, and many are out of touch with what consumers want. Between this, and their greed with the extraordinary salaries management is pulling in, that's not helping either.

So its no wonder that the American car companies are failing. Personally I saw let them either bankrupt, or if the government helps attach enough strings to the help that both Unions and the management have to take pay cuts to what they should actually be making and not what they want to make. Because if we just give them 25 billion with no strings attached now, they'll be back for more next year.

[Prinzy2]

I was talking to a friend about this yesterday and he's positive they'll get bailed out.
His reasoning was that the oil companies have such a huge stake in GM, Ford, and Chrysler that they would never let them go bankrupt, and that's also the reason why GM, ford, and Chrysler never made fuel efficient vehicles.
Not to mention that big oil would have a pretty big say in what the government does.

[killxp]

At 11/22/08 10:39 PM, Prinzy2 wrote: I was talking to a friend about this yesterday and he's positive they'll get bailed out.
His reasoning was that the oil companies have such a huge stake in GM, Ford, and Chrysler that they would never let them go bankrupt, and that's also the reason why GM, ford, and Chrysler never made fuel efficient vehicles.
Not to mention that big oil would have a pretty big say in what the government does.

Not a bad theory. And I am sure that Congress would love to save the Big Three ... if they could. Right now it looks like there is just not enough money to save all three. I think that at least one and maybe even two of them will not get bailed out at all. Depending on how much of the money, if any, GM says they would seriously think about acquiring Chrysler. Now of course the topic is referring to GM/Ford so I don't know if the author already counted them out or just wanted to focus on those two for this thread but what happens to Chrysler in the next few weeks will definitely impact Detroit and the two other big US automakers.

[killxp]

At 11/22/08 10:12 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At 11/22/08 09:12 PM, killxp wrote:

In the end, I suppose it all comes down to greed. Corporate or Union. Greed is tearing up our economy and will, no ... IS destroying everyone and everything. We can only hope to ... I don't know ... maybe survive long enough for the next administration to soften the blow so we don't spiral into depression. Neither knows when to stop. They could both be comfortable but when more is possible they will never be content and continue to glutton as long as they do not have to deal with immediate consequences. Damn, I hope I don't sound too cynical, definitely not too optimistic but I'm no cynic.

I think that's exactly why we need to create checks and balances, a new square deal for labor. They can still join unions, but the unions can't go completely crazy because their company still needs to compete with other companies.

But where do we draw the line? Where is enough enough and too much just way too much? And who decides? The government? They can be lobbied by corporations and don't think that either the corporations or unions themselves will ever be able to settle at a happy medium.

I agree with your logic as I said earlier because it is the ideal argument to get back on track with the corporations and unions but I just don't see it coming to be when either the corporations or unions become too strong and one will always be stronger.

Perhaps, but I think that we could still do a lot of good by at least trying to balance them out.

True, and maybe I'm just being a pain but I just see it as being very difficult. Of course, there are companies that employ unskilled labor and do not have unions at all. Most even have you sign off that you will never create, join or mention unionizing. These employees however are probably just happy they have a job at all in these times and the companies take advantage. At the same time, the employees that work for companies without unions and are just happy to have a job do not stay too long. They move on to something else, another company without a union that does not require skilled labor? Anyways, the companies may lose these workers but there is always going to be someone else that wants a job, any job, just to keep going. Employees come and go. Not exactly an ideal situation but you don't hear about how those companies are going under bring the rest of the modern world with them. Eh, weak points on my end but I hope someone quotes me respectfully with their thoughts. Late.

[Garthredbunlove]

At 11/22/08 03:18 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: I found an article against the GM bailout here, the author compares it to the Japanese case in 1990.

You do realize that Japanese auto makers are kicking our ass, right?

[Garthredbunlove]

At 11/23/08 12:00 AM, killxp wrote:

At 11/22/08 10:12 PM, Al6200 wrote: I think that's exactly why we need to create checks and balances, a new square deal for labor. They can still join unions, but the unions can't go completely crazy because their company still needs to compete with other companies.

But where do we draw the line? Where is enough enough and too much just way too much? And who decides? The government? They can be lobbied by corporations and don't think that either the corporations or unions themselves will ever be able to settle at a happy medium.

According to theory, labor wages and production tend to have a built in system of checks and balances, which is why this type of thing doesn't happen in every industry.

It's the same theory of supply and demand, only people are the goods. Suppose there's two jobs for one person, the demand for that person goes up, and so does their pay - whoever pays more gets the worker. However, the opposite happens when there are two workers for every job - the pay goes down.

However, unions turn this idea upside down because, as so many people complain about, they hold a monopoly on labor. If GM pisses off the wrong guy, they lose their whole labor force. That is why they cannot just lay people off, because even though they have more people than jobs, laying them off would cause them to lose their entire labor force.

In contrast, unions were a great invention in the 1800's. Back then working conditions were horrific, and people would often put in long hours and still get nowhere in life. Unions changed that, but now they have too much power.

However, I get the impression that they don't mind paying what they do. That's just my take on it. I think GM is actually planning to go bankrupt, and I think they're going to dump all of the pensions on the government - which is likely going to cost more than the bailout would have.

[aviewaskewed]

At 11/20/08 01:58 AM, Garthredbunlove wrote: Not only that, but the blacks in the north have started enslaving white people.

That's true. I can only use the computer at night...when Massah isn't looking....

<_<

>_>

*runs away*

Oh I am going to hell...

[Al6200]

Wow, I just read the article at the top. $73 an hour, that's 146k a year if you work full time (and even that figure underestimates how much money they make, in reality a professional that makes 140k a year works way way more than a 40 hour work week).

Do these guys have skills that are justifying their engineer/lawyer/doctor level salaries?