Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by jason_els, Nov 19, 2008.
These guys just do NOT get it. They didn't even jet pool.:
So, hypothetically, if all three automakers went down...I wonder if any new American companies would start up in their vacuum.
None of the domestics will go down permanently with the possible exception of Chrysler and even if that happens, the Jeep line will remain or be bought.
Bankruptcy only means restructuring and that is needed badly but I agree bankruptcy may not be a good idea since vehicles are long-term purchases people will not make with the stigma of the word bankruptcy, fearing they may not be around for warranty work.
The best answer is Congress forcing restructuring before giving the loans including new competitive UAW contracts and the shedding of legacy costs that will allow them to compete on a level playing field with foreign rivals importing/building here.
Will a Democratic Congress historically in-bed with unions do that? Let’s hope.
What do you have in mind for the shedding of legacy costs?
If I was was paying someone as much money as they are making, then I'd want to make sure they are using their time efficiently. Why have them get stuck in an airport for several hours and miss very important meetings to save a few bucks? And I say a "few bucks" because that's all it really is compared to the money that is thrown around in huge companies like this. I don't know why congress made such a big deal about this.
Greatly reduced or axed all together like United Airlines did recently. I know it doesnt sound pretty but its a reality now the good of the whole is more important.
There is another possibility also, although a long shot = since trade barriers exist just about everywhere we could leave them in place and make foreign manufacturers contribute.
HAHAHAHAHAHA The General is going under. What'r we gonna do when we no longer make the heartbeat of America? Fucking sons a bitches sold us all out.
Legacy Costs? What I think this means is pensions, right? If so, then I think you are right that legacy costs are killing the auto companies.
On the other hand, killing the pensions is also wrong. It is a real dilemma. How did the airlines do it?
I like your idea about foreign manufacturer contributions. I am not an extreme 'free marketer', but I do remember what crap our auto companies produced in the 70s when they had no real competition. All the other solutions that I can think of would move us back to that. Your foreign contribution idea is one that preserve the competitive field.
Unfortunately, the airlines didn't do it. Their pensions died and the PBGC took them over. Retired pilots were forced to take pension cuts at the PBGC limits - some taking 67% cuts in pension pay.
Autos are going down the same road, yet they are in worse condition than the airlines were in their worst days. The legacy costs and labor costs for autos are in outer-space. They are embarrassing and incurable. There is no cure for the autos. It is painful and scary, but they are done.
Yes, pensions and health care costs for retirees.
United filed bankruptcy and shed them that way.
Now this is one of my biggest pet peeves. Domestics were building what the public wanted here in the 70s. If you remember it was common to buy a new car every few years in those days and they built accordingly. Three year old cars were rusting pieces of junk but new cars were very cheap just like the North American market liked them. Foreign cars were even more junk in those days and very expensive to fix.
Todays culture is different, long lasting vehicles will be the norm no matter the competition imo as platforms are world car platforms now.
NOTHING they had to do that day (or even week) was nearly as important as that meeting.
Going begging for public money in a three piece suit is bad enough, but taking a private jet to do it just smacks of complete disregard for the fact that the average American is being asked to pay for it. Congress has to rake them over the coals for it because if they don't, then the voters will look at Congress as being in the pockets of these CEOs (who are already wildly unpopular) and wondering how Congress can give money to people flying around in private jets claiming they're broke. All the while the average American is far more sympathetic with the auto workers who are going to be out of a job and pension. $20,000 is a pension payment that could have gone to someone who will lose their job or is too old and infirm to go back to work when their pension ends. How does it look for Congress to hand your money to people who appear to have no regard for what's going in the country? Clearly the PR people who manage these CEOs had absolutely NO IDEA how to handle this situation and neither did the CEOs who now appear to be so distant from the average person that I don't wonder people will bang on their congresspeople's doors demanding they not write a check to these guys who show no gratefulness, no humility, and in one case, outright contempt for even being questioned about it.
Even if, by some wild chance, there really was a need for any of these guys to take a private jet, they shouldn't have just because of how damaging it looks and it's ultimately their responsibility that they have each now harmed the chances of their respective companies getting what it was they took the damned flights to accomplish in the first place! As a shareholder or board member or employee, I'd be FURIOUS, and since I'm a taxpayer and it's my money they're asking for, I now have a right to be furious too!
That is what these monkeys don't get.
PBGC = another gigantic mess-in-the-making
AirportBusiness.com » Article » United Airlines to Dump Pensions
Look times may be rough but the private jet STAYS. Flying commercial is so bogus. I don't have time for TSA and ticket counters. I'm running a multinational billion dollar enterprise and have no time to stand in line for ANYTHING.
Luckily your hero Obama flew coach throughout the election.
Are you saying that tariffs should remain on foreign cars and the money collected be funneled into auto makers' pension plans?
There. Fixed that for ya. :wink:
It's funny, that's the same type of reason I think women shouldn't sleep with too many men. There is nothing wrong with it, but they do it knowing that most men will think less of them and it will hurt their chances of ending up with a nice guy. It's not the action itself, but the lack of caring about the public reaction that makes them look bad.
Yes. It might be, from some perspectives, stupid for the CEOs not to fly in private jets ... but optics are all important right now.
Actually I think it is the action itself. It demonstrates to me that each one of these guys doesn't truly see the forest for the trees. They're not in the mindset of truly changing their business radically enough to survive in the restructured economy to come. This isn't unusual in business. Lots of gigantic companies that were household names have folded when they failed to see competition or economic factors gaining on them and then changing their business model to compete. Some do, but most don't. They become old brands that are swallowed-up by competitors or they outright die.
And as for US automakers making what people wanted in the 70s.... HA! The Big 3 nearly went under after two gas crises and by the early 80s, Chrysler was asking for a government bailout! The Aspen? The Vega? The Pinto? The Pacer? These were crap cars of the highest order and demonstrated that Detroit yet again did not understand how to build a small car. The 70s were what launched Toyota, Nissan (then Datsun), and Honda into the public mindset. The Corolla and the Civic in particular were fantastic cars that ran much better than what Detroit was cranking out and they got better mileage.
When the gas crunch came suddenly Detroit rushed to put out small cars and no, they were not great but you must remember the days before computers, cars took at least five years to get to market.
The only advantage Japanese cars had in those days was they were small and fuel efficient because they were imported from a place where thats all they made, but they were not quality by any means. Japanese cars were junk and expensive to repair.
Also, yes domestics were building what people wanted, people wanted big cars and they wanted them cheap
and thats exactly what they got.