OT GM bailout

"george9219" wrote in message
...
On Nov 18, 11:30 pm, " wrote:
On Nov 18, 5:22 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:



"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message

.. .

Larry L wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote
However, the moment the government puts one penny of my tax dollar
into that mess I want a clean sweep. That means fire every damn
executive in the company, tear up the union contracts, void all
deals with suppliers, tell the shareholders "tough ****, you got
nothin'",

Well, I don't really know much about bankruptcy ( and don't
understand
what I know ;-) but I've been given the impression that it would,
indeed,
force such changes .... whereas just handing them money wouldn't

My point was that Congress shouldn't just hand them the money but
mandate an actual government takeover. With Chapter 11 bankruptcy
the same old nitwits would be in charge of the reorganization and
it'll take an act of Congress to tear up the union contracts.

The only argument against bankruptcy ( like many airlines have )
seems to
be that buyers would be afraid to buy because of uncertainty about
future
service/ parts/ and such. To my mind, I'd far prefer to buy from a
trimmed, re-structured, company than one that will use the bailout up
in
a couple months and be looking for more, instead of really changing.
A
healthy company is far more likely to be there in 15years to supply
parts
than a temporarily bailed out one ... IMO

I'm NOT saying "let 'em fail" .... I am saying "let 'em take the
routes
available in the system to fix their problems"

That's a good argument, but I don't think the system is capable
of handling such an enormous problem.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Chapter 11 would put the judge in charge. He can tear up the union
contracts, he can toss management. We are not going to lose 10% of the
country's jobs. Either they will survive leaner and functional with a
better business model, or something else will fill their niche.

10% seems high. I've been reading "2 million jobs directly and
indirectly
affected". Given that the "indirectly" people are likely people like
mechanics,
it seems unlikely all those jobs would instantly vanish. I don't know
for certain,
but I assume we have more than 20 million jobs in this country
regardless.

Silly question: Why is it that foreign companies with local (US)
manufacturing
seem to be doing alright while domestic companies are bleeding money?
- Ken

The "indirect" jobs, and there are a lot of them, are suppliers of
parts and tooling. I was involved in exactly that industry for 23
years, and it involves a number of medium sized to very small
businesses all across the country. The company I worked for supplied
tooling to Ford, Chrysler and Saturn directly, and to subcontractors.
We also worked for Japanese companies who supplied to Nissan and
Honda. The automotive end was close to 50% of our business, the
balance being tooling for the personal care industry, basically
Proctor & Gamble and Cheeseborough Ponds. A total collapse of
domestic auto manufacturers would deal a death blow to many suppliers
of parts and tooling across the country, and when you add the support
industries, 10% job loss might be a bit low. I fear we are very near a
tipping point with the economy, and a collapse of the domestic auto
industry could push it over the edge.

Before anyone asks, the Japanese owned outfits were much leaner and
more demanding, with a lot less B.S. involved than their American
counterparts.

The major difference is the GM has about 2 retirees for every worker. Those
payments about double the labor costs. If we do not give a bailout to the
Big 3, and GM is just first in line, they will go chapter 11 bankruptcy.
They will not shutdown, just like the United Airline did not shut go out of
business with Ch 11 filing. But they can toss a lot of the contracts with
the UAW. Some really onerous ones, that the incompetent management signed.
Fact they can toss a lot of the incompetent management. Contract items like
the "Job Bank" where GM has to pay 12,000 former workers full pay for 10
years and the "workers" do nothing. I understand the Big 3 contracts define
every job and a worker can not do another job that is not in his area.
Contract is 1000's of pages. The Toyota, Honda, etc contract is about 1"
thick and the guy installing hoods can be sweeping the floor when he is not
needed installing hoods or any other job they want him to do. Sure it is
going to hurt the autoworkers income. But at least he should still have an
income. Maybe not the $31 an hour that a journeyman plumber gets, but more
in line with an assembly line worker with maybe a GED required. Listening
to the head of GM saying they need a loan that they will pay back with
interest, is hard to believe they could pay it back at all. They have been
losing market share and money for 25 years, why would they change that if
they still have the same contracts and management? I was an engineer in the
Silicon Valley. 7 layoffs. Some were startup companies and some were just
bad management that did not keep up with the times. Did we or me get a
bailout? We looked for another job, and got unemployment for up to months
max.

"Calif Bill" wrote in
m:

The major difference is the GM has about 2 retirees for every worker.
Those payments about double the labor costs.

One would think that a responsible company would properly endow pension
plans as they went along. Isn't that the only tenable way to do this??


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On Nov 19, 6:36 am, Scott Seidman wrote:

One would think that a responsible company would properly endow pension
plans as they went along. Isn't that the only tenable way to do this??

The idea that a society can sustain a paradigm where virtually all of
its adults spend the last 1/3 of their workable adult life on vacation
is untenable.

Jon.

wrote:
Scott Seidman wrote:
One would think that a responsible company would properly endow pension
plans as they went along. Isn't that the only tenable way to do this??

The idea that a society can sustain a paradigm where virtually all of
its adults spend the last 1/3 of their workable adult life on vacation
is untenable.

George Will made a similar comment last Sunday on the ABC Sunday
talking head show. "Why are people retiring before they're eligible
for Medicare anyway ?" is a paraphrase and it was in the context
of the auto industry paying health care costs until age 65 when
Medicare kicks in.

I haven't seen my wife so ****ed off since the time my brother
was whining about his precious tax dollars being used to support
the United Negro College Fund (which takes no tax dollars).

She called George Will some things I can't even put on roff. ;-)

Hardly any of my wife's relatives have college degrees and many
of them went to work at the Chrysler plant in Belvidere straight
out of high school. Working on an auto assembly line is real
work, physical work. Doing it for 40 years, roughly 18 to 58,
leaves you too old to safely do the work and seven years shy of
Medicare. And those folks can't just sit on their ass and write
a book to tide them over.

The idea that a society can toss these folks away like spent
machinery is untenable.

--
Ken Fortenberry

The CEOs of the big three automakers flew to the nation's
capital yesterday in private luxurious jets to make their case
to Washington that the auto industry is running out of cash
and needs $25 billion in taxpayer money to avoid bankruptcy













On Nov 19, 8:13*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
wrote:
Scott Seidman wrote:
One would think that a responsible company would properly endow pension
plans as they went along. *Isn't that the only tenable way to do this??

The idea that a society can sustain a paradigm where virtually all of
its adults spend the last 1/3 of their workable adult life on vacation
is untenable.

George Will made a similar comment last Sunday on the ABC Sunday
talking head show. "Why are people retiring before they're eligible
for Medicare anyway ?" is a paraphrase and it was in the context
of the auto industry paying health care costs until age 65 when
Medicare kicks in.

I haven't seen my wife so ****ed off since the time my brother
was whining about his precious tax dollars being used to support
the United Negro College Fund (which takes no tax dollars).

She called George Will some things I can't even put on roff. ;-)

Hardly any of my wife's relatives have college degrees and many
of them went to work at the Chrysler plant in Belvidere straight
out of high school. Working on an auto assembly line is real
work, physical work. Doing it for 40 years, roughly 18 to 58,
leaves you too old to safely do the work and seven years shy of
Medicare. And those folks can't just sit on their ass and write
a book to tide them over.

The idea that a society can toss these folks away like spent
machinery is untenable.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Nov 19, 7:13*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
George Will made a similar comment last Sunday on the ABC Sunday
talking head show. "Why are people retiring before they're eligible
for Medicare anyway ?" is a paraphrase and it was in the context
of the auto industry paying health care costs until age 65 when
Medicare kicks in.

Hardly any of my wife's relatives have college degrees and many
of them went to work at the Chrysler plant in Belvidere straight
out of high school. Working on an auto assembly line is real
work, physical work. Doing it for 40 years, roughly 18 to 58,
leaves you too old to safely do the work and seven years shy of
Medicare. And those folks can't just sit on their ass and write
a book to tide them over.

The idea that a society can toss these folks away like spent
machinery is untenable.

So what's the answer? For once I'd like to hear the whiny liberals
actually propose something.

We're going to have the same problem across the country soon
now that the boomers are hitting retirement age. The retirement
ponzai schemes only work when there are more people at the
base of the pyramid. Not enough people working to support
those not working. Boomers weren't smart enough to save
for their retirement.

There are going to be a lot of people getting a harsh reality check
when they go to retire. I'm glad this recession came now instead
of 5-10 years from now when the boomers had already retired.
- Ken

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
The idea that a society can toss these folks away like spent
machinery is untenable.

So what's the answer? For once I'd like to hear the whiny liberals
actually propose something.

OK, how about this. Single payer health care, Canadian style.
Take the burden of health care off of industry because it makes
us uncompetitive.

We're going to have the same problem across the country soon
now that the boomers are hitting retirement age. The retirement
ponzai schemes only work when there are more people at the
base of the pyramid. Not enough people working to support
those not working. Boomers weren't smart enough to save
for their retirement.

I don't know what retirement plan you're talking about but the
one with which I'm associated, SURS of Illinois, is no scheme.
And it's been working just fine since 1941 and will continue to
work fine unless Illinois adopts a new state constitution because
under the current Illinois constitution the legislature cannot
get their grubby little hands on any SURS monies.

If the GM retirement plan had been as well managed and funded
as SURS there would be no problem at all with it.

There are going to be a lot of people getting a harsh reality check
when they go to retire. I'm glad this recession came now instead
of 5-10 years from now when the boomers had already retired.

Why do you hate America so much ? ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Nov 19, 10:19*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
The idea that a society can toss these folks away like spent
machinery is untenable.

So what's the answer? *For once I'd like to hear the whiny liberals
actually propose something.

OK, how about this. Single payer health care, Canadian style.
Take the burden of health care off of industry because it makes
us uncompetitive.

Health care is only a part of the problem. Having the government
in charge of healthcare scares me about as much as having them
in charge of my retirement.


I don't know what retirement plan you're talking about but the
one with which I'm associated, SURS of Illinois, is no scheme.
And it's been working just fine since 1941 and will continue to
work fine unless Illinois adopts a new state constitution because
under the current Illinois constitution the legislature cannot
get their grubby little hands on any SURS monies.

If the GM retirement plan had been as well managed and funded
as SURS there would be no problem at all with it.

We'll see. Covering university employees is slightly different than
a large manufacturing community. If it works so well, I'd like to
see an entire state run its health care system that way. If it's
viable,
companies and skilled people should flock there. It should be a
competitive advantage for a given state....wonder why no one has
tried it.
- Ken

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
The idea that a society can toss these folks away like spent
machinery is untenable.

So what's the answer? For once I'd like to hear the whiny liberals
actually propose something.

OK, how about this. Single payer health care, Canadian style.
Take the burden of health care off of industry because it makes
us uncompetitive.

We're going to have the same problem across the country soon
now that the boomers are hitting retirement age. The retirement
ponzai schemes only work when there are more people at the
base of the pyramid. Not enough people working to support
those not working. Boomers weren't smart enough to save
for their retirement.

I don't know what retirement plan you're talking about but the
one with which I'm associated, SURS of Illinois, is no scheme.
And it's been working just fine since 1941 and will continue to
work fine unless Illinois adopts a new state constitution because
under the current Illinois constitution the legislature cannot
get their grubby little hands on any SURS monies.

If the GM retirement plan had been as well managed and funded
as SURS there would be no problem at all with it.

There are going to be a lot of people getting a harsh reality check
when they go to retire. I'm glad this recession came now instead
of 5-10 years from now when the boomers had already retired.

Why do you hate America so much ? ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

Health care still has to paid for. And govenment has never done much
efficently. As to SURS, maybe it is like CALPERS. They had a lot of money
during the dot.bomb bubble that they convinced the state that they could pay
3% per year to everyone instead of 2%. Retire at 90% after 30. Values
fell with the bubble burst and now the state has to chuck another 1/2
Billion bucks a year to cover the costs. Part of the states fiscal
problems. SURS is only safer to retirees because the state has taxing
ability.

" wrote in news:10451906-c15c-40e5-
:

So what's the answer? For once I'd like to hear the whiny liberals
actually propose something.

The answer is to not have the government ignore problems for eight years.
It puts you between a rock and a hard place.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply