pan6467

Here's a few articles on the auto industry and GM in particular. Of course the Right will blame the unions, but they refuse to acknowledge healthcare, personal debt and lower pay are hurting the economy and the ability to keep our industries here and growing.

Some also argue that we don't need manufacturing...... well to that I say where are the jobs then? McDonald's? Burger King? Walmart?

If we sit and continue to point fingers and we do nothing to improve healthcare costs, wages and debt (and the GOP seems to want to point fingers and not do anything), we WILL be a country where we will have the very rich and everyone else will be poor.

We need to increase minimum wage, get universal healthcare or regulate the industry, raise tarriffs, get localities and companies to trade tax abatements for guaranteed jobs and so on.

The GOP refuses to do anything but continue to give the rich tax cuts????? Have they helped in the past 5 years?

No, healthcare continues to raise exponentially (yet they can put aside billions for illegals healthcare), fuel costs skyrocket, wages and benefits continue to fall.

Companies like GM and Ford are desperately trying to stay alive. (The GOP, who preach being honorable, want companies to cut retirees benefits (mainly healthcare) PROMISED to them or go bankrupt...... and still refuse to do anything to get healthcare under control.

If anyone believes the people won't truly revolt then they don't know human spirit. You can take only so much away from people before they strike out. Already crime rates are increasing, drug abuse is skyrocketing, poverty is increasing and the GOP keeps saying how great things are as more GM closes plants and lays off 25,000 is saying paycuts and loss of benefits are coming, Ford will follow suit.

====================================================
LINK: http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...08/117873.html
=====================================================

GM to Close Plants Cut 25,000 Jobs
WILMINGTON, Del. June 8, 2005; Brad Dorfman writing for Reuters reported that General Motors Corp. expects to close more U.S. assembly and component plants over the next few years, slashing at least 25,000 manufacturing jobs as it battles high costs and shrinking market share, the company's chief executive said on Tuesday.

Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, addressing shareholders at a contentious annual meeting, said GM expects to save $2.5 billion a year from the cost-cutting measures.

GM, the world's largest automaker, lost $1.1 billion in the first quarter and is riding out its worst financial crisis in more than a decade. It has been closing and idling plants over the past four years and will have cut its annual North American assembly capacity from six million vehicles in 2002 to five million by the end of this year.

A benchmark annual report on North American manufacturing operations released last week ranked GM dead last among leading automakers in assembly plant capacity utilization.

"We need to get to 100 percent capacity utilization or better," Wagoner said. A plant can get above 100 percent capacity utilization when overtime is factored in.

Wagoner said at least 25,000 U.S. jobs would likely be cut in the period 2005-2008, from an hourly work force that stood at 111,000 at the end of 2004.

His warning of plant closings and headcount reductions seemed to suggest an aggressive strategy for turning around an icon of industrial America, and investors welcomed the news, sending GM shares up as much as 2.4 percent.

But analyst Michael Bruynesteyn of Prudential Equity Group said eliminating 25,000 or more hourly jobs through 2008 would only be in line with the normal 5 percent annual retirement or attrition rate at GM.

"These plans are not surprising given market share losses and efficiency gains but we do not think they should be viewed as a new strategy," added Goldman Sachs analyst Robert Barry.

"If market share continues to fall over time, as we expect, then GM is really just treading water with such actions, not boosting profitability."

Wagoner said GM had been in intense discussions with the United Auto Workers union about ways to reduce the company's massive health-care costs. But he said it was not certain an agreement would be reached.

Wagoner stressed the company, whose debt was cut to high-yield, or "junk," status last month, had to cut costs promptly.

UNION REACTION

A senior UAW official suggested Wagoner was unlikely to win any major concessions from the union under its current labor contract, however. The contract expires in September 2007.

"It's one thing to present in a speech specific targets for job reductions and closing plants by the end of 2008; in reality, various important factors will come into play," Richard Shoemaker, the UAW vice president in charge of union affairs with GM, said in a statement.

"The UAW is not convinced that GM can simply shrink its way out of its current problems," he said.

Shoemaker said the union was doing its part "to help GM meet the challenges of today's fiercely competitive auto industry." But he added: "We will do all that is possible to protect the interests of our members and their families."

The GM job cut announcement was the biggest in the United States since Kmart unveiled plans to cut 37,000 jobs in January 2003, according to John Challenger of outplacement firm Challenger, Gray and Christmas Inc.

"This may not be the last major job cut announcement we see this year as other companies, including other American automakers, struggle to make a profit amid escalating health-care costs, not to mention the cost of providing ongoing health benefits to growing ranks of retirees," Challenger said in a statement.

GM expects to spend $5.6 billion on employee and retiree health care this year, and cited that burden when it recently withdrew its earnings guidance for 2005.

GM executives have argued that hourly union workers should pay the same out-of-pocket medical expenses as the company's white-collar, salaried workers. That would save GM as much as $1 billion a year, including the cost of medical care for hourly retirees, according to Sean McAlinden, an economist at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Wagoner declined to give specific details about plant closings and job cuts during the two hour, 20-minute meeting, where he faced investor discontent and at least one call for his resignation.

"We're going broke. It's time for a change," said Jim Dollinger, a long-time Buick salesman.

Wagoner also declined to say what steps GM's board might take if billionaire Kirk Kerkorian is successful in his $31-a-share tender offer for 4.95 percent of the company. The offer by Kerkorian, who already owns 3.89 percent of GM's stock, expired on Tuesday.

=========================================================
LINK: http://www.autoblog.com/entry/1234000863045967/
=========================================================

GM’s turnaround plan includes more imported parts
Posted Jun 8, 2005, 3:46 PM ET by Eric Bryant


Somewhat lost in the (justified) fervor surrounding Rick Wagoner’s announcement of job cuts was another component of the dreaded “cost reduction” pillar. Wagoner said was “the emergence of excellent supply capability in lower cost markets provide[s] us with some real cost savings opportunities”, and stated that GM will be “restructuring [our] purchasing model.” Translated to English, this means that North American suppliers can soon expect to watch as their business moves to low-labor-cost markets such as China. Considering that GM purchases somewhere in the neighborhood of $80 billion in parts annually, it’s easy to see that the loss of even a small percentage of that work will have drastic effects; effects that are perhaps more significant than the planned direct-labor cuts. Things may get especially tough in the Midwest where the Big Three still enjoy relative popularity due to a Buy American attitude, and where automotive component suppliers form the foundation of local economies. It might be difficult for many buyers to convince themselves that purchasing a GM vehicle is best for their financial well-being when GM moves more work off-shore as the “transplant” OEMs such as Honda, Toyota, and even Hyundai continue to increase their domestic content.

=========================================================
LINK:http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...toyota_us_dc_8
=========================================================

Toyota boss fears backlash if GM, Ford crumble Wed Jun 8, 2:21 PM ET

OSAKA, Japan (Reuters) - The outspoken chairman of Toyota Motor Corp. said on Wednesday he feared the possibility that U.S. policy could turn against Japanese auto makers if local giants such as GM and Ford were to collapse.

"Many people say the car industry wouldn't revisit the kind of trade friction we saw in the past because Japanese auto makers are increasing local production in the United States, but I don't think it's that simple," Hiroshi Okuda told a news conference.

"General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. are symbols of U.S. industry, and if they were to crumble it could fan nationalistic sentiment. I always have a fear that that in turn could manifest itself in policy decisions," he said, speaking as the head of the nation's biggest business lobby, the Japan Business Federation.

Okuda, who as chairman is removed from the auto maker's day-to-day operations, raised eyebrows and invited criticism on both sides of the Pacific when he said two months ago that Toyota should think about ways in which it could aid U.S. auto makers -- such as by raising product prices -- as they reel under massive health-care costs and sliding sales.

In the latest sign of tough times at Detroit's Big Two, GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner told shareholders on Tuesday of plans to cut at least 25,000 manufacturing jobs and close more U.S. assembly and component plants over the next few years.

Both GM and Ford have been cutting back output as they lose sales to Asian brands led by Toyota, which now controls 13.4 percent of the U.S. car market, the world's biggest.

Asked what he thought of GM's latest restructuring plan, Okuda said: "If you think about GM's current output volume and vehicle lineup, laying off 25,000 to 30,000 employees is inevitable."

GM, the world's biggest auto maker followed by Toyota, lost $1.1 billion in the first quarter and is riding out its worst financial crisis in more than a decade. It has been closing and idling plants over the past four years and will have cut its annual North American assembly capacity to 5 million vehicles by the end of this year from 6 million in 2002.

Meanwhile, top Japanese auto makers are adding jobs and assembly lines in North America to meet growing demand there, prompting executives, including Toyota President Fujio Cho, to dismiss concerns that their success would reignite a political backlash.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

chickentribs

PAN - Although the economy is going to affect this in a lot of ways, I'm not sure that we can pin the problems of GM and Ford on Healthcare and minimum wage. The next article you posted with the Chairman of Toyota is very interesting - especially the part about artificially inflating his own prices to help GM sell more cars. I think that was more of a jab than sincere concern on his part...

American automakers have not diversified and have ignored the rest of world because pick-up truck sales in the U.S. were always a given, and gave a nice cushion of revenue to count on. They got lazy with the unions and myopic with product development. The jobs the we are losing around the country are the pick-up truck demographic, and sales have bottomed out. (Toyota sells very few and Honda never even bothered with pick ups)

Because the dollar is worthless than 70% of what it was 2 years ago, there is no way that they can compete in the world market with the car lines. They are stuck selling here, and there demographic has lost 500,000 jobs in the last 4 years. I smell another bail out coming and it stinks...

__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.

fewy

The great thing I'm looking forward to is that bush can't run for president in 2008. But whoever the next president is they will have a lot of shitty problems to deal with.

Ustwo

You lost me with GM...

Horribly run company, but I guess thats Bush's fault too.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

chickentribs

No, if I wanted to blame the GOP I could go back to the Congress in 1979 that bailed them out with federal money and coddled them with price tarrifs on foriegn manufacturers through the 80's. But, I blame the UAW and the weak mgmt team that gets kicked around by them. You can't make strategic, healthy decisions for the company with short-sighted benefits negotiators in the background whining for more doughnuts.

Instead of standing up and busting the union down like any CEO worth his salt would do, Rick Wagoner would rather pick up his factories and take them overseas where there is no healthcare or unions to worry about.

Oh yeah - Bush did drive down the dollar so they can't compete internationally now. Sorry.

__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.

Hardknock

Pan hit the nail on the head. I see another depression if we stay on this current course. This current trend of costs, healthcare and the rest going up and wages going down cannot last forever. There will be a breaking point. At that point, no one will be able to afford anything because prices are too high due to the greedy corporations and the government that has themselves in each other’s pockets.

Ustwo

Lets pretend this happens, it won't but lets pretend.

So now no one has enough money to buy stuff from 'greedy corporations'.....mmmm there is no demand....
but there is supply....

What happens to prices when there is supply but no demand?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

chickentribs

Actually I think that inflation is going to be driven on interest rates, the declining value of the dollar, and the increase in the cost of raw goods, namely oil. It is going to take a lot of discipline in budget and tight control from the Fed on that interest rate. If our unemployment figures continue to climb, we are looking at a pretty heavy hit because money circulation crawls to a stop as people lose confidence and start to save instead of consume.

Probably not the best time for Greenspan to retire...

Corporations are supposed to be "greedy", in fact they have to be. The trick for a lot of them is staying greedy and ethical at the same time!

__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.

MSD

Minimum wage increases lead to layoffs of the workers on the low end of the pay scale, the very people you're trying to protect. Universal healthcare is a nice theory, but raising taxes to pay for it is not a good way to stimulate the economy. Regulating the industry leads to jobs being moved overseas. Once again, you end up hurting the people you want to help.
There are two issues at hand here. First, it makes sense to give a small break to someone who is required to pay half of their income to the government rather than someone who pays a third of theirs. I used to think that it was perfectly fine, but now I cannot ethically justify taking a higher percentage of income from someone who makes more money just because they can afford it. When I used to favor high taxes for the rich, I think it was due to a combination of envy and resentment. I suggest breaking down your opinion and asking yourself exactly why you feel this way and whether it makes sense logically or only on an emotional level. I suffered from cognitive dissonance for quite a while after I did that, but in the end, fair tax makes more sense to me. Second, tax cuts did not only help the rich, they were cuts across the board, and owners of small businesses have benefitted greatly from cuts to taxes that they really could not afford to pay.
In the end, inflation and unemployment rates are inversely related, and both cannot be kept down at the same time unless the country is in an economic golden age. Perhaps if we were able to overproduce to the point that we could flood the market with exports and cut imports to a minimal level, we could manage both, but it is highly unlikely, especially druing a negative global economic trend. In the end, low-tech, high-volume production will have to be outsourced and high-tech pproduction encouraged so that we can keep the cash flowing into the country rather than out. I'm not saying that we should be buying all of our food and basic manufactured goods from other countries, but if we want to stimulate the economy, we mainly need to eliminate trade deficits and outsourcing unskilled labor is the easiest way to do it.
The bottom line is that when foreign manufacturers are able to produce high-volume, low-cost goods (for example, entry-level cars,) that are consistently more reliable and more efficient than domestic versions, people are going to buy the superior product. Without sales volume, cuts have to happen in other places. Blaming a political party that you don't like can't change the fact that domestic manufacturers are fighitng an uphill battle in a free market economy.
GM is closing plants and laying off workers because profits cannot keep up with expenses. If you look at their lineup, it's a bunch of the same car with different badges. They shut down Oldsmobile last year and Buick is going out next year because they're failing to make a profit. Once again, they are fighitng an uphill battle in a free-market economy. Look at the product lines. Honda and Toyota have been making lightweight cars with small, efficient engines for a long time, while some American companies are still using ancient technology (Overhead cam and varible valve timing setups that make for more efficient, more powerful engines were available from Japanese manufacturers years before American manufacturers adopted the technology on the same scale. Many cars, especially from GM, are still using antiquated, inefficient pushrod techonology.) When competitors aren't on an equal playing field in a free marked, the one with the upper hand will obviously win. Our manufacturers are still working to overcome the stigma attached to American cars from the early '80s when we had almost nothing worth buying.

You claim that people will revolt, and give crime rates, drug abuse, and poverty as evidence. Who do you expect to do the revolting? Is it the addicts and impoverished who, depite their economic conditions, will somehow manage to arm themselves? Maybe it's the criminals who already have their illegal weapons and are despised by the rest of civilized society.

As I read over your post once more before I submitted mine, an inconsistency in your argument popped out where I had looked over it before. You insist that we should increase minimum wage and get universal healthcare. The majority of our tax money that would be increased to fund universal healthcare cone from large (multi-billion dollar) companies, and when added to an increased minimum wage, you seem to expect this to save jobs. Both of those are measures that cost the companies money, and you advocate their implementation to save jobs, which also cost the company money. Am I not seeing a source of income that you see, or is there a way to make this profitable and avoid job losses?



Speaking of cognitive dissonance, I'm not sure how to feel when I'm not only agreeing with you, but quoting a post of yours to agree with it completely.

chickentribs

MrSelfDestruct, Don't look into the eyes of Ustwo, we can get you back...!

A couple of quick comments, Universal Healthcare would actually relieve much of the cost pressure corporations have to currently shoulder because it effectively forces everyone to pay into it. Instead of increasing premiums that reflect the cost of the uninsured that gets treated at higher prices, if you get a paycheck you are paying into it. Think of the cost we carry for 35 - 40% of the population that does not have insurance!

Ask GM if they would like Universal Healthcare. A bump in tax rates that losses are deducted off of, vs. $800 per family per month, including the 10's of thousands of retirees they have to cover. It would be a no brainer for most companies.

Lastly, while it is true that people of a higher income pay a higher tax rate, they are also afforded many deductions opportunities such as mortgage, investments, childcare, etc. that people of lesser means can't take advantage of. I would prefer a flat tax system, no deductions. It couldn't get more fair than that, but corporations would never allow it!

__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.

Hardknock

Thanks for your attempt at Econ 101 but I've already had that lesson. Of course, you are right, prices will drop if demand falls, but to a point. Theoretically, no company will lower prices below what it costs to produce. And like I said, if no one can even afford that, there where does that leave you?

host

The POV that minimum wage laws impact negatively, "the very people you're trying to protect", is a weak one, IMO, and the current stats that I provide below, illustrate that the impact of such laws is not so "cut and dried.

Also, all ten of the states displayed with the higher minimum wages (In both groups, I eliminated smallest pop. states, i.e., Vermont, Wyoming, and remote states like Alaska and Hawaii. The D.C. has an "artificial" economu and no state gov.,) exhibited a majority vote for Bush in 2004, and I'll make an argument that majorities in more affluent states are opposed to Bush tax cuts that benefit them more than the less affluent, "Bush majority" states.

If low wages and no overtime laws were of great benefit in attracting jobs, one would be tempted to surmise that South Carolina and Mississippi would experience lower unemployment. IMO, geography and demographics play a larger role in influencing job creation and economic improvement than minimum wage laws do. Are those in the $5.15 per hour states who work at the marginal jobs that would not be available at a higher minimum wage, better off working for those wages and driving unemployment below 4.5 percent in some low wage states, or would there be a greater chance that they would migrate to a more advantageous area in pursuit of a higher minimum wage mandated by another state's law. In other words, is working at a minimm wage job in North Carolina for $5.15, a better opportunity for a young worker, than having no job available and thus a catalyst to move to Delaware or Oregon?

IMO, this is a complex issue that the stats reveal no easy answers about. New studies show that $5.15 wage earners burden the medical and social welfare systems of many locales to the point where several states are considering Maryland's solution to the burden of Wal-Mart as an employer in their local communities:<a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.fairshare09jun09,1,7106910.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines">Make all employers pay their fair share</a>
U.S., Japanese, and European automakers do not make enough profit on "entry level", economy cars, to attract their interest in that segment. They make those vehicles as "loss leaders", and depend on the sale of larger, higher end vehicles for offsetting profits. I disagree about quality and state of technology issues regarding GM and Ford products, and apparently, so does the market.
To keep this post on topic, I'm including a picture worth a thousand words:
The "numbers" and the current government tax, spending, foreign, and military policies clash to the point that informed individuals can easily argue that the fate of the dollar's value lies in the hands of foreign debt holders and buyers, that cutting taxes and increasing military and medicare prescription costs contribute to the dollar's demise, and ironically, the ability to maintain military spending at even current levels, along with the farce of the constant Bush roadshow that pushes the dismantling of SSI, under the disguise of an advocacy for private SSI accounts, that distract from that dismantling agenda, and the immediate influences on the rising deficit, Iraq war, military spending, ineffective pork barrel spending under the guise of "Homeland Security", and most ominously, a U.S. trade deficit headed for $900 billion per year as soon as in 2007. IMO, there is no guarantee that economic slowdown will trigger deflation.

stevo

the stats you provide prove nothing. And no one is going to move across the country for an extra $84 a week (less taxes).

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

cj2112

I hate to break the news to you, but GM is not suffering because of Bush. GM is suffering because they have a reputation for building shit. Ask people what they think of GM's quality over the pass 20 years, then ask them what they think of Toyota's quality over the last 20 years. People aren't buying GM because they equate GM with poor quality vehicles.

pan6467

See I grew up in a GM plant town and what I can say for fact is that there are union abuses, however.... unlike some I don't believe in busting the union, but I believe in management and union working together to build a better company.

I see GM as a picture of the country. People will take what they can get, for as long as they can get it and will not negotiate when they need to.

There is no doubt in my mind we have the hardest and best workers in the world. The problem is that people believe they aren't paid well enough (and there is truth in that) and companies are more worried about bottom lines and profit than their workers (truth in that).

Again somwhere there lies ground in between where both sides can work and gain what both sides want, however it takes both sides to be willing to open HONEST negotiations and to work for that middle ground.

Unfortunately, our society has brainwashed us so that we believe you take one side or the other and if you try to find common ground (even if it is for the best on both sides) you are weak, a waffler or hiding something.

So in the end it's a case of all or nothing and what we are ending up with is nothing.... and yet we could work torwards a better tomorrow if both sides made concessions and did what was best for the whole. (That is for every aspect of life and country not just GM).

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

chickentribs

I understand, pan. My grandfather was United Steelworkers loyal up in Elyria. But, the truth is that as we continue to move to a global workplace, unions weigh down a corporation with some ideal that it can stay 1950 forever. For the last 20 years they have been hanging on for dear life, but we are sending companies, that represent a lot to the confidence of americans as a whole, into a fight with one arm.

UAW lost any authority after the first government bailout of GM back in 1979, imo. It showed the system was flawed, and the union should have been shown the door back than. GM just announced 25,000 job cuts. The union has failed those workers, and they have failed the company by negotiating in bad faith for short term gains that aren't economically sustainable. We can't let these "labor officials" run every factory out of the US...

__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.

Hardknock

Agreed. You couldn't pay me to buy one.

pan6467

For those that say GM lacks creativity and drive, could it be they are so bogged down in paying healthcare's rising costs that they have had to cut to a bare minimum R&D.

Now I will say this, I think they could pay less and have the employee pay more. I think that is only fair to ask when you know your company is hurting.

But if we went to a universal or at least subsidized based on sliding scale..... GM would have that health benefit money freed up to do R&D.

As for unions, I am pro-union, however I also believe that when you see your company in trouble and you are part of the bleeding..... then you need to cut back and say "let us work together to save the company" and make concessions.

But Management also has to make concessions.... how can you ask workers to take a paycut or less benefits when your multi-million dollar salary and your golden parachute is also draining the company??????????

The knife cuts both ways.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pan6467

This is also when government or a truly neutral mediator should step in and mediate to save industries and workers jobs.

NO, this is not saying government should in anyway interfere with the company..... I am saying go to the union and management and say "look, offer concessions" and work to get company and employees on the same page to save the company, jobs, industry and the tax base.

If you don't do that, management (which from the past has rights to doubt union) will continue to cut slash and take jobs overseas, the union will continue (because of past exp.) to doubt management's try to truly live up to their side.

Every loss of big factories like GM means tax base shrinks and the burden is shifted to the rich. This is what Neo-cons refuse to see.

If you keep blaming the unions (while management continues to pack golden parachutes) for all the ills, and allow management to just walk away without having to make any concessions then you are as bad as you claim the unions to be.

When a factory leaves, who pays the local taxes? When those employees lose their higher end paying jobs and have to take severe pay cuts with no benefits, how do you expect them to pay their debts, let alone taxes and insurance???? Plus, the local economy suffers, those workers have less to spend so all the stores and shops suffer, so they have to lay off, pay less and perhaps close down, plus that tax base is gone.

You can't so you have a spiralling freefall, management still makes theirs because they have moved for cheaper labor..... yet, the workers fall into a lower class and are in severe debt.

As this continues the tax base is swung to the higher end to pay more and more and more.

Regardless of your belief, the fact is we desperatley need manufacturing jobs, because our economy is based on these jobs. Without manufacturing we are done.

If you lose tax base and cut everything esp. education, then in this world where technology IS the future, we are starting way behind or at the very least we fall farther down to dangerous levels.

The only hope is to keep any manufacturing we do have, use the tax base, spend everything we can into education and technology and move society that way. Thereby, giving society the time to make the adjustments.

If you just allow manufacturing to go and haven't prepared (which obviously we truly haven't) then the eventual reality is thata severe tax burden falls upon the rich and they eventually won't even be able to pay because the lower classes won't be able to buy the goods, pay hardly any taxes, nor pay healthcare. And when people can't buy even management can't get paid..... till eventually noone has anything.

You have to keep a balance and for a long time the balance was out of whack by the unions..... now the balance is out of whack by management..... we desperately need to find the middle and very fast because we are on a sinking ship and we're standing there telling everyone else what to do refusing to do anything ourselves..... so the water keeps rushing in and new holes open and everyone is pointing fingers.....

Time to stop pointing fingers and work together and save the ship......

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Ustwo

Think of me as that little devil on your shoulder.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

flstf

I always thought a weak dollar was good for exports, making our goods cheaper to countries with higher valued currencies?

Hardknock

That's all good, in theory. Management at any company will never make concessions. They demand it out of their employees and hide the bonuses that they get when they do win those concessions. Even at companies that actually make money. Management still pulls bullshit accounting tricks to make it look like the comapny is going under, just to get those givebacks. Take me for instance, I work at one of the airlines that actually makes money, but management is crying for concessions. Our union has told them hell no and we might actually go on strike. They pull all the tricks that they learn from union busting consultants and in the end some sort of agreement is made. We'll just have to see what type of agreement.

pan6467

That is also why I continued to say that you need a government or non biased mediator that sees the books and knows exactly what the company can and cannot pay.

Unions have a bad name and they deserved it in the 70's and early 80's. They did prohibit R&D to the point import cars came in and took a huge market that has been growing consistently since. To the point steel mills couldn't build more streamlined energy cutting factories, appliance companies R&D was outdated.

However people seriously need to look into the managements now. We hear all about their golden parachutes and raiding pension plans and yet for some reason the people, who believe they are "uneffected" and as long as prices are kept low don't care, don't seem to give a damn. Management is doing today what the unions did.

That attitude has to change, unions need to rebuild their strength, get back the laws that protected the workers who had the right to vote if they wanted to be unioned or not and yet, also show that they learned from the past and will be more policing of workers who slack because the union protects their job, not be so greedy to hurt the company and work with management.

Management has to get back to where they are not sitting on 5 other company boards and worried only about the bottom line and not the product they produce.

Henry Ford took pride in his company and worked to make it the best. As did the presidents of Westinghouse, Tappan, Hoover, and so on. They weren't worried about golden parachutes and outrageous salaries, they concerned themselves with making the best product available and in the 40's, 50's and 60's so did the unions.

My point is we can get back to that era again, but both sides have to work for what is best and not just try to protect themselves.

Good luck with your struggles, it is a shame unions don't have the strength to make sure management bargained in good faith.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

FunStuff

Yep. Two other problems are that health care benefits add $1500 to the cost of every vehicle (don't have a link, but I heard it on the radio, so it must be true ).

And people have known for years that GM stock would suffer, since they've underfunded their pensions so dramatically. Like many other large caps.

But not solely under Bush.

stevo

Where did you pull this out of? Do you mean the US vs itself 2 years ago? because I'm pretty sure we haven't had 70% inflation in 2 years. In actuallity inflation has been something around 2%.

http://oregonstate.edu/dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/sahr.htm Do you mean US dollar vs the Euro? Because we haven't had a 70% loss vs the euro in the last 2 years, even when the dollar was at the 2 yr high. The dollar has lost around 25% vs the euro in the last 2 years.



So do you care to elaborate on just exactly what you meant when you said the dollar is worth less than 70% of what it was 2 years ago, because you can't just make up facts, especially financial ones that are easily disputed, and expect people to believe anything you have to say.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

host

Jun 14, 2002 .9448 = Cost of one Euro in U.S. dollars
Mar. 11, 2005 1.3465 = Cost of one Euro in U.S. dollars

(.70 X 1.3465 = .938 )
Source: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releas...t/dat00_eu.htm

stevo, in a recent 33 month span (less than a three year time frame), the
dollar was worth less than 71 percent of it's June 14, 2004 exchange rate
with the euro, when compared to the rate on Mar. 11, 2005.

On Apr. 12, 2002 , .8792 U.S. dollar purchased one euro.
On Dec. 27, 2004, 1.3625 U.S. dollars purchased one euro

In that recent timeframe, the dollar declined to just 64.25 percent of it's former euro purchasing power in just 32.5 months, or 2 years and 8.5 months.

I think that chickentrib's 70 percent comment is nearly dead on accurate, and that there is nothing to dispute in regard to the Fed's own data on daily euro exchange rates in U.S. dollar pricing. I do question his point that a weaker dollar somehow negatively impacted GM since, theoretically, GM should be better able to export domestic vehicle units to sell in euro based economies.

stevo

I read it as a 70% loss in the value of the US dollar.

I suppose that should teach me to read things over more carefully before my first expresso in the morning.

Now that we are communicating effectively, why stop last december to calculate the loss of the dollar vs euro? Its a bit misleading. As of june 2005, the us dollar is down 22% (vs the euro) since april 2002, and over that same time period the dollar is down 19% against major world currencies.

So I've learned not to look like an asshat and maybe someone else has learned not to twist the numbers?

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser