• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

GM's Wagoner Asked to Step Aside

Steven2006

New Member
I am a staunch supporter of capitalism, however in this case I don't see a problem. Businesses should expect to face some type interference or oversight if they expect to demand taxpayer money in order to stay afloat.

As far as comparing this to a loan at your local bank forget it there is no comparison. If you had a business that was this far in the hole, with this failed business plan in place, no bank would give you a loan. It is only because of the fear of what GM's failure might do to or economy that the government is willing to invest our tax money.
 

rbell

Active Member
No bailouts should happen. Then, this issue would be moot.

The bailouts were stupid, ill-advised, proufoundly costly, and are some of the biggest fiscal (disaster) legacies to be left by Bush 2 and Obama.
 

matt wade

Well-Known Member
No bailouts should happen. Then, this issue would be moot.

The bailouts were stupid, ill-advised, proufoundly costly, and are some of the biggest fiscal (disaster) legacies to be left by Bush 2 and Obama.


Agreed. GM should have gone into bankruptcy if they didn't have the money to keep going. Would have been good for them to restructure and get out of the union contracts!
 

Magnetic Poles

New Member
Agreed. GM should have gone into bankruptcy if they didn't have the money to keep going. Would have been good for them to restructure and get out of the union contracts!
Yep, let's punish the guys and gals working in the plant who had no say over the direction of the company, the products it would manufacture, or how they would be marketed. It's not the executive team's fault. That's why they get the big bonus money. It's those working Joes and Janes who expect a liveable wage.
 

matt wade

Well-Known Member
Yep, let's punish the guys and gals working in the plant who had no say over the direction of the company, the products it would manufacture, or how they would be marketed. It's not the executive team's fault. That's why they get the big bonus money. It's those working Joes and Janes who expect a liveable wage.

I never said anything about punishing the workers. I said that the company needed to get out of the union contract. Don't you think that is GM went bankrupt and restructured that they would need to hire workers? And don't you think that the available workers would be people they would hire?
 

carpro

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I never said anything about punishing the workers. I said that the company needed to get out of the union contract. Don't you think that is GM went bankrupt and restructured that they would need to hire workers? And don't you think that the available workers would be people they would hire?

Bankruptcy would force the restructuring of the company to make it profitable.

Profit is a dirty word to the Obama administration. The main concern of democrats is to save the UAW, not make GM profitable.

They don't talk about it. They don't want it to happen.
 

sag38

Active Member
The workers have willing been a part of a union that they know is responsible for destorying the company that they worked for. You can't tell me that they are completely innocent players in this drama. Unrealistic wages, benefits, etc, and they were there taking them with open hands. Why did the workers not hold thier union bosses to task?

Its odd, everytime I see pictures of auto plant workers I don't see them wearing outfits with the GM, Ford, or Dodge logo. Rather I see their union logo. Who are they working for? Who is providing them a job? It sure isn't the union.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

KenH

Well-Known Member
From my link:

"According to Kristin Dziczek of the Center for Automotive Research--who was my primary source for the figures you are about to read--average wages for workers at Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors were just $28 per hour as of 2007. That works out to a little less than $60,000 a year in gross income"
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
From your link:


"Except ... notice something weird about this calculation? It's not as if each active worker is getting health benefits and pensions worth $42 per hour. That would come to nearly twice his or her wages. (Talk about gold-plated coverage!) Instead, each active worker is getting benefits equal only to a fraction of that--probably around $10 per hour, according to estimates from the International Motor Vehicle Program. The number only gets to $70 an hour if you include the cost of benefits for retirees--in other words, the cost of benefits for other people. One of the few people to grasp this was Portfolio.com's Felix Salmon. As he noted yesterday, the claim that workers are getting $70 an hour in compensation is just "not true."
 

LadyEagle

<b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
Mod Note: The 2 threads have been merged into 1 in the politics forum (News thread & Politics thread).

LE
 

carpro

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
From my link:

"According to Kristin Dziczek of the Center for Automotive Research--who was my primary source for the figures you are about to read--average wages for workers at Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors were just $28 per hour as of 2007. That works out to a little less than $60,000 a year in gross income"


:laugh:

Welcome back, Ken.:wavey:

Is your crow tasty?
 

KenH

Well-Known Member
I'm not "back". I posted in a thread about this in the News Forum to discuss the economics of workers' compensation. Now when I click on the link the News Forum it takes me to the Politics Forum. I did not originally post on this thread in the Politics Forum. And now that it is in the Politics Forum I will not be posting on it further.

Have a good day, carpro. :)
 

carpro

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I'm not "back". I posted in a thread about this in the News Forum to discuss the economics of workers' compensation. Now when I click on the link the News Forum it takes me to the Politics Forum. I did not originally post on this thread in the Politics Forum. And now that it is in the Politics Forum I will not be posting on it further.

Have a good day, carpro. :)

Thanks.

I always do.:thumbs:
 

LeBuick

New Member
From your link:

Instead, each active worker is getting benefits equal only to a fraction of that--probably around $10 per hour, according to estimates from the International Motor Vehicle Program. The number only gets to $70 an hour if you include the cost of benefits for retirees--in other words, the cost of benefits for other people. One of the few people to grasp this was Portfolio.com's Felix Salmon. As he noted yesterday, the claim that workers are getting $70 an hour in compensation is just "not true."

First Rev, it was good of you to include the wording that says the $70 an hour in compensation number normally used against American workers is just "not true."

To make sure I have this right Rev, they make about $28/hr then we add $10/hr for benefits...

Do anyone know what benefits are worth per hour for the foreign workers in the south? It seems if we add their benefits to their hourly pay it will bring the two numbers closer together.... I am sure the American pay will still be higher, however I think the two numbers will be comparable.

Next, something I never see is the executive pay of the foreign and American companies compared. Why are we only concerned with what the union worker makes and not what the executives get?

I held out on posting on this topic until I saw the president speak today. I have a better idea what is going on after hearing him speak to the subject. The last gov help GM and Chrysler received said they must prove they are viable by the end of march or would have to pay the money back. Neither company was able to prove viability and this is the end of march.

Apparently GM's plan was embarrassingly unacceptable so instead of bankrupting the company by demanding payment in full of the loans we made, Obama asked the CEO to step down. It appears bankruptcy is still in GM's future, however, it will be a structured bankruptcy designed to clear away old debts that are weighing them down as opposed to forcing an unassisted bankruptcy where the company would be broken up, sold off, and no longer exists.

A lot of American's own GM cars and depend on the warranty for repairs etc... If GM were to no longer exist, those warranties would become void which would cause further harm to our current economy... It would also mean the loss of a lot of American jobs. According to Obama speech today, there will still be job losses and plant closures as GM restructures, however, the impact will be minimized and the company will continue to operate since it is backed by government dollars.
 

tinytim

<img src =/tim2.jpg>
What do you expect when you get a Chicago politician...

Blackmail! Extortion.. Get out, or you don't get the money.

DC.. the new Chicago!
Impeach the bum.. he is committing treason to Democracy!
 
Top