so...should the U.S. save its auto-industry? - Page 3

herekitty · #41 11-14-2008, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barkstonwill

well what I mean is that the airlines are extremely inefficient in their business model but they have been bailed out so many times since 1978 that they have become accustomed to working the system to get what they want from Congress or their unions etc. In economics it's called moral hazard. For example, a route between Raleigh NC and London might be unprofitable by virtue of the airline only getting so many passengers in Raleigh and thus being forced to make another stop elsewhere to "fill the plane". Rather than abandon the Raleigh market or the Raleigh-London route, the airlines will continue service simply because there is "a market" there as opposed to "a great and economical market".

Ah. I don't know about this kind of thing because I haven't studied up on the airline market and I live in a city that all planes must stop in anyway. I only know what I've seen lately (which is just anecdotal, but I'd be curious to hear if it's what other people have seen too?)
and that is I haven't been on a plane that wasn't oversold in years. The last time I can remember seeing a vacant seat in an airplane was 2003, and it only stood out because it seemed unusual even then. don't get me wrong, I'm not praising the airline industry or anything. mostly just irritated that every time I'm waiting at the airport to board a plane, we have to wait for some people to give up their seats for airline vouchers. I know they want to fill every seat but ffs, it happens every time. and they must be losing money that way, which was part of your point...
can't they find some sort of happy medium?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrangeSapphire

It's Detroit. There's really not a lot of jobs in any industry right now is the problem.

She said what I was going to say, oph. I realize though that the charade of having a sustainable business has ended though, so they might as well start looking for another job now. :/ I am really hoping the new administration creates jobs for those people like FDR did back in the day.

thisbytes · #42 11-16-2008, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ophiel

But on the other hand, I don't have quite so much sympathy for someone who knows the market for what they do for a living is slumping and hangs on in the same job for the best part of two decades waiting for it to pick up, rather than looking for more stable work elsewhere. You know, I don't want to belittle people's situation or anything, but why wait to be pushed before you jump?

China got the blue collar and India gets the white. Not much stability in anything left here.

Bottom line: It's just hard to be competitive in a labor market where employees elsewhere get paid $5,000 per year and are happy about that and can eke out a living on it. There's places here that amount wouldn't even cover your rent for four to five months and rent only.

I guess once they decide they're not happy sleeping on a cot at the factory and getting a bowl of rice a day, then maybe we'll decide to be more innovative with cars (doubtful, but meh) and Dr. Martens will start being made in the UK again and not skimping on the leather.

The safety mechanism in all this is places like UK, USA and all the other consumerism countries won't be able to buy the stuff they produce if we aren't employed, having no money to spend and it will all come to a stand still.

Much like we're seeing a few factories in China close right now because the holiday season is in a complete slump and there's no orders coming through.

Ophiel · #43 11-16-2008, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thisbytes

China got the blue collar and India gets the white. Not much stability in anything left here.

Bottom line: It's just hard to be competitive in a labor market where employees elsewhere get paid $5,000 per year and are happy about that and can eke out a living on it. There's places here that amount wouldn't even cover your rent for four to five months and rent only.

That's not really accurate though; they're not "ekeing out a living" on $5000 a year. It's just that that amount of money is worth a lot more in their home country.

There are also cultures where people just expect to have to work longer and harder to have a decent standard of living, and I've got to be honest, if that drags down post-industrial societies then it's primarily because those societies have grown used to their own privileges.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thisbytes

I guess once they decide they're not happy sleeping on a cot at the factory and getting a bowl of rice a day, then maybe we'll decide to be more innovative with cars (doubtful, but meh) and Dr. Martens will start being made in the UK again and not skimping on the leather.

The safety mechanism in all this is places like UK, USA and all the other consumerism countries won't be able to buy the stuff they produce if we aren't employed, having no money to spend and it will all come to a stand still.

Much like we're seeing a few factories in China close right now because the holiday season is in a complete slump and there's no orders coming through.

When you hear about the rate of development in China, it's insane, and I agree that if the US and UK can get through a few years of extreme discomfort, chances are the New World economies will finish themselves off. A city the size of London is being built in China every year at this point, and it'll certainly be interesting to see how that works out, whether people can actually afford to live there, etc.

I don't know, to me it seems like they're being every bit as rash as everyone else has been in times of plenty, and it's a shame because really you'd hope they'd learn from our mistakes.

It's interesting though. I remember you talking about AI and stuff. Labour saving technology causes unemployment, and I can't help but think that it really shouldn't, that freeing up a workforce from doing mundane tasks that they really shouldn't be doing ought to mean we have the manpower to do more, rather than just less people doing the same and half of everyone out of work. Most people want to work, but the longer they go having nothing to do, the more that desire erodes.

OrangeSapphire · #44 11-16-2008, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ophiel

There are also cultures where people just expect to have to work longer and harder to have a decent standard of living, and I've got to be honest, if that drags down post-industrial societies then it's primarily because those societies have grown used to their own privileges.

Dude, Americans work longer than most cultures.

BBC Article
More since I know you like evidence and shit

Most people aren't going on long ass vacations and shit and there are plenty of Americans whose lifestyle is living in a shitty house until they get evicted and then moving to another shitty house.

Ophiel · #45 11-16-2008, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrangeSapphire

Dude, Americans work longer than most cultures.

BBC Article
More since I know you like evidence and shit

Most people aren't going on long ass vacations and shit and there are plenty of Americans whose lifestyle is living in a shitty house until they get evicted and then moving to another shitty house.

Hmmm, maybe I've been misled and you guys are a lot worse off than us. I'm constantly being told that British workers can't get work because dutty immigrants will work (harder) for less. It does seem like most of the world manages to live on a lot less than Americans do, and yeah, I know that an average wage doesn't necessarily reflect exactly how people live, but that's probably true of any other country, so...

thisbytes · #46 11-16-2008, 05:42 PM

[quote=Ophiel;1120863]

Quote:

Hmmm, maybe I've been misled and you guys are a lot worse off than us.

A good portion are, just not all

Quote:

It does seem like most of the world manages to live on a lot less than Americans do, and yeah, I know that an average wage doesn't necessarily reflect exactly how people live, but that's probably true of any other country, so...

We inflate the price out of everything. Take for example all those shows on the HGTV channel where a couple of people purchase a house for $60,000, add in a $15,000 kitchen renovation and now wanna see it resell for $175,000.

Just ridiculous.

Ophiel · #47 11-17-2008, 07:05 AM

God, here was me hoping those horrendous "how to trick people into paying too much for your house" shows were just a UK thing.

I'm aware, of course, that that's a relatively small sector of society, and that most of the people viewing it are in it for the vicarious experience, because they like the idea of being all about property. And that this stuff probably doesn't affect the poorer folks. Those shows are desperately trying to adapt now to the fact that the shit they've been creating is inches from the fan, but some of them are still running with "quick, get in on the market BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE" like the cunts they are.

I'll be interested to see how this goes when half the country is totally fine with renting. It was interesting, actually, they had a show about the situation in France regarding tenency and such. They have a culture where debt is stigmatised more and renting rather than owning a home isn't.

Ophiel · #48 11-17-2008, 07:09 AM

Quote:

A good portion are, just not all

To be fair, I think a lot of ours aren't going to be hit THAT hard. The minority who live on credit cards probably will be, and it serves them right.

I don't know if this is something people would agree with, but it seems like people are more worried that things are going to change than they will be once they HAVE changed. Putting aside those who don't quite grasp the concept of living within their means, the real fear of recession comes more from not knowing how much money you have than from knowing you're poor, right? I mean, there's not going to be that many people who can't tighten their built even the slightest bit. But if someone has ongoing financial commitments, suddenly having less money coming in month on month is going to hoyt.

I dunno, I do wonder if this crunch business is being blown out of proportion because it's largely going to affect the middle classes. It seems like there's a lot more panic around this one than there was around the last one, despite the average citizen probably knowing just as little about what the numbers actually mean.

Governmento · #49 11-18-2008, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ophiel

I dunno, I do wonder if this crunch business is being blown out of proportion because it's largely going to affect the middle classes. It seems like there's a lot more panic around this one than there was around the last one, despite the average citizen probably knowing just as little about what the numbers actually mean.

Personally I beleive there are some very rich folks playing with the markets. As a strategy for dropping the middle class a rung or two. Somone had to stop the constant rise of inflation. The original thought for the Bush Gov,was to break the American economy so they could start over again. Especially in the Government. Well the war got in the way. But in the end I guess it has come to fruition.

Yes please live within your means. People have become so used to borrowing to survive, they don't understand being responsible.

As for the Auto industry the Government should take a stake in the Industry.. Not just give them money.. Also the current CEO'a should be fired. Like they didn't have a bunch to do with this. If they are going to start over do it without the ones who drove it into the ground.

Last but not least.. The Unions should have to renegotiate there contracts. They have way to many give aways for a company to survive. And I am a lifetime Union Memeber.

Look Alabama has become the leaders in foriegn auto building because. All the major auto builders got into the State without restraints of Unions. They may be Unionized now. But they are not like Detroit I will assure you of that. Detroit's unions just got crazy. They were able to do this because of managements waste. Management could not deny Unions money and benifits while they were lying aorund doing nothing and being on Vacation.

That being said.. Save the industry but not a welfare hand out.. Let them pay it back. It's called being responsible.

barkstonwill · #50 11-18-2008, 02:14 PM

If they let the big 3 autos die off, everyone will be the better for it in the long run. The void left in the auto market will create a new "landrush" opportunity in the market for people who think they can make more fuel efficient cars or zero emission cars. The big 3 are like the mafia, you can work in their town, but you better stay under the radar and not make too much noise.

The price of oil is a fixed cost in that until a substitute is found, people can't live without it because they need it to get to work. Oil will not stay deflated as it is now for long and when it rises again it will begin anew its all encompassing corrosive effects on the economy and on wealth generation at all levels. When you smoke a cigarette, the money you spent to purchase it literally goes up in flames and the money you spend on oil goes out your tailpipe. Gasoline powered internal combustion engines only produce 15-20% real dynamic energy from 100% of the oil they take in. Electric cars are MUCH more efficient. They convert 90% of potential energy (electricity) to real energy (horsepower/torque) and many cases can destroy a V8 or V12 powered in engine in a 0-60 or 0-100 test.

The problem with switching over is that it would put a lot of people out of work but in 10 years time, significant parts of the world could be completely free of the need for oil and in fact could probably make plenty of money supplying electricity generated by solar or wind energy. As you can imagine, such a radical alteration of the energy landscape does not please the CEOs of the big oil companies or the governments of countries like Venezuela or Iran or Saudi Arabia whose primary source of national wealth comes from the export of oil.

but thats a long debate for another time.

Sophia_ · #51 11-20-2008, 04:02 PM

..

Quote:

Originally Posted by CNN

(CNN) -- Some lawmakers lashed out at the CEOs of the Big Three auto companies Wednesday for flying private jets to Washington to request taxpayer bailout money.

Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli, left, and Ford CEO Alan Mulally testify on Capitol Hill on Wednesday.

"There is a delicious irony in seeing private luxury jets flying into Washington, D.C., and people coming off of them with tin cups in their hand, saying that they're going to be trimming down and streamlining their businesses," Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-New York, told the chief executive officers of Ford, Chrysler and General Motors at a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee.

"It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo. It kind of makes you a little bit suspicious."

He added, "couldn't you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled or something to get here? It would have at least sent a message that you do get it."

I guess it's just handymen that need tin cups to go door-to-door begging for gainful work at the homes of Execs .

herekitty · #52 11-21-2008, 02:29 PM

GM to return two leased jets amid criticism - Yahoo! News

I'm not even sure why they're entitled to fly first class?
What a bunch of assholes.
And "security reasons"? huh?

Quote:

DETROIT (Reuters) – General Motors Corp(GM.N) will return two of its leased corporate jets amid intense criticism in Washington this week on the luxury travel arrangements of its chief executive even as the company pleads for federal aid.

CEO Rick Wagoner was in the capital to testify on the company's dire financial situation but his testimony was overshadowed by irate lawmakers who blasted him for flying on a private jet to ask for public funds and failing to make personal sacrifices in exchange for federal assistance.

Chief executives from Ford Motor Co(F.N), and Chrysler LLC, who were also there to plead for $25 billion in federal aid, came under fire too for flying to Washington in private jets.

GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson said on Friday GM decided to return the aircraft because of a "really aggressive cutback in travel."

The company, which is in a cost-cutting mode, is scrutinizing every trip, he said, but declined to disclose the name of the company it leases the airplanes from.

Wilkinson said the decision to return the leased corporate jets was made before this week's hearings and that the company in September returned two other of the seven jets it had at the beginning of the year.

"There is a perception issue," Wilkinson said of Wagoner's travel to Washington on a private jet. "We need to be very sensitive to that going forward."

He, however, said the company has not decided on what mode of transportation Wagoner would take if had to travel to Washington again.

Wagoner and Ford CEO Alan Mulally are required by their companies to fly by private aircraft for security reasons, according to company documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The policy for Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli is not required to be disclosed because the company is not publicly traded.

Skeptical lawmakers took to task the three CEOs for their luxurious travel arrangements at congressional committee hearings.

"Couldn't you have downgraded to first class or something, or jet-pooled or something to get here?" Rep. Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat, asked the executives at a hearing held by the U.S. House Financial Services Committee.

Even Democrats who said they were sympathetic to the automakers' plight expressed frustration that the executives used private jets while professing ruthless cost-cutting measures.

A Chrysler spokesman said the automaker also leases or charters jets. He, however, declined to comment on whether the company was rethinking the use of private jets for executive travel, saying it was a "private matter."

Ford did not have an immediate comment on its corporate jet policy.

According to Ford's proxy, CEO Mulally's compensation included $752,203 in 2007 for personal use of company aircraft.

About two years ago, the head of Ford's North American operations, Mark Fields, gave up use of a corporate jet for personal travel to his home in Florida after the arrangement came under criticism at a time when the automaker was losing billions and slashing jobs.

He now flies first class on commercial planes.

(Additional reporting by David Bailey, editing by Dave Zimmerman)

Sophia_ · #53 11-21-2008, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by herekitty

GM to return two leased jets amid criticism - Yahoo! News

I'm not even sure why they're entitled to fly first class?
What a bunch of assholes.
And "security reasons"? huh?

When you're rich and powerful you are concerned about "security". I wonder why?

They could have jet-pooled, at least to show some regard for appearances.

thisbytes · #54 11-21-2008, 04:02 PM

Make them hitchhike back. The bastards.

Sophia_ · #55 11-21-2008, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thisbytes

Make them hitchhike back. The bastards.

Or make them actually rent American cars.