Re: Rightwingers lying about UAW wages
Igor The Terrible
<PopUlist...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Senator Jon Kyl (Republicon, Arizona):
>
> -- quote
>
> "For years they’ve been sick. They have a bad business model. They
> have contracts negotiated with the United Auto Workers that impose
> huge costs.The average hourly cost per worker in this country is about
> $28.48. For these auto makers (note: GM, Ford, Chrysler), it’s $73.
> And for the Japanese auto companies working here in the United States,
> it’s $48."
>
> -- end quote
>
> Kyl is lying about UAW labor costs being $73 per hour.
>
> The average GM assembly-line worker makes about $28 per hour in wages,
> and I can assure you that GM is not paying $42 an hour in health
> insurance and pension plan contributions. Rather, the $70 per hour
> figure (or $73 an hour, or whatever) is a ridiculous number obtained
> by adding up GM's total labor, health, and pension costs, and then
> dividing by the total number of hours worked. In other words, it
> includes all the healthcare and retirement costs of retired workers.
>
> The reason the US and Japanese companies have different total costs
> for their American workers? The US companies have been employing
> American workers for almost a hundred years. They have a lot of
> retirees. Most of the Japanese auto plants in the US are less than 20
> years old. They have almost no retirees, so their costs are only for
> active workers.
>
> So, why is this pernicious falsehood about inflated wages bouncing
> around the public discourse on the auto industry? Several reasons.
>
> First, it demonizes unions and their members as greedy and not
> interested in the long-term health and profitability of the
> corporations with which they sign contracts. It also ignores the fact
> that in 2007 the UAW signed a landmark contract in which they assumed
> future responsibility for healthcare for their members employed by the
> Big Three. The auto companies paid in to a fund, which will be
> administered by the UAW. Over the long haul, this is expected to
> radically decrease the auto companies' legacy costs (although the best
> way to help company and union is to pass national health care).
>
> Making false claims inflating the earnings of unionized workers is
> also part of the Republicans' long-held practice of class warfare.
> It's intended to gin up envy and disgust at people making a good
> hourly wage. Few people would be unsympathetic to an auto worker for
> making $58,000 per year. But more would feel unsympathetic if they
> thought that same auto worker made $73 per hour, which over the course
> of a year is over $150,000.
>
> Finally, harping on imaginary and inflated wages for workers is a way
> to distract from one of the big problems with the US auto companies
> (and most US corporations in any sector): executive compensation. For
> instance, in 2007 General Motors CEO Rick Waggoner made close to $20
> million in total compensation.
>
> Are you surprised that conservatives are playing with math to come up
> with the false figure of $73 per hour for UAW members working at the
> Big Three, while saying nothing about a Big Three CEO making $9,500.00
> per hour?
>
> Me neither.
Personally, I'd like to see all unions, guilds and other forms of
labor/professional associations shit canned. All have outlived their
usefulness and have proven themselves to be more of a liability than
an asset to our economy.
There is no question that American CEO and upper level management
compensation playpen needs the screws put to it. With income ratios
between them and their labor well over 475:1 while the rest of the
industrialized world coming in under 30:1 clearly states this is a
problem long overdue in addressing it with impunity and
responsibility. These cocksuckers complain that they can't compete
with high labor costs while not even batting an eye on the money they
are draining out of the companies they're running into the ground.
For the record, there are licensed electricians in Florida that make
less than $20.00/hr while assembly line workers for the big three make
$73.00. These poor bastards want a goddamned bailout? Fuck them!
Let them go under. These fuckers are making more money than 80% of
electrical engineers holding a MSEE in this country! Sorry, but that
dog doesn't hunt in my neck of the woods. I have doubts it hunts
elsewhere with that kind of gap. No wonder nobody wants to buy their
shit.
com...@webtv.net
party international....
DISOBEY !
adam russell
"Igor The Terrible" <igor_the...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
news:b8be7792-2f12-4830...@k19g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
adam russell
"Igor The Terrible" <igor_the...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
news:b8be7792-2f12-4830...@k19g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
------------------------------------------------------------------
How would you go about that? Are you saying you hope that they will just go
away or are you suggesting we make it illegal for workers to join together
to bargain for better contracts? That would violate the 1st amendment.
John Galt
> "Igor The Terrible" <igor_the...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:b8be7792-2f12-4830...@k19g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 22, 4:11 pm, "Kickin' Ass & Takin' Names"
> <PopUlist...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Senator Jon Kyl (Republicon, Arizona):
>>
>> -- quote
>>
>> "For years they’ve been sick. They have a bad business model. They
>> have contracts negotiated with the United Auto Workers that impose
>> huge costs.The average hourly cost per worker in this country is about
>> $28.48. For these auto makers (note: GM, Ford, Chrysler), it’s $73.
>> And for the Japanese auto companies working here in the United States,
>> it’s $48."
>>
>> -- end quote
>>
>> Kyl is lying about UAW labor costs being $73 per hour.
>>
>> The average GM assembly-line worker makes about $28 per hour in wages,
The UAW guy said it was more like $37, but you're right, it's certainly
not $70.
>> and I can assure you that GM is not paying $42 an hour in health
>> insurance and pension plan contributions. Rather, the $70 per hour
>> figure (or $73 an hour, or whatever) is a ridiculous number obtained
>> by adding up GM's total labor, health, and pension costs, and then
>> dividing by the total number of hours worked. In other words, it
>> includes all the healthcare and retirement costs of retired workers.
>>
>> The reason the US and Japanese companies have different total costs
>> for their American workers? The US companies have been employing
>> American workers for almost a hundred years. They have a lot of
>> retirees. Most of the Japanese auto plants in the US are less than 20
>> years old. They have almost no retirees, so their costs are only for
>> active workers.
Doesn't matter. The foreign auto plants have a modern system, meaning
401K's, as far as I;m aware. No retiree costs under any circumstances.
>>
>> So, why is this pernicious falsehood about inflated wages bouncing
>> around the public discourse on the auto industry? Several reasons.
The reasons there are differences in measurement does not mean that the
the above are "falsehoods." It is actually quite meaningful to measure
the total burdened cost of a current worker, and if that number is $73,
it's $73.
>>
>> First, it demonizes unions and their members as greedy and not
>> interested in the long-term health and profitability of the
>> corporations with which they sign contracts.
This has certainly been the case in the past, although it's clear that
the current generation of labor management views themselves less as
adversaries and more as partners than the prior generation.
>>It also ignores the fact
>> that in 2007 the UAW signed a landmark contract in which they assumed
>> future responsibility for healthcare for their members employed by the
>> Big Three. The auto companies paid in to a fund, which will be
>> administered by the UAW. Over the long haul, this is expected to
>> radically decrease the auto companies' legacy costs (although the best
>> way to help company and union is to pass national health care).
This is not being ignored in the least. The problem is that the
switchover in healthcare responsibility doesn't take place until 2010,
by which time there will be no automakers left, if these business models
don't reform.
>>
>> Making false claims inflating the earnings of unionized workers is
>> also part of the Republicans' long-held practice of class warfare.
Both parties practice class warfare. Even the old "Republicans are going
to take away your Social Security" canard appeared at the end of the
recent campaign. It hit FactCheck's radar screen, in fact.
>> It's intended to gin up envy and disgust at people making a good
>> hourly wage. Few people would be unsympathetic to an auto worker for
>> making $58,000 per year. But more would feel unsympathetic if they
>> thought that same auto worker made $73 per hour, which over the course
>> of a year is over $150,000.
Obviously.
>>
>> Finally, harping on imaginary and inflated wages for workers is a way
>> to distract from one of the big problems with the US auto companies
>> (and most US corporations in any sector): executive compensation. For
>> instance, in 2007 General Motors CEO Rick Waggoner made close to $20
>> million in total compensation.
Yes. That's indeed disgusting, but if he made $0 and the $20 million was
split amongst the hourly workers, they'd get a raise of about a penny or
two per hour. CEO compensation may be absurd and ridiculous, but it
doesn't amount to much when you break it down amoung the rank and file.
>>
>> Are you surprised that conservatives are playing with math to come up
>> with the false figure of $73 per hour for UAW members working at the
>> Big Three, while saying nothing about a Big Three CEO making $9,500.00
>> per hour?
No, because most conservatives can do the math.
>>
>> Me neither.
>
> Personally, I'd like to see all unions, guilds and other forms of
> labor/professional associations shit canned. All have outlived their
> usefulness and have proven themselves to be more of a liability than
> an asset to our economy.
Unions remain important in that they act as whistleblowers for items
such as unsafe workplace conditions. And, to the extent that their
members are more productive than nonunion members, they should be paid
for that productivity. If the union can document that their workers are
20% more productive, there is nothing wrong with them negotiating a wage
of 20% above market value.
JG
Mike
> Yes. That's indeed disgusting, but if he made $0 and the $20 million was
> split amongst the hourly workers, they'd get a raise of about a penny or
> two per hour. CEO compensation may be absurd and ridiculous, but it
> doesn't amount to much when you break it down amoung the rank and file.
ok, now do the math for the several $trillion that has been plundered
over the years by investment bankers and other worthless pieces of shit
like, for example, bill gates.
John Galt
I'm no fan of MSFT, but if you're going to try and argue that Microsoft
has added $0 in business value to the world, you're into tin foil hat
territory.
JG
Mike
that isn't even close to what i said.
John Galt
Good.
JG
>
>
>
Igor The Terrible
Basically you are pretty much on the money. Consumers need to realize
that nobody creates monopolies but themselves through their dollar
votes. I'm not much of a Bill Gates fan either but I don't see him as
a piece of shit. Granted, he had a lot of good fortune drop on his
head before in landed in his lap. On the same token, he took it and
made extraordinary good use of it and created an impressive company
they became an international icon. He made it to the top of the heap,
got out of the game, and is now a philanthropist of sorts trying to
put his good fortune to use where it will do the most good. On that
note, I wish him well.
Igor The Terrible
That can be done without unions.
>And, to the extent that their
> members are more productive than nonunion members, they should be paid
> for that productivity. If the union can document that their workers are
> 20% more productive, there is nothing wrong with them negotiating a wage
> of 20% above market value.
I spent the better part of my life working in the trades. As an
electrical contractor, I've had union and non-union personnel work
under me. To say union workers are more productive is unsubstantiated
bullshit. Overall, both are about the same based on long term
averages of productivity over several jobs. The IBEW would like for
you to believe they are more productive and attempt to prove it by
their shaky stats
>
> JG
>
>
>
>
>
> > There is no question that American CEO and upper level management
> > compensation playpen needs the screws put to it. With income ratios
> > between them and their labor well over 475:1 while the rest of the
> > industrialized world coming in under 30:1 clearly states this is a
> > problem long overdue in addressing it with impunity and
> > responsibility. These cocksuckers complain that they can't compete
> > with high labor costs while not even batting an eye on the money they
> > are draining out of the companies they're running into the ground.
>
> > For the record, there are licensed electricians in Florida that make
> > less than $20.00/hr while assembly line workers for the big three make
> > $73.00. These poor bastards want a goddamned bailout? Fuck them!
> > Let them go under. These fuckers are making more money than 80% of
> > electrical engineers holding a MSEE in this country! Sorry, but that
> > dog doesn't hunt in my neck of the woods. I have doubts it hunts
> > elsewhere with that kind of gap. No wonder nobody wants to buy their
> > shit.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Igor The Terrible
<adamruss...@sbcglobal.net.invalid2> wrote:
> "Igor The Terrible" <igor_the_terri...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in messagenews:b8be7792-2f12-4830...@k19g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Violate the first amendment..................??????
As follows...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
There are no provisions in the first amendment the spell out the right
of the people to petition private enterprise for the purpose of
collective bargaining; it clearly spells out government--and for the
purposes of redress and grievances. Today, if a company is out of
line, there are laws in place to deal with them. If they they found
ways to navigate around the system, don't work for them and organize
boycotts. Eventually they will fold.
In the old days, I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly mostly by
virtue of labor had been outrageously exploited by business and to
make matters worse, with their total inability to organize without the
assistance of a third party. Today, this is no longer the case.
Moreover, what I proposed does not just include workers, rather every
professional guild/union or organization as well. I.e. the BAR, AMA,
SAG, AFT, EPMU, ALPA, etc... If there needs to be an organization for
the sole purpose of education or continuing education in a give
profession or vocation, then this could be held at an academic level
in our college and university systems. But for the purposes of
controlling supply of specific professions or vocations so to inflate
salaries and wages would be illegal. Or controlling the availability
or accessibility to education or training for the purpose of
controlling future supply would be illegal.
Big difference.
John Galt
Or with. Doesn't matter. The point is that there is nothing inherently
anti-market about work collectives.
>
>
>> And, to the extent that their
>> members are more productive than nonunion members, they should be paid
>> for that productivity. If the union can document that their workers are
>> 20% more productive, there is nothing wrong with them negotiating a wage
>> of 20% above market value.
>
> I spent the better part of my life working in the trades. As an
> electrical contractor, I've had union and non-union personnel work
> under me. To say union workers are more productive is unsubstantiated
> bullshit. Overall, both are about the same based on long term
> averages of productivity over several jobs. The IBEW would like for
> you to believe they are more productive and attempt to prove it by
> their shaky stats.
If the stats don't bear it out, I agree.
JG
Mike
bill gates $billions didn't come from "good fortune" it came from
building a business around willful, calculated & continual violation of
antitrust law to maintain a monopoly which generates far higher profits
than the cost of ongoing antitrust litigation & settlements. with a
character on par with that of such types as ken lay & bernie ebbers,
apparently the only thing that separates the "icon" from the corporate
criminal is whether the illegal behavior is still profitable. to say
consumers "vote" for monopolies is to ignore that the whole concept of a
monopoly is that choice is restricted so it's the same as saying people
are voting for that which they have no other choice (and don't even start
with linux as competition, i use it exclusively and even i know that the
average windows user has little chance of success with linux because
microsoft locks them out of major swaths of computer use because it
monopolizes many of the major formats such as audio/video & many others
with proprietary formats which would be standardized if it weren't for
the highly predatory monopolist illegally maintaining its monopoly by
continually violating antitrust.)
Mike
getting back to your example of splitting the spoils amongst workers,
walmart, according to wiki amassed a fortune worth $128 billion
(inflation-adjusted) so divided amongst 2.1M employees that's over
$60,000 apiece, not exactly chump change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealthy_historical_figures_2008
employment figure from here:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=WMT
John Galt
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:12:02 -0600, John Galt wrote:
>
>> Mike wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 22:28:24 -0600, John Galt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 21:53:56 -0600, John Galt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. That's indeed disgusting, but if he made $0 and the $20 million
>>>>>> was split amongst the hourly workers, they'd get a raise of about a
>>>>>> penny or two per hour. CEO compensation may be absurd and
>>>>>> ridiculous, but it doesn't amount to much when you break it down
>>>>>> amoung the rank and file.
>>>>> ok, now do the math for the several $trillion that has been plundered
>>>>> over the years by investment bankers and other worthless pieces of
>>>>> shit like, for example, bill gates.
>>>> I'm no fan of MSFT, but if you're going to try and argue that
>>>> Microsoft has added $0 in business value to the world, you're into tin
>>>> foil hat territory.
>>>
>>> that isn't even close to what i said.
>> Good.
>
>
> getting back to your example of splitting the spoils amongst workers,
> walmart, according to wiki amassed a fortune worth $128 billion
> (inflation-adjusted) so divided amongst 2.1M employees that's over
> $60,000 apiece, not exactly chump change.
Point? Under any circumstance, the profits of the corporation belong to
the shareholders, not the workers. That's the law.
JG
Michael Coburn
Personally, I'd like to see people who share your ignorant opinion shit
canned. The labor unions simply need to unite and demand a decent social
safety net and single payer national health insurance. In addition they
need to be the cop on the beat as regards working conditions.
> There is no question that American CEO and upper level management
> compensation playpen needs the screws put to it. With income ratios
> between them and their labor well over 475:1 while the rest of the
> industrialized world coming in under 30:1 clearly states this is a
> problem long overdue in addressing it with impunity and responsibility.
> These cocksuckers complain that they can't compete with high labor costs
> while not even batting an eye on the money they are draining out of the
> companies they're running into the ground.
So if you tax wage income over a million bucks at 70% and use the money
to subsidize national health insurance then you are just about done with
it. Thanx for playing.
> For the record, there are licensed electricians in Florida that make
> less than $20.00/hr while assembly line workers for the big three make
> $73.00.
LIE! The assembly line workers do not make $73.
> These poor bastards want a goddamned bailout? Fuck them! Let
> them go under. These fuckers are making more money than 80% of
> electrical engineers holding a MSEE in this country!
You cannot compare the experience levels so forget it. A bunch of 25
year old electrical engineers simply do not earn big bucks. At 34 and 40
they will earn much more than the assembly line workers. And at 50 the
two groups will look very different again.
> Sorry, but that
> dog doesn't hunt in my neck of the woods. I have doubts it hunts
> elsewhere with that kind of gap. No wonder nobody wants to buy their
> shit.
So instead of reforming the factories we just shut em down because you
have a hard on about college grads. Why don't you eliminate the H1B
system? Why not fine employers very heavily for hiring undocumented
workers? And last but not least why not provide a better pension system
than the one we have and single payer national health insurance. It
should be obvious from the current problems that private industry cannot
provide for these needs. To continue this stupidity is, well, ... stupid.
Igor The Terrible
Tisk, tisk.
> The labor unions simply need to unite and demand a decent social
> safety net
If this was still the 70s, I'd agree with you. The genie is out of
the bottle and now there is a world economy out there. In case you
haven't noticed, it is a whole new paradigm with a whole new set of
rules and protocol. We can't go back.
>and single payer national health insurance.
see below.
> In addition they need to be the cop on the beat as regards working conditions.
That is absolute bullshit. The job I'm working on is non union and I
don't have to go out on a limb to say it is being run far safer than
any of the union jobs I worked on.
> > There is no question that American CEO and upper level management
> > compensation playpen needs the screws put to it. With income ratios
> > between them and their labor well over 475:1 while the rest of the
> > industrialized world coming in under 30:1 clearly states this is a
> > problem long overdue in addressing it with impunity and responsibility.
> > These cocksuckers complain that they can't compete with high labor costs
> > while not even batting an eye on the money they are draining out of the
> > companies they're running into the ground.
>
> So if you tax wage income over a million bucks at 70% and use the money
> to subsidize national health insurance then you are just about done with
> it. Thanx for playing.
Wrong. Taxes are not simply a means to raise revenues. It is a
rationing mechanism as well. Moreover, it can also be used to change
business behavior and climate. (Review econ 101 under fiscal
policies)
> > For the record, there are licensed electricians in Florida that make
> > less than $20.00/hr while assembly line workers for the big three make
> > $73.00.
>
> LIE! The assembly line workers do not make $73.
Tell that to the media. I know back in the late 80s early 90s some of
them were making over $58k/yr. They weren't assembly workers per se,
but they weren't management either. Oh..and BTW, I got that from the
horses' mouth.
So for the record, skilled workers that were brought in after 2007
contract are now making $45.00/hr as a total comp. package. The
workers with tenure and are still working for the company are making
$73/hr in total compensation...benefits, etc...
(Read all about it in the 9th paragraph.)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7148
> > These poor bastards want a goddamned bailout? Fuck them! Let
> > them go under. These fuckers are making more money than 80% of
> > electrical engineers holding a MSEE in this country!
>
> You cannot compare the experience levels so forget it. A bunch of 25
> year old electrical engineers simply do not earn big bucks. At 34 and 40
> they will earn much more than the assembly line workers.
Many in Florida in the age group you are saying still make well under
six digits.
> And at 50 the two groups will look very different again.
True. In some disciplines and markets.
>
> > Sorry, but that
> > dog doesn't hunt in my neck of the woods. I have doubts it hunts
> > elsewhere with that kind of gap. No wonder nobody wants to buy their
> > shit.
>
> So instead of reforming the factories we just shut em down because you
> have a hard on about college grads.
Wrong. How many times are we going to bail out these people? They
keep making the same wrong decisions over and over again. I would
rather see the bailout money go out to finance new startups.
Why don't you eliminate the H1B system?
I went on record saying that. It's not going to happen. In the mid
nineties, corporate America felt it needed to dumb down its workforce
and right size what was left of it. They never got around to fixing
that. Nowadays, it's simply makes more sense to hire Hajis. They are
cheaper and it takes less time to get them up and running.
> Why not fine employers very heavily for hiring undocumented
> workers?
I went on record saying that too. It is not going to happen either.
To the business people engaged in this shit, that is tax free profits
for them. Not to mention it also gives the clueless, shit for brains
government of ours fodder to exaggerate worker productivity.
>And last but not least why not provide a better pension system
> than the one we have
Yea right...something like the SS trust fund Reagan concocted? So
that it could be pillaged on a regular basis? Trust me on this, there
is a reason WHY the existing pension funds are in the red.
>and single payer national health insurance.
I went on record saying that as well. It means nothing. Short of
socialized medicine, a monopsony is the only way a market health care
system will operate effectively. Trying to get right wing
conservatives to understand and buy into that is like pulling eye
teeth. Now that the economy is in ruins, the odds of that happening
is even less.
> It should be obvious from the current problems that private industry cannot
> provide for these needs. To continue this stupidity is, well, ... stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Mike
you tell me, you're the one that brought it up in the first place when
you said:
"Yes. That's indeed disgusting, but if he made $0 and the $20 million was
split amongst the hourly workers, they'd get a raise of about a penny or
two per hour. CEO compensation may be absurd and ridiculous, but it
doesn't amount to much when you break it down amoung the rank and file"
and the $128 billion was sam walton's personal fortune (inflation
adjusted) by the way (not walmart profit).
John Galt
OK. The profits belong to the owners of the company. Shareholders should
be pissed off when execs get absurd compensation packages, because
that's THEIR money he's paying himself with.
>
> "Yes. That's indeed disgusting, but if he made $0 and the $20 million was
> split amongst the hourly workers, they'd get a raise of about a penny or
> two per hour. CEO compensation may be absurd and ridiculous, but it
> doesn't amount to much when you break it down amoung the rank and file"
>
> and the $128 billion was sam walton's personal fortune (inflation
> adjusted) by the way (not walmart profit).
He started Wal-Mart from scratch, risking his own money in the process.
You don't think he earned it?
JG
Vid...@tcq.net
fuck you, you piece of shit. for your information, we need to pay
almost all workers more money, not tear down the few left who make
money. modern economics is based on demand. demand has all but
collapsed because of the many workers that make chump change. now you
want to tear down a few who do not. what a ignorant raving fucking
idiot.
yesterday in my population center, 9 dealerships went under, but
guess what fucker, one was a kia dealer, a hyundi dealer, a suzuki
dealer, and i mitsubishi dealer. so much for this being the american
high paid worker problem. i agree with you on the management, that
goes with out saying.
but this is a world wide event, so at least understand this before
you stab your fellow american in the back.
lying american hating conservatives blame the workers, whilst
automakers around the world are reeling just like detroit is:Car sales
in Europe have fallen dramatically since July, with an estimated 17
percent drop in the fourth quarter alone
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081120/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_france_peugeot_citroen
Peugeot Citroen to cut 2,700 jobs
PARIS - French automaker PSA Peugeot Citroen said Thursday it plans to
cut 2,700 jobs in response to the worsening economic crisis that has
seen European car sales plummet.
The plan, to be carried out through voluntary departures, is necessary
because doing nothing "could throw into question, in the long run, the
very survival of the group and its 200,000 jobs," the company said in
a statement.
In a statement, the car maker said the cuts would be made "at all
sites and in all group departments."
Car sales in Europe have fallen dramatically since July, with an
estimated 17 percent drop in the fourth quarter alone, Peugeot Citroen
said.
"This recession will continue in 2009," the company warned, with a
minimum decline of 10 percent Europe-wide for the year, Peugeot
Citroen forecast.
The carmaker also announced a plan to shift about 900 factory workers
from its plant in Rennes to other sites, because of a "significant
drop" in demand for the mid- to upper-range sedans built at Rennes.
Peugeot shares fell on the news, and at 0930 GMT were down 3.3 percent
at 12.89 ($16.29).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lying conservatives, filled with hate and rage against the american
worker, have been caught lying again: PSA Peugeot CitroenEurope's
second- biggest carmaker, plans to cut 3,550 jobs through voluntary
departures as the region's auto-market downturn gathers pace
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aKVorLa7.luQ
Peugeot to Cut 3,550 Jobs on `Violent' Sales Slump (Update1)
By Laurence Frost
Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) --, PSA Peugeot CitroenEurope's second- biggest
carmaker, plans to cut 3,550 jobs through voluntary departures as the
region's auto-market downturn gathers pace.
Peugeot aims to eliminate 2,700 white-collar positions across France
and 850 at its plant in Rennes, France, the Paris- based carmaker said
in a statement today.
The plan is a response to the ``financial and industrial crisis
affecting the whole economy, leading to a violent decline in sales,''
Peugeot said.
European auto registrations plunged almost 15 percent in October, with
Peugeot's dropping 16 percent, as housing slumps in Spain, the U.K.
and Italy compounded consumers' worries and discouraged large
purchases. Along with smaller domestic rival Renault SA, Peugeot is
temporarily shuttering plants to reduce inventories of unsold
vehicles.
An additional 900 factory workers at Rennes will be asked to choose
between transfers to other French plants or voluntary departures,
company spokesman Pierre-Olivier Salmon said in a telephone interview.
``This wasn't part of our planning,'' he said. ``We thought the job
cuts carried out last year would be enough, but the economic crisis
has changed that.''
The Rennes plant assembles the Citroen C5 and Peugeot 407 mid-sized
cars, a category of vehicle whose sales have been hurt by higher fuel
costs and new environmental taxes on larger engines, in addition to
the overall market decline.
The cuts are in addition to 3,000 voluntary departures Peugeot
announced in February, after cutting 8,200 French jobs in 2007 and
2,100 elsewhere in Europe.
Peugeot fell as much as 62 cents, or 4.7 percent, to 12.71 euros in
Paris trading, the fifth straight daily decline, and was down 3.8
percent as of 10:17 a.m.
To contact the reporter on this story: Laurence Frost in Paris at
lfr...@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: November 20, 2008 04:17 EST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lying american hating conservatives caught lying again:Toyota Motor
Corp. said Wednesday it will reduce production in the United States to
cope with slowing sales in the world's largest economy
http://www.startribune.com/local/34732514.html?elr=KArksUUUU
Toyota to reduce output, trim temporary workers in US amid slowing
sales
Associated Press
Last update: November 19, 2008 - 5:49 AM
TOKYO - Toyota Motor Corp. said Wednesday it will reduce production in
the United States to cope with slowing sales in the world's largest
economy.
Toyota will stop production at all its plants in the U.S. and Canada
for two extra days in addition to the regular Christmas holidays next
month, and cut about half of 500 temporary workers at a plant in
Georgetown, Kentucky by March, company spokeswoman Kayo Doi said.
Beginning January, Japan's top automaker plans to reduce production of
the Sienna minivan at its Indiana plant, and slow a line for the Camry
and Avalon sedans at the Kentucky plant, Doi said.
At New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. in Fremont, California -- its
joint venture with General Motors Corp. -- Toyota will eliminate a
shift producing the Tacoma pickup truck.
The production cuts are the latest effort by the company to deal with
shrinking demand in the U.S., which is expected to slip into recession
this year.
Earlier this month, Toyota said net profit for the July-September
quarter plunged 69 percent and downgraded its full-year profit
forecast to about a third of last year's result. Officials said the
company is also assessing its manufacturing operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lying american hating conservatives caught in a lie again:Honda,
Japan's second-largest carmaker, retreated 4.8 percent to 1,814 yen
after it said yesterday it will trim production at U.S. plants by
18,000 more cars, bringing total cuts to 50,000 units since August
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aSLyxXcu.ua0&refer=home
Asian Stocks Fall for 5th Day as Recession Deepens; Honda Drops
By Kyung Bok Cho and Shani Raja
Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Asian stocks fell for the fifth day after oil
plunged below $50, Taiwan and Singapore forecast further contractions,
and U.S. unemployment claims approached a 26-year high as the global
slowdown deepens.
Woodside Petroleum Ltd., Australia's No. 2 oil producer, slumped 7.2
percent as crude declined to its lowest since May 2005. Canon Inc. and
Nintendo Co., which get at least three- quarters of their sales from
overseas markets, slid more than 4 percent. Honda Motor Co., earning
more than half its sales in North America, dropped 4.8 percent after
saying it will cut production there further.
``Markets are progressively pricing in a deeper and more prolonged
recession,'' said Prasad Patkar, who helps manage about $800 million
at Platypus Asset Management in Sydney. ``A depression is too ugly to
contemplate. It's an ultra-low probability, but not zero
probability.''
The MSCI Asia Pacific Index slumped 1.8 percent to 73.81 at 10:22 a.m.
in Tokyo, set for its lowest close since Aug. 19, 2003. The gauge is
set to lose 11 percent this week, the second-biggest weekly decline on
record.
The index has plunged 53 percent in 2008 as global financial
companies' losses and writedowns from the collapse of the U.S.
subprime-mortgage market passed $950 billion. Rallies have fizzled --
most recently a 25 percent gain posted in the seven trading days
following Oct. 27 -- as the economies of the U.S., Japan and the euro-
zone enter recession.
Japan's Nikkei 225 Stock Average lost 2.8 percent to 7,487.09. The
Bank of Japan will conclude its policy meeting today, with interest
rates expected to remain unchanged.
Benchmark indexes in Taiwan and Singapore lost more than 2 percent
after the nations said their economies will contract as exports
decline.
Resources Fall
South Korea's Kospi index was on course for its longest losing streak
since September 2000 as it fell for the ninth day. KB Financial Group
Inc. led declines after UBS AG said the economy will shrink 3 percent
next year, compared with a previous forecast for an expansion.
U.S. stocks tumbled yesterday, with the Standard & Poor's 500 Index
dropping 6.7 percent to its lowest in 11 years, as economic data
pointed to a worsening recession and lawmakers postponed a vote on a
plan to salvage the auto industry. Futures on the S&P 500 advanced 0.9
percent.
Woodside dropped 7.2 percent to A$28.43. Crude oil for December
delivery plunged 8.7 percent to $49.42 a barrel in New York and
touched $48.55 in after-hours trading, the lowest since May 2005.
Futures have dropped 67 percent since reaching a record $147.27 on
July 11.
Rio Tinto Group, the world's third-largest mining company, slipped 4
percent to A$54.99. A measure of six metals traded on the London Metal
Exchange, including copper and zinc, slipped 3.5 percent to the lowest
since July 2005.
Evidence of Recession
Contract iron ore prices, at a record after six years of gains, may
decline as much as 20 percent next year as demand in China stalls and
cash prices slump, Standard Chartered Plc said in a report.
Canon, the world's biggest camera maker, declined 4 percent to 2,505
yen in Tokyo. Nintendo, the largest maker of handheld video-game
consoles, fell 4.1 percent to 25,900 won in Osaka.
U.S. government data yesterday showed initial jobless claims climbed
to a higher-than-forecast 542,000 in the week ended Nov. 15, while the
Conference Board's index of leading economic indicators fell for a
third time in four months. Manufacturing in the Philadelphia area
shrank in November at the fastest pace in 18 years, according to an
index tracked by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
Taiwan, Singapore
Taiwan's economy will sink into a recession this year after exports
slumped, following its first contraction since 2003, the government
said yesterday. Singapore, which is already in recession, today
lowered its growth forecast for a fourth time this year and said the
economy may contract in 2009.
Cathay Financial Holding Co., Taiwan's largest listed financial-
services company, dropped 3.7 percent to NT$28.90. Jardine Matheson
Holdings Ltd., which owns office buildings, supermarkets and hotels
across Asia, lost 5.6 percent to S$17.46 in Singapore.
Falling demand has forced companies to reduce production or cut
prices. Honda, Japan's second-largest carmaker, retreated 4.8 percent
to 1,814 yen after it said yesterday it will trim production at U.S.
plants by 18,000 more cars, bringing total cuts to 50,000 units since
August.
KB, owner of South Korea's biggest bank, tumbled 9.2 percent to 22,300
won. The stock is set to lose 31 percent this week. Daewoo Engineering
& Construction Co., the nation's biggest builder, retreated 6.3
percent to 7,160 won.
`Credit Bubble'
``Korea's credit bubble is popping at the seams even as policymakers
now attempt to shore up the system,'' Duncan Wooldridge, UBS's chief
Asia economist in Hong Kong, wrote in a note yesterday. Slowing
exports, rising unemployment and expanding household debt are risks to
the economy, he said.
Orix Corp., a Japanese financial services provider, fell 15 percent to
5,240 yen, the lowest since April 2003. The company said yesterday it
will sell 150 billion yen ($1.6 billion) in convertible bonds to pay
back debt.
To contact the reporter for this story: Kyung Bok Cho in Seoul at
kc...@bloomberg.net; Shani Raja in Sydney at sra...@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: November 20, 2008 20:42 EST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lying american hating conservatives, caught in a lie again:Japanese
carmakers are cutting jobs and output as sales decline, nissan,
Daihatsu Motor Co. Japan's largest minicar-maker, and mazda are now
all being affected
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aab4TEVjPWKg
Nissan Leads Car Shares Lower on U.S. Economy Outlook (Update2)
By Makiko Kitamura
Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Nissan Motor Co., Japan's third- largest
carmaker, led auto shares lower in Tokyo after U.S. unemployment
claims surged to the highest since 1992, worsening the outlook for
exports.
Nissan dropped as much as 24 yen, or 7.3 percent, the most in two
weeks, to 303 yen, and traded at 309 yen as of 10:13 a.m. The shares
have plunged 75 percent this year. Toyota Motor Corp., Japan's biggest
carmaker, fell 2.4 percent to 2,875 yen, and Honda Motor Co., the
second-largest, declined 4.6 percent to 1,818 yen.
Japan's three biggest carmakers traditionally earn at least half of
their operating profit in the U.S., the world's largest auto market.
Industrywide car sales are headed for the worst year since 1991 as
banks cut back on lending and unemployment rises.
``It doesn't look like car sales will improve as the economy is
getting worse,'' said Mitsuo Shimizu, a market analyst at Cosmo
Securities Co. in Tokyo.
``Drowning in Debt''
Initial jobless claims climbed to a higher-than-forecast 542,000 in
the week ended Nov. 15, the Labor Department said yesterday in
Washington. The Conference Board's index of leading economic
indicators declined 0.8 percent, and a measure of manufacturing in the
Philadelphia region fell to an 18-year low.
Bank of America Corp. Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis, who heads
the biggest U.S. retail bank, said yesterday the nation is ``drowning
in debt.''
A stronger yen is also eroding the value of the carmakers' overseas
sales. Japan's currency headed for a third weekly gain against the
dollar, trading at 94.16 yen against the U.S. currency.
Japanese carmakers are cutting jobs and output as sales decline. Honda
said yesterday it is trimming production plans at U.S. factories by an
additional 18,000 units. Honda has cut a total of 50,000 units from
its U.S. plans since August.
Daihatsu Motor Co. Japan's largest minicar-maker, fell as much as 7
percent. Mazda Motor Corp. fell as much as 6.8 percent.
To contact the reporter on this story: Makiko Kitamura in Tokyo at
mkita...@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: November 20, 2008 20:47 EST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lying american hating conservatives, have been caught in a lie
again:Toyota Motor Corp., Japan's biggest carmaker, will cut its
domestic temporary workforce by 50 percent as vehicle demand slumps
globally
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYTDkEfkwqg4&refer=home
Toyota Will Cut 3,000 Jobs in Japan as Car Sales Fall (Update3)
By Makiko Kitamura
Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Toyota Motor Corp., Japan's biggest carmaker,
will cut its domestic temporary workforce by 50 percent as vehicle
demand slumps globally.
Toyota will cut the number of temporary workers to 3,000 from 6,000 by
the end of March, spokesman Paul Nolasco said today in a phone
interview.
The automaker follows Mazda Motor Corp. and Isuzu Motors Ltd., which
yesterday said they would slash a combined 2,700 temporary jobs in
Japan in response to slowing sales. Earlier this month, Toyota
forecast a 68 percent drop in full-year net income, the biggest
decline in at least 18 years, as a global recession cripples auto
demand.
``Falling export demand is having a big impact on production in
Japan,'' said Hirofumi Yokoi, a Tokyo-based analyst at automotive
consulting company CSM Worldwide. ``It's unlikely plants will get shut
down, but if things get worse, lines, shifts will have to be stopped
and plans for new factories will be delayed.''
Japanese companies, which focused on hiring easy-to-fire contract
workers during the 15 years of lackluster economic growth that
followed the bursting of the bubble economy in 1990, are now shedding
them as the global recession cuts demand. Temporary and part-time
workers make up 33 percent of Japan's workforce, up from 20 percent in
1991, according to the Labor Ministry.
Honda, Nissan
Honda Motor Co., Japan's second-largest carmaker, also said today it
is cutting 270 temporary workers at its Saitama plant, where the
carmaker is reducing output of Accord sedans by 40,000 units. Honda is
also cutting production in the U.K. of Civic compacts and CR-V sport-
utility vehicles by 21,000 units.
Nissan Motor Co. said last week it will reduce its domestic production
by an additional 72,000 units. Japan's third-largest automaker had its
credit rating cut one notch today by Fitch Ratings, which cited the
company's dependence on the weak U.S. auto market and an appreciation
of the yen.
Toyota gained 4.6 percent to 3,080 yen at the close of trading today
in Tokyo. The shares have dropped 49 percent this year, set for the
worst annual performance since at least 1975.
Credit Crunch
The credit crunch has crippled U.S. vehicle sales, forcing General
Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC to seek a combined $25
billion in U.S. government loans as they burn through cash. U.S.
unemployment claims for the week ended Nov. 15 surged to the highest
since 1992 as Americans filed 542,000 initial jobless claims.
Japan's exports declined at the fastest pace in almost seven years in
October, and Toyota's U.S. sales plunged 23 percent last month.
Toyota, heading for its first drop in U.S. sales in 13 years, will
extend the Christmas-New Year closure at its U.S. and Canadian plants
by two days. The carmaker will also cut Sienna minivan output in
Indiana by half in January and slow one of two Georgetown, Kentucky,
factory lines.
While no full-time employees will be laid off, the company will
eliminate at least 50 percent of its 500 temporary workers at the
Georgetown plant during the first three months of 2009.
To contact the reporter on this story: Makiko Kitamura in Tokyo at
mkita...@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: November 21, 2008 03:26 EST
Mike
you gave an example of how absurd compensation might have been otherwise
used as in "split amongst the hourly workers" to show that it wouldn't
amount to much, i changed your example to show that it would (ie. $60,000
each). now you're talking about splitting the compensation among the
shareholders to which i would add that it could also be split among
consumers in the form of lower prices. the point is that the cost of
outrageous compensation comes from somewhere, either employees,
shareholders, consumers or any combination thereof, but any way you look
at it, it comes down to a whole lot of people getting screwed for the
benefit of one person.
>> "Yes. That's indeed disgusting, but if he made $0 and the $20 million
>> was split amongst the hourly workers, they'd get a raise of about a
>> penny or two per hour. CEO compensation may be absurd and ridiculous,
>> but it doesn't amount to much when you break it down amoung the rank
>> and file"
>>
>> and the $128 billion was sam walton's personal fortune (inflation
>> adjusted) by the way (not walmart profit).
>
> He started Wal-Mart from scratch, risking his own money in the process.
> You don't think he earned it?
i think the question is irrelevant. as i've said before, i believe a
system of policy/regulation designed by a gov't that is not corrupted by
corporate interest would prevent such outrageous imbalances from ever
occurring. however, recognizing that it will never be possible to
completely isolate regulators/policy makers from corporate interest i
think the best that can be done is to try to minimize the damage and the
best way to do that is to start by educating the brainwashed/ignorant
masses that go around praising the corporate robber barons that are
ripping us blind. that would reduce political backlash against policy/
regulation that is in the best interest of the general public but may
have some consequences that corporate interest doesn't like which causes
it to incite it's army of "useful idiots" to combat (ie. policies/
regulations that despite being in the best interest of said useful idiots
they argue against because they've been brainwashed by corporate
propaganda (or are just ignorant)).
Mason C
>> Personally, I'd like to see all unions, guilds and other forms of
>> labor/professional associations shit canned. All have outlived their
>> usefulness and have proven themselves to be more of a liability than an
>> asset to our economy.
Here we go again, forgetting the lessons of history.
Turn off the regulations and destroy the financial system.
Turn off the unions and destroy the workers.
History lesson: it was the unions that gave the workers enough to
buy the products they were making -- thereby made our wealthy
economy possible.
Destroy the unions (which has been underway) and watch the
income of most of the population descend into 3rd world levels.
Mason Clark
*Greater America in the Age of Rebellion*
http://frontal-lobe.info/greateramerica.html
-- many excerpts you can see --
The Trucker
<igor_the_terri...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 7:02 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 14:11:34 -0800, Igor The Terrible wrote:
> > > On Nov 22, 4:11 pm, "Kickin' Ass & Takin' Names"
> > > <PopUlist...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Senator Jon Kyl (Republicon, Arizona):
>
> > >> -- quote
>
> > >> "For years they’ve been sick. They have a bad business model. They have
> > >> contracts negotiated with the United Auto Workers that impose huge
> > >> costs.The average hourly cost per worker in this country is about
> > >> $28.48. For these auto makers (note: GM, Ford, Chrysler), it’s $73.
> > >> And for the Japanese auto companies working here in the United States,
> > >> it’s $48."
>
> > >> -- end quote
>
>
> > >> The average GM assembly-line worker makes about $28 per hour in wages,
> > >> and I can assure you that GM is not paying $42 an hour in health
> > >> insurance and pension plan contributions. Rather, the $70 per hour
> > >> figure (or $73 an hour, or whatever) is a ridiculous number obtained by
> > >> adding up GM's total labor, health, and pension costs, and then
> > >> dividing by the total number of hours worked. In other words, it
> > >> includes all the healthcare and retirement costs of retired workers.
>
> > >> The reason the US and Japanese companies have different total costs for
> > >> their American workers? The US companies have been employing American
> > >> workers for almost a hundred years. They have a lot of retirees. Most
> > >> of the Japanese auto plants in the US are less than 20 years old. They
> > >> have almost no retirees, so their costs are only for active workers.
>
> > >> So, why is this pernicious falsehood about inflated wages bouncing
> > >> around the public discourse on the auto industry? Several reasons.
>
> > >> First, it demonizes unions and their members as greedy and not
> > >> interested in the long-term health and profitability of the
> > >> corporations with which they sign contracts. It also ignores the fact
> > >> future responsibility for healthcare for their members employed by the
> > >> Big Three. The auto companies paid in to a fund, which will be
> > >> radically decrease the auto companies' legacy costs (although the best
> > >> way to help company and union is to pass national health care).
>
> > >> Making false claims inflating the earnings of unionized workers is also
> > >> part of the Republicans' long-held practice of class warfare. It's
> > >> intended to gin up envy and disgust at people making a good hourly
> > >> wage. Few people would be unsympathetic to an auto worker for making
> > >> $58,000 per year. But more would feel unsympathetic if they thought
> > >> that same auto worker made $73 per hour, which over the course of a
> > >> year is over $150,000.
>
> > >> Finally, harping on imaginary and inflated wages for workers is a way
> > >> to distract from one of the big problems with the US auto companies
> > >> (and most US corporations in any sector): executive compensation. For
> > >> instance, in 2007 General Motors CEO Rick Waggoner made close to $20
> > >> million in total compensation.
>
> > >> Are you surprised that conservatives are playing with math to come up
> > >> Big Three, while saying nothing about a Big Three CEO making $9,500.00
> > >> per hour?
>
> > >> Me neither.
>
> > > Personally, I'd like to see all unions, guilds and other forms of
> > > labor/professional associations shit canned. All have outlived their
> > > usefulness and have proven themselves to be more of a liability than an
> > > asset to our economy.
>
> > Personally, I'd like to see people who share your ignorant opinion shit
> > canned.
>
> Tisk, tisk.
>
> > The labor unions simply need to unite and demand a decent social
> > safety net
>
> If this was still the 70s, I'd agree with you. The genie is out of
> the bottle and now there is a world economy out there. In case you
> haven't noticed, it is a whole new paradigm with a whole new set of
> rules and protocol. We can't go back.
Irrelevant. The unions need to vote as a block and any politician
that does not support Single payer National health insurance should
not get their support. Companies cannot provide this or pensions and
it is stupid to push it that way.
> >and single payer national health insurance.
>
> see below.
>
> > In addition they need to be the cop on the beat as regards working conditions.
>
> That is absolute bullshit. The job I'm working on is non union and I
> don't have to go out on a limb to say it is being run far safer than
> any of the union jobs I worked on.
It is _NOT_ bullshit at all. This is the sort of thing that unions
_CAN_ do.
> > > There is no question that American CEO and upper level management
> > > compensation playpen needs the screws put to it. With income ratios
> > > between them and their labor well over 475:1 while the rest of the
> > > industrialized world coming in under 30:1 clearly states this is a
> > > problem long overdue in addressing it with impunity and responsibility.
> > > These cocksuckers complain that they can't compete with high labor costs
> > > while not even batting an eye on the money they are draining out of the
> > > companies they're running into the ground.
>
> > So if you tax wage income over a million bucks at 70% and use the money
> > to subsidize national health insurance then you are just about done with
> > it. Thanx for playing.
>
> Wrong. Taxes are not simply a means to raise revenues.
Do not. I repeat, do not, preseime to more know more about this
subject that I do.
> It is a
> rationing mechanism as well. Moreover, it can also be used to change
> business behavior and climate. (Review econ 101 under fiscal
> policies)
I have no interest in econ 101. Or any other brain destroying crap
oozing out of the universities concerning political economy. The
stupidity that serves as neoclassical economics is non-reality to the
core. The purpose of a well designed tax system is not even to raise
revenue at all. It is, in fact, to regulate the otherwise fitful
lemming stupidity of free markets and to fund the public services.
Government spends money into existence and the tax system and T-Bill
sales are used to manage the money supply after that fact. It matters
as to WHAT is taxed.
> > > For the record, there are licensed electricians in Florida that make
> > > less than $20.00/hr while assembly line workers for the big three make
> > > $73.00.
>
> > LIE! The assembly line workers do not make $73.
>
> Tell that to the media.
Why? They are not _MY_ problem.
> I know back in the late 80s early 90s some of
> them were making over $58k/yr. They weren't assembly workers per se,
> but they weren't management either. Oh..and BTW, I got that from the
> horses' mouth.
And that actually seems about right for someone who had been there a
long time. At that time I made almost double that.
> So for the record, skilled workers that were brought in after 2007
> contract are now making $45.00/hr as a total comp. package. The
> workers with tenure and are still working for the company are making
> $73/hr in total compensation...benefits, etc...
> (Read all about it in the 9th paragraph.)
>
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7148
It would appear that they have 5 guys making that much and they will
be retired by the end of the year :)
That is exactly the sort of crap I would have expected to see from
"Global Research".
What is missing is any real information concerning the wage costs. Ii
is all sensationalism.
> > > These poor bastards want a goddamned bailout? Fuck them! Let
> > > them go under. These fuckers are making more money than 80% of
> > > electrical engineers holding a MSEE in this country!
>
> > You cannot compare the experience levels so forget it. A bunch of 25
> > year old electrical engineers simply do not earn big bucks. At 34 and 40
> > they will earn much more than the assembly line workers.
>
> Many in Florida in the age group you are saying still make well under
> six digits.
Move them goal posts......
> > And at 50 the two groups will look very different again.
>
> True. In some disciplines and markets.
NO. In almost all of them. People with advanced degrees earn
considerably more than those without.
> > > Sorry, but that
> > > dog doesn't hunt in my neck of the woods. I have doubts it hunts
> > > elsewhere with that kind of gap. No wonder nobody wants to buy their
> > > shit.
>
> > So instead of reforming the factories we just shut em down because you
> > have a hard on about college grads.
>
> Wrong. How many times are we going to bail out these people? They
> keep making the same wrong decisions over and over again. I would
> rather see the bailout money go out to finance new startups.
Re-Read the article. You will fine that the UAW has made a lot of
concessions
and the cost of labor is falling very rapidly in the auto sector.
Those people
do not deserve to lose their jobs and America does not deserve to lose
its ability to build its own cars.
> Why don't you eliminate the H1B system?
>
> I went on record saying that. It's not going to happen. In the mid
> nineties, corporate America felt it needed to dumb down its workforce
> and right size what was left of it. They never got around to fixing
> that. Nowadays, it's simply makes more sense to hire Hajis. They are
> cheaper and it takes less time to get them up and running.
If you do H1B's then the people in college say to hell with learning
that
skill. It is a self fulfilling prophecy. And it HAS happened. The
Quotas
are low and they will be staying there.
> > Why not fine employers very heavily for hiring undocumented
> > workers?
>
> I went on record saying that too. It is not going to happen either.
I seem to remember that as an Obama thing.
> To the business people engaged in this shit, that is tax free profits
> for them. Not to mention it also gives the clueless, shit for brains
> government of ours fodder to exaggerate worker productivity.
We will be getting a new government.
> >And last but not least why not provide a better pension system
> > than the one we have
>
> Yea right...something like the SS trust fund Reagan concocted? So
> that it could be pillaged on a regular basis? Trust me on this, there
> is a reason WHY the existing pension funds are in the red.
It is because they cannot ever be in the black. There is no way that
a government or an age group can "save". It is impossible. No matter
how you arrange it, the infirm (elderly) will be supported by the
productive. If it is done through old people owning the means of
production or by government transfer the facts are the same.
> >and single payer national health insurance.
>
> I went on record saying that as well. It means nothing. Short of
> socialized medicine, a monopsony is the only way a market health care
> system will operate effectively. Trying to get right wing
> conservatives to understand and buy into that is like pulling eye
> teeth. Now that the economy is in ruins, the odds of that happening
> is even less.
Actually, I think it will be easier. The thing that the rightards
have totally
wrong is the idea that it is more expensive. It isn't and most people
can
be made to understand that.
John Galt
I have to disagree. PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, neither the workers nor the
shareholders get "screwed" by high exec comp levels, unless you figure
missing out on a a few trips to McDonalds per year "screwed."
HOWEVER, there's a reason why investors ought to avoid companies who
compensate their execs absurdly -- it shows a cavalier disregard for
their fiduciary responsibilities as the leaders of publically held
companies, and any investor who remembers they are investing in a
COMPANY and not just a STOCK (the Warren Buffett POV) would have to be
concerned that such bad judgment might, at some other time, manifest
itself in such a way that it actually DOES cost them investment income
they are entitled to.
>
>
>>> "Yes. That's indeed disgusting, but if he made $0 and the $20 million
>>> was split amongst the hourly workers, they'd get a raise of about a
>>> penny or two per hour. CEO compensation may be absurd and ridiculous,
>>> but it doesn't amount to much when you break it down amoung the rank
>>> and file"
>>>
>>> and the $128 billion was sam walton's personal fortune (inflation
>>> adjusted) by the way (not walmart profit).
>> He started Wal-Mart from scratch, risking his own money in the process.
>> You don't think he earned it?
>
>
> i think the question is irrelevant. as i've said before, i believe a
> system of policy/regulation designed by a gov't that is not corrupted by
> corporate interest would prevent such outrageous imbalances from ever
> occurring.
That would be a "no", then. A regulation that "prevented such outrageous
imbalances" would alter the entire economic system, and not for the better.
> however, recognizing that it will never be possible to
> completely isolate regulators/policy makers from corporate interest i
> think the best that can be done is to try to minimize the damage and the
> best way to do that is to start by educating the brainwashed/ignorant
> masses that go around praising the corporate robber barons that are
> ripping us blind.
You haven't been "ripped blind". Get over the hyperbole.
As for the rest, where? In the US? ROTF. In the US, the only ones who
know who-runs-what-company are the investor class. The populace is
being ripped off far more by wealthy entertainers and sports figures.
Hell, the average CEO makes 5.7M per year, but at least he's providing
value into the society. The average major league baseball player makes 3
million, and contributes virtually nothing in terms of lasting economic
value.
A much more helpful "educational project" would be to get American OFF
its obsession with celebrities and ON to business leaders, scientists,
and other people who actually make a difference. The most dangerous
ignorance in America are the people who know the name of Paris Hilton's
dog but who can't name the largest business in their home city.
> that would reduce political backlash against policy/
> regulation that is in the best interest of the general public but may
> have some consequences that corporate interest doesn't like which causes
> it to incite it's army of "useful idiots" to combat (ie. policies/
> regulations that despite being in the best interest of said useful idiots
> they argue against because they've been brainwashed by corporate
> propaganda (or are just ignorant)).
If people start voting their best interests only, you may as well close
up the nation. The strength of America lies in people who vote what they
see as the best interests of the entire nation, not just their own
myopic needs.
JG
John Galt
>>> Personally, I'd like to see all unions, guilds and other forms of
>>> labor/professional associations shit canned. All have outlived their
>>> usefulness and have proven themselves to be more of a liability than an
>>> asset to our economy.
>
> Here we go again, forgetting the lessons of history.
>
> Turn off the regulations and destroy the financial system.
>
> Turn off the unions and destroy the workers.
>
> History lesson: it was the unions that gave the workers enough to
> buy the products they were making -- thereby made our wealthy
> economy possible.
That's only half the story. If the corporations aren't profitable, the
unions cannot extract anything from them. So, if you're talking about
"who was responsible for the wealthy economy", the "horse" was
profitable american businesses. No profits, no wealthy economy.
JG
forbi...@msn.com
> I have to disagree. PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, neither the workers nor the
> shareholders get "screwed" by high exec comp levels, unless you figure
> missing out on a a few trips to McDonalds per year "screwed."
I want to understand this argument. Are you asserting that stealing
$10 from 100,000 people isn't as bad as stealing $1,000,000 from one
person? If I steal $0.10 from 10,000,000 people I'm practally
speaking
not stealling at all?
forbi...@msn.com
> That's only half the story. If the corporations aren't profitable, the
> unions cannot extract anything from them.
I've been told that the big three have burning through $25 billion
per quarter. As far as I know they have still been paying their
employees. That may come to an end soon but it's been the
case for a few quarters.
> So, if you're talking about
> "who was responsible for the wealthy economy", the "horse" was
> profitable american businesses. No profits, no wealthy economy.
That's a bit silly, don't you think? What makes a business
profitable? If labor is the problem then eliminate it. Labor
should demand market rate just as much as does capital.
The problem for labor is to determine what the market rates
would be if the big three go under and negotiate accordingly.
The same is true for capital. I'm pretty sure empty buildings
won't generate a very high ROI.
John Galt
First of all, it's not "stealing." It's legal. You may not think it
SHOULD be legal, but that doesn't affect the fact of the matter, which
is that it's quite legal for these guys to vote themselves stupid levels
of compensation.
But, to answer the question, no. The point here is that if you impute
the exorbitant compensation number any of (1) the corporate net profits,
(2) the corporate total wage, or (3) the corporate dividend yield, it
doesn't change any of those measurements substantially.
In order to declare something "exorbitant", you have to have something
to measure it against, as it's a relative term. Their compensation is
"exorbitant" when compared to yours or mine. If it's expressed as a % of
corporate revenues, it's not very large at all.
What I would like to see is the debate on this topic be more factual. In
the case of the GM, they're not going out of business because they pay
Wagonner 25M per year. Wagonner can take $1 next year in total
compensation, and they're still going out of business.
JG
JG
John Galt
> On Nov 24, 4:12 am, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That's only half the story. If the corporations aren't profitable, the
>> unions cannot extract anything from them.
>
> I've been told that the big three have burning through $25 billion
> per quarter. As far as I know they have still been paying their
> employees. That may come to an end soon but it's been the
> case for a few quarters.
That's the number I've familiar with.
>
>> So, if you're talking about
>> "who was responsible for the wealthy economy", the "horse" was
>> profitable american businesses. No profits, no wealthy economy.
>
> That's a bit silly, don't you think? What makes a business
> profitable?
In order: Business plan, investment, labor, execution. Pull one of those
elements out, and the entire house of cards comes down.
> If labor is the problem then eliminate it. Labor
> should demand market rate just as much as does capital.
I agree.
> The problem for labor is to determine what the market rates
> would be if the big three go under and negotiate accordingly.
It's not much of a problem. The market rate is well established from the
113,000 nonunion auto workers who work for foreign manufacturers in
other states. From what I've read, that seems to be about $17-$18 per
hour. If UAW members are measurably more productive, say by 20%, then
they should negotiate for a 20% premium above that level.
> The same is true for capital. I'm pretty sure empty buildings
> won't generate a very high ROI.
Not much.
JG
forbi...@msn.com
They're not going out of business because of what they pay any
particular
laborer either. Why do you aggregate labor costs but not other costs?
From http://media.gm.com/manufacturing/ratification.html
DETROIT, Mich. - General Motors today confirmed that its
UAW-represented employees have ratified the GM-UAW 2007
national labor agreement. GM and the UAW reached a tentative
agreement on Wednesday, September 26, after more than two
months of bargaining. The new four-year agreement covers
approximately 74,000 hourly employees located in more than
80 U.S. facilities.
If the $100,000,000,000 per year were to come from them they
would need to take $1,400,000 per year pay cut each. I hope
they can afford it.
forbi...@msn.com
> From what I've read, that seems to be about $17-$18 per
> hour.
Well, there's your problem right there. All this union busting
has lead to substandard wages that are hardly livable for a
family of four and still demands back-breaking effort. That's
about $34,500 a year.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3%
to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau.[3]The real
median earnings of men who worked full time, year-round
climbed between 2006 and 2007, from $43,460 to $45,113.
For women, the corresponding increase was from $33,437
to $35,102.
John Galt
You can aggregate it or not. If aggregated, it's a tiny % of the
aggregate. If not aggregated, it's a couple of cents an hour to the rank
and file.
But, more to your point, it's a response to the intellectual dishonesty
of the debate. Companies are not going out of business, and people are
not getting laid off, because of high executive salaries. THAT'S NOT AN
EXCUSE FOR THEM, and I abhor them because of other reasons stated
before. BUT, it's incorrect to imply that layoffs or bankruptcies are
occurring because of these compensations.
>
> From http://media.gm.com/manufacturing/ratification.html
>
> DETROIT, Mich. - General Motors today confirmed that its
> UAW-represented employees have ratified the GM-UAW 2007
> national labor agreement. GM and the UAW reached a tentative
> agreement on Wednesday, September 26, after more than two
> months of bargaining. The new four-year agreement covers
> approximately 74,000 hourly employees located in more than
> 80 U.S. facilities.
>
> If the $100,000,000,000 per year were to come from them they
> would need to take $1,400,000 per year pay cut each. I hope
> they can afford it.
I don't get it.
JG
John Galt
> On Nov 24, 6:02 am, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> From what I've read, that seems to be about $17-$18 per
>> hour.
>
> Well, there's your problem right there. All this union busting
> has lead to substandard wages that are hardly livable for a
> family of four and still demands back-breaking effort. That's
> about $34,500 a year.
First, no union busting was involved. Honda came, people came, people
worked. If they could do better elsewhere, they'd go elsewhere. Are you
asserting that they're choosing irrationally?
Second, why stop with one nonworking wife and two kids? How about six
kids? What's really happening to this family is what you have cited
below -- he's working for 34-37K per year, and his wife is working for
35K per year, for an aggregate family income of 72K per year.
I mean, come on. In the six thousand year span of human history, there
have been about three or four decades total when men could earn a decent
living wage on average while his wife stayed home with kids. Ward and
June Cleaver were the exception, rather than the rule. The Cramdens were
much more typical.
JG
Mike
yes, i consider making $60,000 off each and every worker screwing them,
and that's considerably more than "a few trips to McDonalds per year".
just cuz you're blind to being ripped blind doesn't mean everyone else is.
> As for the rest, where? In the US? ROTF. In the US, the only ones who
> know who-runs-what-company are the investor class. The populace is
> being ripped off far more by wealthy entertainers and sports figures.
> Hell, the average CEO makes 5.7M per year, but at least he's providing
> value into the society. The average major league baseball player makes 3
> million, and contributes virtually nothing in terms of lasting economic
> value.
on the list of wealthiest billionaires see how many are corporate robber
barons vs sports figures.
> A much more helpful "educational project" would be to get American OFF
> its obsession with celebrities and ON to business leaders, scientists,
> and other people who actually make a difference. The most dangerous
> ignorance in America are the people who know the name of Paris Hilton's
> dog but who can't name the largest business in their home city.
>
>
>> that would reduce political backlash against policy/ regulation that is
>> in the best interest of the general public but may have some
>> consequences that corporate interest doesn't like which causes it to
>> incite it's army of "useful idiots" to combat (ie. policies/
>> regulations that despite being in the best interest of said useful
>> idiots they argue against because they've been brainwashed by corporate
>> propaganda (or are just ignorant)).
>
> If people start voting their best interests only, you may as well close
> up the nation. The strength of America lies in people who vote what they
> see as the best interests of the entire nation, not just their own
> myopic needs.
um, that's exactly what i've been saying all along (ie. "best interests
of the entire nation"). it's those that promote the myopic self-serving
agenda of the corporate robber barons that allow the the outrageous
inequity to continue.
John Galt
My "McDonalds" example had to do with exec compensation, not the
productive output of the labor force.
The entire idea behind entrepenural capitalism is to start a business
(getting 100% of your own productive output) and then grow it by hiring
people, and getting as high percentage of THEIR productive output as
possible. Change that dynamic, and you change the reward/risk ratio of
entrepenurism to the downside.
Sorry, I'm not getting ripped blind. I work for a company and I expect
them to pay me as little as they need to and book the rest of my
productive output against corporate revenues.
Now, if I was a socialist, I'd believe I was being ripped blind. But,
I'm not.
>
>
>> As for the rest, where? In the US? ROTF. In the US, the only ones who
>> know who-runs-what-company are the investor class. The populace is
>> being ripped off far more by wealthy entertainers and sports figures.
>> Hell, the average CEO makes 5.7M per year, but at least he's providing
>> value into the society. The average major league baseball player makes 3
>> million, and contributes virtually nothing in terms of lasting economic
>> value.
>
>
> on the list of wealthiest billionaires see how many are corporate robber
> barons vs sports figures.
Apples to oranges. The "wealthiest billionaires" list contains a ton of
people who started with inherited wealth and have compounded it. If you
were given 500,000,000 at birth and just stuck it in a CD until you're
50, you'd be worth 3.5 billion and be on the list.
We were talking about discrete annual compensation, and if you get THAT
list out, you see that Hollywood and Music and Sports compete VERY
successfully against CEOs. Little 15 year old Miley Cyrus went off for
18 million in 2007, Oprah earned 260 million.
>
>
>> A much more helpful "educational project" would be to get American OFF
>> its obsession with celebrities and ON to business leaders, scientists,
>> and other people who actually make a difference. The most dangerous
>> ignorance in America are the people who know the name of Paris Hilton's
>> dog but who can't name the largest business in their home city.
>>
>>
>>> that would reduce political backlash against policy/ regulation that is
>>> in the best interest of the general public but may have some
>>> consequences that corporate interest doesn't like which causes it to
>>> incite it's army of "useful idiots" to combat (ie. policies/
>>> regulations that despite being in the best interest of said useful
>>> idiots they argue against because they've been brainwashed by corporate
>>> propaganda (or are just ignorant)).
>> If people start voting their best interests only, you may as well close
>> up the nation. The strength of America lies in people who vote what they
>> see as the best interests of the entire nation, not just their own
>> myopic needs.
>
>
> um, that's exactly what i've been saying all along (ie. "best interests
> of the entire nation"). it's those that promote the myopic self-serving
> agenda of the corporate robber barons that allow the the outrageous
> inequity to continue.
How are you going to stop it?
JG
Mike
and who do you think they inherited from? answer: parent who was a
corporate robber baron
> If you
> were given 500,000,000 at birth and just stuck it in a CD until you're
> 50, you'd be worth 3.5 billion and be on the list.
>
> We were talking about discrete annual compensation, and if you get THAT
> list out, you see that Hollywood and Music and Sports compete VERY
> successfully against CEOs. Little 15 year old Miley Cyrus went off for
> 18 million in 2007, Oprah earned 260 million.
you don't get to the top of the list of world's richest billionaires by
making a measly $18 million a year, that's why it's the exclusive domain
of corporate robber barons (or their offspring).
>>
>>
>>> A much more helpful "educational project" would be to get American OFF
>>> its obsession with celebrities and ON to business leaders, scientists,
>>> and other people who actually make a difference. The most dangerous
>>> ignorance in America are the people who know the name of Paris
>>> Hilton's dog but who can't name the largest business in their home
>>> city.
>>>
>>>
>>>> that would reduce political backlash against policy/ regulation that
>>>> is in the best interest of the general public but may have some
>>>> consequences that corporate interest doesn't like which causes it to
>>>> incite it's army of "useful idiots" to combat (ie. policies/
>>>> regulations that despite being in the best interest of said useful
>>>> idiots they argue against because they've been brainwashed by
>>>> corporate propaganda (or are just ignorant)).
>>> If people start voting their best interests only, you may as well
>>> close up the nation. The strength of America lies in people who vote
>>> what they see as the best interests of the entire nation, not just
>>> their own myopic needs.
>>
>>
>> um, that's exactly what i've been saying all along (ie. "best interests
>> of the entire nation"). it's those that promote the myopic
>> self-serving agenda of the corporate robber barons that allow the the
>> outrageous inequity to continue.
>
> How are you going to stop it?
>
> JG
as i already said:
"...the best that can be done is to try to minimize the damage ...
educating the brainwashed/ignorant masses that go around praising the
corporate robber barons ..."
i think my work is done here as we're going around in circles.
John Galt
Doesn't matter what kind of names you like to call highly productive
businesspeople. You can't compare accrued wealth to new wage. It's
apples and oranges.
>
>
>> If you
>> were given 500,000,000 at birth and just stuck it in a CD until you're
>> 50, you'd be worth 3.5 billion and be on the list.
>>
>> We were talking about discrete annual compensation, and if you get THAT
>> list out, you see that Hollywood and Music and Sports compete VERY
>> successfully against CEOs. Little 15 year old Miley Cyrus went off for
>> 18 million in 2007, Oprah earned 260 million.
>
>
> you don't get to the top of the list of world's richest billionaires by
> making a measly $18 million a year, that's why it's the exclusive domain
> of corporate robber barons (or their offspring).
Nobody is interested in the list of the world's richest billionaires but
you. If you want to start a thread about it, feel free.
That's a dodge to the question.
JG
forbi...@msn.com
I should do coffee before morning math.
At 25 billion per quarter that's a 100 billion
yearly burn rate. Not all of UAW members
for the big three are GM employees. My 74,000
came from the cited GM web site. According to
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23869586/ there
were less than 500,000 UAW members at the
end of 2007 but not all UAW members work for
the big three.
From the same website:
Gettelfinger saw a slight increase in salary in 2007,
from $145,125 in 2006 to $150,763 last year.
Remember that is for someone representing 500,000
members.
I don't know the numbers but there are less than
150,000 UAW members working for the big three.
Using this figure, the $100,000,000,000 (that $100 billion)
couldn't be absorbed by the 150,000 UAW workers
even if their salary went to zero because that would
be a $67,000 per year cut in pay.
forbi...@msn.com
> I don't know the numbers but there are less than
> 150,000 UAW members working for the big three.
> Using this figure, the $100,000,000,000 (that $100 billion)
> couldn't be absorbed by the 150,000 UAW workers
> even if their salary went to zero because that would
> be a $67,000 per year cut in pay.
Twice is too much. I'm going to refrain from numbers for
awhile. $667,000 per UAW member per year.
Vid...@tcq.net
> Mason C wrote:
> >>> Personally, I'd like to see all unions, guilds and other forms of
> >>> labor/professional associations shit canned. All have outlived their
> >>> usefulness and have proven themselves to be more of a liability than an
> >>> asset to our economy.
>
> > Here we go again, forgetting the lessons of history.
>
> > Turn off the regulations and destroy the financial system.
>
> > Turn off the unions and destroy the workers.
>
> > History lesson: it was the unions that gave the workers enough to
> > buy the products they were making -- thereby made our wealthy
> > economy possible.
>
> That's only half the story. If the corporations aren't profitable, the
> unions cannot extract anything from them. So, if you're talking about
> "who was responsible for the wealthy economy", the "horse" was
> profitable american businesses. No profits, no wealthy economy.
>
> JG
incorrect as usual,
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the
fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first
existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the
higher consideration.
Abraham Lincoln
and the proof is that so far the conservatives and libertarians at
treasury and the fed has lavished over 8 trillion dollars onto these
worthless parasites, and the results? things are getting worse. as
they did under hoover and mellon. freidman was wrong, dead wrong.
demand is everything. demand creates profits.
Vid...@tcq.net
and we just saw wages plummet over 9% recently. demand is everything.
no demand, no profits.
Vid...@tcq.net
<igor_the_terri...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
lying american hating conservative caught lying again, the worlds
automakers are all in trouble. the reason why american companies are
in worse shape, is that the economic panic started here first.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=akcQFqTVeTxk
Honda Scraps Detroit Press Events to Promote Vehicles (Update1)
By Alan Ohnsman
Nov. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Honda Motor Co., Japan’s second- largest
carmaker, said it won’t hold press conferences to promote new models
at the Detroit auto show in January as the U.S. industry struggles to
survive.
“We’re not going to be doing ‘traditional’ product unveilings in
Detroit,” Kurt Antonius, a spokesman for the Tokyo-based company’s
U.S. unit, said in an interview today. Honda will still display its
latest cars and trucks, he said.
Honda’s move makes it the biggest automaker to pare its plans for the
North American International Auto Show, the main U.S. forum for new
vehicles. Nissan Motor Co., No. 3 in Japan, said yesterday it’s
conserving funds by skipping Detroit in January and the Chicago show
in February.
The Asian brands are mired in the industrywide slump that cut U.S.
auto sales by 15 percent through October. U.S. automakers led by
General Motors Corp. are seeking $25 billion in federal loans to help
stave off a financial collapse.
Mitsubishi Motors Corp., Japan’s fifth-largest automaker, said last
week it wouldn’t attend the Detroit show, following similar decisions
by Suzuki Motor Corp., Ferrari SpA, Land Rover and Bayerische Motoren
Werke AG’s Rolls-Royce. Porsche SE abandoned Detroit in 2007.
Toyota Motor Corp., Japan’s largest automaker, isn’t changing its
plans to unveil new Toyota and Lexus models in Detroit, said Mike
Michels, a spokesman. Hyundai Motor Co., Kia Motors Corp. and Mazda
Motor Corp. all said today they still plan to attend the Detroit show.
Honda and Tokyo-based Nissan ranked fifth and sixth, respectively, in
U.S. sales through last month, behind GM, Toyota, Ford Motor Co. and
Chrysler LLC.
Press previews for the Detroit show run Jan. 13 through Jan. 15.
Honda’s U.S. operations are based in Torrance, California.
To contact the reporter on this story: Alan Ohnsman in Los Angeles at
aohn...@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: November 25, 2008 16:06 EST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=alpH1eJ8IE9o&refer=home
Toyota Rating Cut to AA by Fitch, Outlook Negative (Update1)
Email | Print | A A A
By Makiko Kitamura
Nov. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Toyota Motor Corp.'s debt rating was cut by
Fitch Ratings, the first such downgrade in 10 years, as the U.S. auto
slump damps earnings at the carmaker with the industry's best credit.
Fitch cut Toyota's senior unsecured debt rating to AA from AAA with a
negative outlook on the company, it said in a report today.
A lower debt rating raises borrowing costs for Toyota, potentially
hindering its ability to offer interest-free loans to boost sales in
the U.S. The automaker slashed its profit forecast 56 percent earlier
this month after higher fuel costs and the credit crunch pushed
industrywide October U.S. sales to the lowest level since 1983.
``Toyota is suffering severely from the ongoing turmoil in the global
automotive sector,'' said Tatsuya Mizuno, director at Fitch Ratings,
in the report. ``The negative developments in the industry are so
substantial and fundamental that even the strongest player -- Toyota
-- can no longer support a `AAA' rating.''
The rating cut is the company's first since Moody's Investors Service
reduced its long-term debt rating from Aaa to Aa1 in 1998. Moody's
raised the company back up to Aaa in 2003. Standard & Poor's has rated
the carmaker AAA since 1985.
Toyota fell 4.2 percent to 3,000 yen today in Tokyo. The stock has
dropped 50 percent this year, set for the worst annual performance
since at least 1975.
To contact the reporter on this story: Makiko Kitamura in Tokyo at
mkita...@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: November 25, 2008 20:24 EST
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=at1f6F88JpSk
Porsche Sales Fall on Recession; VW Deal Faces Delay (Update1)
Email | Print | A A A
By Andreas Cremer
Nov. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Porsche SE reported a 15 percent drop in four-
month sales and said it may delay taking control of Volkswagen AG as
the credit crisis and global recession shatter demand for its iconic
911 sports car.
Revenue in the period through November may drop to “slightly above 2
billion euros” ($2.6 billion), Porsche said today at a briefing in
Stuttgart, Germany, where the company is based. Year-earlier sales
amounted to 2.36 billion euros.
Chief Executive Officer Wendelin Wiedeking said Porsche may no longer
take 50 percent ownership of Volkswagen this year as the global
economy contracts. Porsche, which posted a record 6.39 billion-euro
profit in the 12 months through July, will halt production at its main
plant for seven days between now and the end of January after U.S.
deliveries fell 50 percent in October, including a 40 percent decline
in sales of the 911.
“Signs of a severe slump in demand in the global automobile industry
are highly visible,” Wiedeking said. “Porsche cannot escape this
overall downward trend.” While it’s “increasingly unlikely” that the
VW stake will surpass 50 percent this year, the company will take
control “as quickly as possible” and is committed to owning 75 percent
by the end of 2009, he said.
Porsche was trading up 2.66 euros, or 5 percent, at 55.43 euros as of
10:25 in Frankfurt. Delays to the Volkswagen takeover may boost the
company’s cash position by allowing it to realize gains on share
options. Porsche said last month it owned 42.6 percent of Wolfsburg,
Germany-based VW, Europe’s biggest carmaker, and had options
equivalent to a further 31.5 percent.
Capital Gains
“They are changing the view from one month to another so it is very
difficult to assess what they will do and when,” said Olivier Pouteau,
a Paris-based analyst at Oddo & Cie. with an “add” rating on Porsche.
“Porsche is still sitting on very important capital gains stemming
from their options, and they are indicating they will prioritize
what’s economically viable for the company in their strategy with
Volkswagen.”
The drop in four-month revenue threatens the first fall in Porsche’s
annual sales since 1993. CEO Wiedeking declined to give a forecast for
full-year profit, saying that to do so would be “grossly careless” and
“too unreliable.”
Deliveries through November probably fell 18 percent to 25,200
vehicles and there may be a “noticeable decline” in the full-year
figure from the 98,652 vehicles handed over last fiscal year, the
company said. The future development of business in the U.S. -- the
biggest market for the 911 --“can hardly be reliably calculated,” it
said.
U.S. Slide
Porsche’s U.S. operation last month sold only 584 911s, including the
$190,000 GT2 model that can exceed 200 miles (320 kilometers) per
hour. Deliveries of the less-costly Boxster, including the Cayman
coupe, fell 78 percent to 153 units and the Cayenne SUV recorded 690
sales, down 42 percent.
Chief Financial Officer Holger Haerter said Porsche isn’t prepared to
buy Volkswagen shares at “economically absurd prices.” To do so would
create “considerable risks” for possible cost deductions and inflict
an “unforeseeable burden” on Porsche’s earnings, he said.
VW, which traded little changed at 256.03 euros today, is valued in
Porsche’s books at 117 euros a share and the company could “live” with
a price of 200 euros, the CFO said.
Wiedeking said Porsche’s own share price, down 60 percent this year,
does not fairly reflect the company’s prospects nor the value of the
holding in Volkswagen. He called previous declines in the stock
“incomprehensible.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Andreas Cremer in Stuttgart,
Germany at acr...@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: November 26, 2008 06:36 EST
John Galt
> On Nov 24, 6:12 am, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mason C wrote:
>>>>> Personally, I'd like to see all unions, guilds and other forms of
>>>>> labor/professional associations shit canned. All have outlived their
>>>>> usefulness and have proven themselves to be more of a liability than an
>>>>> asset to our economy.
>>> Here we go again, forgetting the lessons of history.
>>> Turn off the regulations and destroy the financial system.
>>> Turn off the unions and destroy the workers.
>>> History lesson: it was the unions that gave the workers enough to
>>> buy the products they were making -- thereby made our wealthy
>>> economy possible.
>> That's only half the story. If the corporations aren't profitable, the
>> unions cannot extract anything from them. So, if you're talking about
>> "who was responsible for the wealthy economy", the "horse" was
>> profitable american businesses. No profits, no wealthy economy.
>>
>> JG
>
> incorrect as usual,
OK, loser, explain how labor can financially benefit by working for a
company without profits.
JG
Balanced View
It's a chicken and the egg argument. Workers without a job have no money
to buy anything with, business without people
with disposable incomes can't sell, or expand their market. Workers with
low pay only buy essentials, countries with
low pay rates have weak domestic markets and have to export the bulk of
their goods.
The reason the USA expanded like it did was because incomes increased to
the point people could afford more than the
bare necessities, they could actually afford to buy the items they
helped manufacture. It's crashing now because much of the
buying was done with borrowed money rather than savings, a result of
stagnant wages since the late 1970's.
Vid...@tcq.net
> Vide...@tcq.net wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 6:12 am, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Mason C wrote:
> >>>>> Personally, I'd like to see all unions, guilds and other forms of
> >>>>> labor/professional associations shit canned. All have outlived their
> >>>>> usefulness and have proven themselves to be more of a liability than an
> >>>>> asset to our economy.
> >>> Here we go again, forgetting the lessons of history.
> >>> Turn off the regulations and destroy the financial system.
> >>> Turn off the unions and destroy the workers.
> >>> History lesson: it was the unions that gave the workers enough to
> >>> buy the products they were making -- thereby made our wealthy
> >>> economy possible.
> >> That's only half the story. If the corporations aren't profitable, the
> >> unions cannot extract anything from them. So, if you're talking about
> >> "who was responsible for the wealthy economy", the "horse" was
> >> profitable american businesses. No profits, no wealthy economy.
>
> >> JG
>
> > incorrect as usual,
>
> OK, loser, explain how labor can financially benefit by working for a
> company without profits.
>
> JG
>
of course you have the cart before the horse, you are incapable of
understanding this, a hard wiring problem. no demand, no profits. its
that simple. as we see demand is plummeting correct? as i predicted to
you before. as demand plummets, along goes the profits. no demand, no
profits. the libertarians and conservatives in the federal reserve and
treasury, are attempting to substitute hand outs to compensate for
plummeting demand. it will fail.
labor comes first. its what triggers a consumer society. so if the
workers are working for a corporation that makes no profits, means
either the company makes and sells something no one wants, or, there
is a lack of demand for said companies products because labor can no
longer consume those products, the second explanation is the situation
we are in today.
no demand, no profits. OBTW, i never said labor could benefit from no
profits, i said labor comes first, its what triggers demand.
Vid...@tcq.net
> John Galt wrote:
and of course, that is correct. its why china has to export most of
their production. but the export of production, creates debt in the
country that imports production. and kills the wages of the country
that imports.
the free market has killed the goose that laid the golden egg.
americans can no longer consume, no demand, no profits.
no amount of handouts to pamper the wealthy, will be a substitute for
demand. trillions have been wasted on parasites.
John Galt
Somewhat, but not completely. The dynamics of the matter changes pre-
and post- Industrial Revolution. Video is more right if he's describing
a pre-IR economy, less right when describing a post-IR economy.
> Workers without a job have no money
> to buy anything with, business without people
> with disposable incomes can't sell, or expand their market. Workers with
> low pay only buy essentials, countries with
> low pay rates have weak domestic markets and have to export the bulk of
> their goods.
That correct, and I won't bore you with the inverse of the above, but
we're not talking macroeconomics; we're talking about the hyperbolic
claim that "labor unions created the middle class." (That's a rather
inaccurate statement. Those that use it are usually not claiming that
there was no middle class prior to unions -- that's proven incorrect by
history -- but what they are normally referring to is the role the
unions had in moving blue-collar workers into the middle-class.)
>
> The reason the USA expanded like it did was because incomes increased to
> the point people could afford more than the
> bare necessities, they could actually afford to buy the items they
> helped manufacture. It's crashing now because much of the
> buying was done with borrowed money rather than savings, a result of
> stagnant wages since the late 1970's.
I'm not sure what stats you're looking at, but wage growth has been
pretty anemic for longer than that. If I look at the real wage data from
the BLS, the five best years for wage increase since 65 were 1972, 1998,
1971, 1965, 1968; the five worst were 1980, 1974, 1979, 1975, and 1981.
If I break that down by half-decade, the 2nd best 5 year period ever was
1995-2000, the worst two were 1980-1985 followed by 1975-1980 (same crisis).
Wages have been pretty static in real terms since 1973. Couple good
years here, followed by a couple of crappy years where inflation eats up
the raises.
JG
John Galt
How?
, you are incapable of
> understanding this
Sure I am. If it's explained cogently (which is not one of your strong
suits, so I'm not holding my breath).
, a hard wiring problem. no demand
Perhaps you need to reflect on the role invention and innovation have on
creating demand, and get back to us.
JG
forbi...@msn.com
> Perhaps you need to reflect on the role invention and innovation have on
> creating demand, and get back to us.
They have none. Either there is pent up demand where invention
and innovation create a supply or there is not. Says Law says
supply creates its own demand. Says Law does not say supply
creates a demand for what is being supplied. Several years ago
people were asserting that creating a supply of left hand gloves
created a demand for left hand gloves but that just isn't so.
Michael Coburn
> forbi...@msn.com wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 6:02 am, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> From what I've read, that seems to be about $17-$18 per hour.
>>
>> Well, there's your problem right there. All this union busting has
>> lead to substandard wages that are hardly livable for a family of four
>> and still demands back-breaking effort. That's about $34,500 a year.
>
> First, no union busting was involved. Honda came, people came, people
> worked. If they could do better elsewhere, they'd go elsewhere. Are you
> asserting that they're choosing irrationally?
>
> Second, why stop with one nonworking wife and two kids? How about six
> kids? What's really happening to this family is what you have cited
> below -- he's working for 34-37K per year, and his wife is working for
> 35K per year, for an aggregate family income of 72K per year.
>
> I mean, come on. In the six thousand year span of human history, there
> have been about three or four decades total when men could earn a decent
> living wage on average while his wife stayed home with kids. Ward and
> June Cleaver were the exception, rather than the rule. The Cramdens were
> much more typical.
Why would anyone _CHOOSE_ the Cramden model over the Cleaver model? I
know that the women did. But the men did not. The bottom line is that
we need higher wages at the expense of rent, interest, and profit.
Vid...@tcq.net
you assume that labor is hired before demand. not so. even today.
disposable income creates demand, even if a product is in its infancy,
or not on the market yet. manufacturers are looking for ways to
harvest disposable income by creating goods and services that
disposable income can purchase.
creative innovative societies, are societies where labor creates
demand. otherwise, companies world wide right now, would not be
shelving innovation, expansion, and manufacturing if demand was not
based on labor. demand is plummeting, so innovation, expansion, and
manufacturing is also plummeting.
> , you are incapable of
>
> > understanding this
>
> Sure I am. If it's explained cogently (which is not one of your strong
> suits, so I'm not holding my breath).
>
if you cannot understand, that demand creates profits, its hopeless.
and i do not mean demand for a product, i mean labor is well paid, and
demands goods and services.
your weak point is conservative economics is hard wired in your
brain.
> , a hard wiring problem. no demand
>
> Perhaps you need to reflect on the role invention and innovation have on
> creating demand, and get back to us.
>
then mexico would be the most innovative economy in the world:) if
labor(demand) did not require disposable income, then countries like
mexico would be killer innovative and creative economies:) demand
creates profits, demand creates innovation.
your are desperately grasping a completely failed and discredited
ideology.
> JG
>
John Galt
> On Nov 26, 8:45 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you need to reflect on the role invention and innovation have on
>> creating demand, and get back to us.
>
> They have none.
They have plenty. In the industrial society, the corporation is
originally founded with an invention or innovation. (I suppose you could
argue that there is an unrealized demand, but that's really not key to
the assertation. Even though, I would point out that if there's no
demand creation, the thing called "marketing" wouldn't exist.)
The invention of innovation is then followed by capital, implying risk,
and then (finally) followed by labor necessary to create the invention
or innovation.
At any rate, we are drifting far afield from the original topic.
JG
John Galt
Same model, white collar vs. blue collar. The problem is that the
one-income, middle class household is unsustainable. We may have been
able to prolong it with a bit better Presidenting from 1968 onward, but
eventually China was going to sprinkle capitalism on their Wheaties and
the situation we have today, with downward pressure on wages.
I
> know that the women did. But the men did not. The bottom line is that
> we need higher wages at the expense of rent, interest, and profit.
Well, you're getting lowered rents and interest as we speak.
Controlling profit is not possible in a free society. And, if the
government would start competently enforcing immigration regulations,
the downward pressure on wages caused by people working off the books
for lower than minimums would disappear.
JG
John Galt
No, I assume just the opposite.
JG
forbi...@msn.com
> forbisga...@msn.com wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 8:45 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Perhaps you need to reflect on the role invention and innovation have on
> >> creating demand, and get back to us.
>
> > They have none.
>
> They have plenty. In the industrial society, the corporation is
> originally founded with an invention or innovation. (I suppose you could
> argue that there is an unrealized demand, but that's really not key to
> the assertation. Even though, I would point out that if there's no
> demand creation, the thing called "marketing" wouldn't exist.)
God, you consider "marketing" innovation?
Michael Coburn
Why do you assume that I want to trade with the Chinese?
> I
>> know that the women did. But the men did not. The bottom line is that
>> we need higher wages at the expense of rent, interest, and profit.
>
> Well, you're getting lowered rents and interest as we speak. Controlling
> profit is not possible in a free society. And, if the government would
> start competently enforcing immigration regulations, the downward
> pressure on wages caused by people working off the books for lower than
> minimums would disappear.
I agree with the point about immigration. But I go a lot further and
look for a return of tariffs. There was a time when I thought it could
be avoided. I no longer think that.
Balanced View
> forbi...@msn.com wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 8:45 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps you need to reflect on the role invention and innovation
>>> have on
>>> creating demand, and get back to us.
>>
>> They have none.
>
> They have plenty. In the industrial society, the corporation is
> originally founded with an invention or innovation. (I suppose you
> could argue that there is an unrealized demand, but that's really not
> key to the assertation. Even though, I would point out that if there's
> no demand creation, the thing called "marketing" wouldn't exist.)
>
> The invention of innovation is then followed by capital, implying
> risk, and then (finally) followed by labor necessary to create the
> invention or innovation.
>
> At any rate, we are drifting far afield from the original topic.
>
> JG
>
None of it works if people don't have the disposable income to purchase
" the innovation"
John Galt
No. I call it what it is. "Demand generation."
JG
>
John Galt
You don't have a choice. You're a free country, where people are allowed
to make their own rational choices regarding such matters.
If you don't, your citizens start noticing on their travels that the
Chinese are paying a quarter for their undershorts while you're paying
three bucks, and before you know it, a thriving black market in
underwear (and any other goods that can be smuggled in for a profit)
exists, with its attendant Mafia-style violence, with high profile
killings of import agents and the like. You start arresting little old
ladies (who are just trying to make a buck to combat the
protectionist-caused high cost of living) at the airport with
suitcases-full of underwear, which is bad PR for the politicians.
Entrepeneurs, enabled by the internet age, start flowing capital out of
the country into manufacturing investments overseas, because the
protectionist environment has thrown the domestic risk/reward ratio for
investment out of whack. Finally, a thriving political opposition
develops, pointing out the growing standard of living of the developing
nations and the (serious!) declining standard of living in ours, with
your politicians confronted with throngs of angry voters all waving
undershorts and chanting pro-Chinese underwear slogans. Finally, the
bums are voted out, and in comes the underwear.
>
>> I
>>> know that the women did. But the men did not. The bottom line is that
>>> we need higher wages at the expense of rent, interest, and profit.
>> Well, you're getting lowered rents and interest as we speak. Controlling
>> profit is not possible in a free society. And, if the government would
>> start competently enforcing immigration regulations, the downward
>> pressure on wages caused by people working off the books for lower than
>> minimums would disappear.
>
> I agree with the point about immigration. But I go a lot further and
> look for a return of tariffs. There was a time when I thought it could
> be avoided. I no longer think that.
If tariffs are reinstated, we wither on the vine. You can have the place
-- I'm outta here on that one, because it foresages the ultimate decline
of America. (BTW, the problems we face with trade are not because we
have dropped OUR barriers, but because our primary *new* trading
partners (China, India, Russia) we have no free trade agreement with.
But, there's little risk of that. There are few more vociferous
defenders of free trade as a necessary component of future prosperity
than Volker, Geitner, Summers, and Goolsby.
JG
John Galt
Depends. I don't know if the proper descriptor is "much" or "most", but
a significant amount of innovation results in lowered cost for the
product compared to its previous versions. The Japanese, for example,
obtained their ORIGINAL price advantage against us (back in the 80's) by
incorporating the Deming manufacturing quality principles. This enabled
them to manufacture autos in a given class less expensively and of
higher quality, while at the same time Detroit was deciding that
implementing the Deming principles was too difficult or too expensive, I
can't recall which.
JG
forbi...@msn.com
How, then, did it support your comment:
Perhaps you need to reflect on the role invention and innovation
have on creating demand, and get back to us.
As it turns out, I've been thinking for years about the ethics
of marketing and various style of marketing. I happen to think
that using marketing to link supply to demand is ethical but
generating demand where none existed isn't.
Vid...@tcq.net
you do not. you think that innovation comes first, then labor is
hired to create the product. it works the opposite. innovation and
creativity follows disposable income.
the industrial revolution came after the start of a growing middle
class in the western world. the industrial revolution would have
failed, as other periods of innovation failed thru out human history,
because there was no middle class, or a top down weak democracy like
the roman empire quickly squashed their middle class.
we see today car companies world wide are being very innovative, yet,
they are not rolling out their new cars next year, even the japanese
car companies are not, why? because there is little or no demand for
their products.
you think that if they are innovative, walla, it will sell. that
works well with a large middle class, with disposable income, and the
leisure time to enjoy it.
but, it does not work well with a small middle class, under intense
wage and leisure time pressure. or no middle class at all.
demand creates profit, creativity and innovation chase disposable
income.
> JG
>
> . not so. even today.
>
then the car companies world wide will be rolling out new innovative
cars with out the help of their governments. all three german car
companies are now being bankrolled by the german government. they
should not need help at all. the innovative gas stingy cars should
sell themselves in droves.
all of the japanese car companies are buring thru cash, with
plummeting sales, and even are losing their triple aaa ratings. yet
their cars are very innovative. ignore reality, your type is good at
that.
Vid...@tcq.net
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:32:53 -0600, John Galt wrote:
> > Michael Coburn wrote:
> >> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:43:47 -0600, John Galt wrote:
>
i am not going to start a fight with you. but, as time goes by, you
are moving closer to all of my positions. happy turkey day, and i mean
it:)
Vid...@tcq.net
that is correct. innovation and creativity chase disposable income.
the industrial revolution was not a quirk, or a false start like other
periods of human history. it followed a growing middle class.
Vid...@tcq.net
> Michael Coburn wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:32:53 -0600, John Galt wrote:
>
> >> Michael Coburn wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:43:47 -0600, John Galt wrote:
>
ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT DO YOU THINK THE WTO
IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! tariffs work. remove tariffs,
and we have today. you are gullible, that grasps at any straw the free
market think tanks desperately throw out there for the herds. you
ignore history and reality to your own peril. there is a country that
is completely free, somalia.
Vid...@tcq.net
the japanese had just lost a war because of their top down society,
and a small miserable middle class. they were forced at gun point to
create a large vibrant middle class, which then was able to innovate.
John Galt
A robust middle class is essential to a functioning democratic society.
I said nothing to the contrary, and thus, ignore nothing.
JG
John Galt
Tell us. Make sure you mention all the usual conspiracy theories. I'll
be disappointed in you if you don't mention the Jews, Rothchilds, and
Masons. (If you can work in UFO's, I'll really be impressed.
tariffs work. remove tariffs,
> and we have today. you are gullible, that grasps at any straw the free
> market think tanks desperately throw out there for the herds. you
> ignore history and reality to your own peril. there is a country that
> is completely free, somalia.
Ah, the "Somalia" canard. :-)
JG
John Galt
I'll explain my own views, thank you very much, and I'll so do with a
good deal more clarity and panache than you.
JG
John Galt
Did we know we needed Windows before it was released? (Or, did your wife
know she needed a $300 handbag until one was marketed?)
The nuance here is that the innovator often perceives that demand will
be generated when availability exists. I think it obvious that although
people weren't clamoring for washing machines, the inventor, having
observed the effort of clothes-washing by his mother and spouse (or
perhaps himself), had a good sense that such a product would be both
marketable and profitable.
In a technological society, the inventor/innovator is the driver of new
ideas. Not being an inventor, I can't think of anything offhand that I
need is not already available. However, some inventor, watching me (and
others) do what we do on a daily basis, might say "you know, if I
invented one of THESE, these guys would buy it."
Now, where's the demand? PRIOR to invention? PRIOR to capitalization?
PRIOR to manufacturing (and hiring labor to build it? PRIOR to product
release? Or AFTER all these activities?
Depends on how you're defining "demand", eh? If "demand" is a measurable
clamoring for a good or service PRIOR to its availability in the market,
then demand obviously lags invention. If "demand", OTOH, is the belief
that such a clamoring WILL EXIST on availability, then THAT demand
predates invention.
JG
JG
Michael Coburn
You can tell when a guy is trapped. It take a lot of wind to get away.
The Republican reverses cause and effect with the support of the bought
and paid for neoclassical nimrods. The effect of a tax shift from income
taxes (or sales taxes) to import duties is not harmful to the taxpayers
in the first instance. It is downright salutary in the broader case
where incomes rise (due to local manufacturing and consumption) and more
taxes are collected from income tax than would have otherwise been the
case or income taxes are further reduced.
>>
>>> I
>>>> know that the women did. But the men did not. The bottom line is
>>>> that we need higher wages at the expense of rent, interest, and
>>>> profit.
>>> Well, you're getting lowered rents and interest as we speak.
>>> Controlling profit is not possible in a free society. And, if the
>>> government would start competently enforcing immigration regulations,
>>> the downward pressure on wages caused by people working off the books
>>> for lower than minimums would disappear.
>>
>> I agree with the point about immigration. But I go a lot further and
>> look for a return of tariffs. There was a time when I thought it could
>> be avoided. I no longer think that.
>
> If tariffs are reinstated, we wither on the vine.
BWAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! A scare tactic like "The Martians are
comming". There was a time that I fell for it. No More.
> You can have the place
> -- I'm outta here on that one, because it foresages the ultimate decline
> of America.
Most of the sane people are lOOKING at the "ultimate decline of America"
and we got here by listening to the likes of you.
> (BTW, the problems we face with trade are not because we
> have dropped OUR barriers, but because our primary *new* trading
> partners (China, India, Russia) we have no free trade agreement with.
Horseshit.
> But, there's little risk of that. There are few more vociferous
> defenders of free trade as a necessary component of future prosperity
> than Volker, Geitner, Summers, and Goolsby.
Yes. That is a problem.
John Galt
Au contraire. The "let's not trade with them" argument is one of the
easiest to blow away, because it has no rational basis.
> The Republican reverses cause and effect with the support of the bought
> and paid for neoclassical nimrods. The effect of a tax shift from income
> taxes (or sales taxes) to import duties is not harmful to the taxpayers
> in the first instance.
Please explain how making inexpensive goods of choice more expensive is
not harmful to the citizenry.
After you explain that, I'll risk wasting my time reading the rest of
your usual blather.
JG
Vid...@tcq.net
you are right, but you do not accept the truth of your statement. the
industrial revolution was successful because of a growing middle
class. the middle class made the industrial revolution possible.
Vid...@tcq.net
your weak attempt at deflection is a joke. you ignored the true
statement that we have the wto, and its not working:)
> tariffs work. remove tariffs,
>
> > and we have today. you are gullible, that grasps at any straw the free
> > market think tanks desperately throw out there for the herds. you
> > ignore history and reality to your own peril. there is a country that
> > is completely free, somalia.
>
> Ah, the "Somalia" canard. :-)
>
no, its what you want. a type liberty. your liberty does not work. as
we are typing this, the world is pulling back, and free trade is
collapsing rather quickly, just as it did in the late 1920's:)
Vid...@tcq.net
sorry, i thought something as simple as demand creates profit, is
about as easy as it gets.
Vid...@tcq.net
windows was a result of demand.
> The nuance here is that the innovator often perceives that demand will
> be generated when availability exists. I think it obvious that although
> people weren't clamoring for washing machines, the inventor, having
> observed the effort of clothes-washing by his mother and spouse (or
> perhaps himself), had a good sense that such a product would be both
> marketable and profitable.
>
yes, there was a demand for the product, because labor had the money
to pay for it.
> In a technological society, the inventor/innovator is the driver of new
> ideas. Not being an inventor, I can't think of anything offhand that I
> need is not already available.
i can. but i have about 15 projects on hold, and two in my brain that
i will not bother with till demand returns.
However, some inventor, watching me (and
> others) do what we do on a daily basis, might say "you know, if I
> invented one of THESE, these guys would buy it."
>
yes, creativity, and innovation, chases disposable income and leisure
time:)
> Now, where's the demand? PRIOR to invention?
you do not understand. labor represents demand, after all, labor is
also the consumer. you just said it yourself,
"However, some inventor, watching me (and
others) do what we do on a daily basis, might say "you know, if I
invented one of THESE, these guys would buy it."
if labor(demand)could no longer afford to buy what the innovator
comes up with, then demand is everything, and that is how the real
world works.
PRIOR to capitalization?
capitalization comes from profits. profits are the result of demand
(labor).
> PRIOR to manufacturing (and hiring labor to build it? PRIOR to product
> release? Or AFTER all these activities?
>
creativity and innovation is the harvesting of disposable income and
leisure time of demand, labor.
> Depends on how you're defining "demand", eh? If "demand" is a measurable
> clamoring for a good or service PRIOR to its availability in the market,
> then demand obviously lags invention. If "demand", OTOH, is the belief
> that such a clamoring WILL EXIST on availability, then THAT demand
> predates invention.
>
demand creates the atmosphere for innovation and creativity. we are
watching your type of economics fizzling fast. no matter how much
money is thrown at the supply side. the demand side, labor, can no
longer consume. that means cutbacks in innovation and creativity, and
manufacturing.
> JG
>
> JG
Vid...@tcq.net
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 07:46:03 -0600, John Galt wrote:
> > Michael Coburn wrote:
> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:32:53 -0600, John Galt wrote:
>
> >>> Michael Coburn wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:43:47 -0600, John Galt wrote:
>
free trade is like a illegal tax on americans. we have had trillions
of dollars of debt thrown on america to finance free trade. that
illegal tax has become a huge burden on america. to pay back americans
for that illegal tax, we must re-institute tariffs.
Vid...@tcq.net
> Michael Coburn wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 07:46:03 -0600, John Galt wrote:
>
> >> Michael Coburn wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:32:53 -0600, John Galt wrote:
>
> >>>> Michael Coburn wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:43:47 -0600, John Galt wrote:
>
that is the position of a extremist, either or. tariffs do not keep
out products, its simply a tax on lost production. when you consume
your own products, you create a profit, and that adds to our bottom
line. when we consume foreign owned, or foreign made products, we
create debt.
> > The Republican reverses cause and effect with the support of the bought
> > and paid for neoclassical nimrods. The effect of a tax shift from income
> > taxes (or sales taxes) to import duties is not harmful to the taxpayers
> > in the first instance.
>
> Please explain how making inexpensive goods of choice more expensive is
> not harmful to the citizenry.
>
consuming foreign made cheap products, not only creates debt, it
undercuts demand. no demand, no profits. when demand is forced to work
for wages that after adjusting for inflation are at around 1973
levels, then demand plummets. its what we are going thru today. to get
rid of all of those products, deflation sets in.
> After you explain that, I'll risk wasting my time reading the rest of
> your usual blather.
>
he is correct of course.
Michael Coburn
What's to explain. Instead of paying tax in one way I pay it in a
different way. I have neither lost nor gained anything. It is a tax
shift as opposed to an increase. A hula hoop costs more but my income
tax bill or sales tax bill went down. The money I have left is still the
same and I still have a hula hoop.
John Galt
Not at all. Let's step through the process.
1) The government decides it's better to have US garment workers making
your skivvies than the Chinese, because the Chinese make squat and a US
garment worker makes $20 an hour. So, they institute a tariff on
imported Chinese skivvies so as to force the price of said skivvies up
to US levels or above.
2) The Chinese stop exporting skivvies, as the US is no longer a
profitable market for them. This causes a quick drop in skivvy
availability, forcing up demand and thus the price of domestic skivvies.
3) After a few months of windfall profits, demand for skivvies drops
precipitously. Why? Because a $5 skivvy is worth repairing and wearing
until it drops off your body.
4) Two years after the tariff is put in place, the domestic skivvy
manufacturers are in dire straits and laying off people, due to the
depressed demand for skivvies.
So, the usual cycle repeats itself. The government raises the price of a
good with a tariff; people respond by changing their buying habits. In
the end, the government hasn't collected s**t from the tariff, since
foreign manufacturers stopped exporting, a few (but far less than
projected) garment workers have benefited, and the entire populace of
the United States ended up being penalized from a financial and
convenience perspective.
Is there something you assume will happen in addition to the above? If
so, let it rip.
JG
John Galt
Please. It obviously depends on how high you put the tariff. The
assumption in the US has always been that since we were the largest and
richest single market with legendary levels of consumer consumption,
that foreign exporters would pay just about anything to get their goods
here.
Now, look around you. We're not the only large and rich market anymore,
and our consumer consumption is down.
< when you consume
> your own products, you create a profit, and that adds to our bottom
> line. when we consume foreign owned, or foreign made products, we
> create debt.
Listen carefully. Why do I, as a citizen, give a fuck about the
macroeconomics of the situation?
Answer -- I don't. If the price of a good or service (or a tax, for that
matter) goes up, whether or not the macroeconomic effect is good or bad,
that's that much less money I have at my disposal to do what I want
with. If you raise my cost of living $30 a month by a tax, by forcing an
increase in the cost of goods purchased, whatever, I might have to drop
my kid's piano lessons.
That pisses me off, and it should.
JG
John Galt
Change of subject. We were talking about when the innovator hires the
manufacturer juxtaposed against demand. Obviously, the manufacturer
doesn't get hired unless the innovator thinks he can make a buck.
Obviously.
JG
John Galt
And it remains a joke.
>
>
>> tariffs work. remove tariffs,
>>
>>> and we have today. you are gullible, that grasps at any straw the free
>>> market think tanks desperately throw out there for the herds. you
>>> ignore history and reality to your own peril. there is a country that
>>> is completely free, somalia.
>> Ah, the "Somalia" canard. :-)
>>
>
> no, its what you want. a type liberty. your liberty does not work.
Liberty always works -- it's a matter of scope. 100% self-determination
is anarchy, 0% self-determination is totalitarianism. You're apparently
far more comfortable with that latter than I am.
as
> we are typing this, the world is pulling back, and free trade is
> collapsing rather quickly, just as it did in the late 1920's:)
Yep. And about to begin another successful cycle. Using the same
principles.
As it should. What's the challenge in life if there's no risk of failure?
JG
John Galt
Do you even bother to read what you write? The above is a three sentence
contradiction.
JG
Balanced View
>
>>
>>
>
>
> demand creates the atmosphere for innovation and creativity. we are
> watching your type of economics fizzling fast. no matter how much
> money is thrown at the supply side. the demand side, labor, can no
> longer consume. that means cutbacks in innovation and creativity, and
> manufacturing.
>
>
>
Exactly, there have been huge increases in productivity, but very little
in the raise in pay to labour.
Without money the consumer can't buy the product, no matter how
beneficial it may be.
The capitalist answer to this was to increase credit rather than
increase pay, and when that was tapping
out , move production off shore to further lower prices rather than
increase the pay of it's workers in its
main market.
The truth be told this whole market would have tanked much sooner if
cheap goods from offshore
had not been introduced, subsidizing Americans stagnant incomes. One
only has to compare the price
of mundane items made in North America ten years ago to a comparable
product from China today. EG.
yesterday I got a flier from an automotive chain store offering a air
impact driver and chisel set
for less than I paid for just a lower end American made impact driver I
purchased ten years ago. Yesterday I
purchased a 21 piece screwdriver set for $20.95, to replace individual
American made screwdrivers
I purchased in the mid 1980's for $1.95- $3.95 each.
Stan de SD
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 14:11:34 -0800, Igor The Terrible wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 4:11 pm, "Kickin' Ass & Takin' Names"
> > <PopUlist...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Senator Jon Kyl (Republicon, Arizona):
>
> >> -- quote
>
> >> "For years they’ve been sick. They have a bad business model. They have
> >> contracts negotiated with the United Auto Workers that impose huge
> >> costs.The average hourly cost per worker in this country is about
> >> $28.48. For these auto makers (note: GM, Ford, Chrysler), it’s $73.
> >> And for the Japanese auto companies working here in the United States,
> >> it’s $48."
>
> >> -- end quote
>
> >> Kyl is lying about UAW labor costs being $73 per hour.
>
> >> The average GM assembly-line worker makes about $28 per hour in wages,
> >> and I can assure you that GM is not paying $42 an hour in health
> >> insurance and pension plan contributions. Rather, the $70 per hour
> >> figure (or $73 an hour, or whatever) is a ridiculous number obtained by
> >> adding up GM's total labor, health, and pension costs, and then
> >> dividing by the total number of hours worked. In other words, it
> >> includes all the healthcare and retirement costs of retired workers.
>
> >> The reason the US and Japanese companies have different total costs for
> >> their American workers? The US companies have been employing American
> >> workers for almost a hundred years. They have a lot of retirees. Most
> >> of the Japanese auto plants in the US are less than 20 years old. They
> >> have almost no retirees, so their costs are only for active workers.
>
> >> So, why is this pernicious falsehood about inflated wages bouncing
> >> around the public discourse on the auto industry? Several reasons.
>
> >> First, it demonizes unions and their members as greedy and not
> >> interested in the long-term health and profitability of the
> >> corporations with which they sign contracts. It also ignores the fact
> >> that in 2007 the UAW signed a landmark contract in which they assumed
> >> future responsibility for healthcare for their members employed by the
> >> Big Three. The auto companies paid in to a fund, which will be
> >> administered by the UAW. Over the long haul, this is expected to
> >> radically decrease the auto companies' legacy costs (although the best
> >> way to help company and union is to pass national health care).
>
> >> Making false claims inflating the earnings of unionized workers is also
> >> part of the Republicans' long-held practice of class warfare. It's
> >> intended to gin up envy and disgust at people making a good hourly
> >> wage. Few people would be unsympathetic to an auto worker for making
> >> $58,000 per year. But more would feel unsympathetic if they thought
> >> that same auto worker made $73 per hour, which over the course of a
> >> year is over $150,000.
>
> >> Finally, harping on imaginary and inflated wages for workers is a way
> >> to distract from one of the big problems with the US auto companies
> >> (and most US corporations in any sector): executive compensation. For
> >> instance, in 2007 General Motors CEO Rick Waggoner made close to $20
> >> million in total compensation.
>
> >> Are you surprised that conservatives are playing with math to come up
> >> with the false figure of $73 per hour for UAW members working at the
> >> Big Three, while saying nothing about a Big Three CEO making $9,500.00
> >> per hour?
>
> >> Me neither.
>
> > Personally, I'd like to see all unions, guilds and other forms of
> > labor/professional associations shit canned. All have outlived their
> > usefulness and have proven themselves to be more of a liability than an
> > asset to our economy.
>
> canned. The labor unions simply need to unite and demand a decent social
> safety net and single payer national health insurance. In addition they
> need to be the cop on the beat as regards working conditions.
And who's supposed to pay for it when their employer can't cover the
cost?
Stan de SD
> Mason C wrote:
> >>> Personally, I'd like to see all unions, guilds and other forms of
> >>> labor/professional associations shit canned. All have outlived their
> >>> usefulness and have proven themselves to be more of a liability than an
> >>> asset to our economy.
>
>
> > Turn off the regulations and destroy the financial system.
>
> > Turn off the unions and destroy the workers.
>
> > History lesson: it was the unions that gave the workers enough to
> > buy the products they were making -- thereby made our wealthy
> > economy possible.
>
> That's only half the story. If the corporations aren't profitable, the
> unions cannot extract anything from them.
Note the considerable pressure for the auto industry bailout from the
unions. The fact that their pension liabilities are crippling the US
automaker's ability to compete doesn't seem to register any
acknowledgement of culpability in the current debacle. They will just
line of for their share of the bailot loot. You can thank BOTH major
political parties for enabling the entitlement mentality among the
population at large... :O|
Balanced View
Unions are not the problem. Labor costs now make up 8 percent to 10
percent of the cost of a vehicle.
The unions have already made big concessions to cut pay to $14 per hour
for the new hires replacing the
20,000 union members who took buyouts to retire early .
John Galt
I agree.
JG
Adam Russell
"John Galt" <kad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:blZXk.341584$5p1.2...@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com...
They work for 40 years with the understanding that in return they will get a
pension and you think that they should not be entitled to what was agreed to
by contract? Taking that away now is like selling someone a house then 40
years later saying "ok i want my house back, get out".
John Galt
Did you add in the cost of the retirees?
JG
Balanced View
> Balanced View wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Unions are not the problem. Labor costs now make up 8 percent to 10
>> percent of the cost of a vehicle.
>
> Did you add in the cost of the retirees?
At GM it's being taken over by the UAW in 2010 under VEBA, another
concession they made back in 2007.
John Galt
I think the situation is far more complicated than that question implies.
First off, the auto manufacturers must stay in business (and preferably
without the government taking money from the competent and giving it to
the incompetent) in order for anything to be paid at all. No contract
commitment can get somebody paid when the bank account is empty. If GM
fails, then the pensions go to the government, and the pensioners will
get some percentage on the dollar.
Second, no company can know what their financial situation will be in
decades. Thus, any pension contract can only be viewed as the best
intent of the company at the time, and not much more. At the time of
payout, the money might be there, the money might not. Four decades
following, nobody really knows.
Pensions are futures contracts. They pay if the money's there. If the
money's there, they don't pay.
> Taking that away now is like selling someone a
> house then 40 years later saying "ok i want my house back, get out".
I disagree. It's more like a deal that says "I'm going to give you this
house when you retire, unless I can't afford it."
JG
Vid...@tcq.net
>
> Note the considerable pressure for the auto industry bailout from the
> unions. The fact that their pension liabilities are crippling the US
> automaker's ability to compete doesn't seem to register any
> acknowledgement of culpability in the current debacle. They will just
> line of for their share of the bailot loot. You can thank BOTH major
> political parties for enabling the entitlement mentality among the
> population at large... :O|
how can one person be so stupid, its almost impossible not to see
that this is hitting all car makers world wide. the more idiots like
you post, the more educated the average person becomes to conservative/
libertarian nut case economics.
keep up the good work, do not pay attention to reality, keep opening
your stupid mouth which is not connected to anything. you do a better
job educating, than you realize:)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=a9a5EurW52oc
VW, Porsche Halt Work as Slump Touches Europe's Auto Heartland
By Andreas Cremer
Nov. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Volkswagen AG and Porsche SE said they'll
suspend production at their hometown plants in coming weeks as the
global recession reaches to the heart of the German automotive
industry, Europe's biggest.
VW will shutter its factory in Wolfsburg from Dec. 18 to Jan. 11,
according to a company official who declined to be identified. Porsche
will halt output in Stuttgart for seven days between now and the end
of January. Each plant is its owner's biggest and located at the
global headquarters.
Volkswagen employs 44,000 people in Wolfsburg, a quarter of its
175,000-strong German workforce. Production is being cut after vehicle
sales fell 5.1 percent last month, even with a lineup of models such
as the Golf and Polo that is regarded as well-suited to customer
requirements for smaller, less-costly and more fuel-efficient cars.
Porsche suffered a 50 percent drop in deliveries in October, including
a 40 percent decline in sales of its trademark 911 sports car.
"I don't think that Porsche's customers have suddenly fallen into
poverty, but they're reacting to the fact that it may be inappropriate
to pull up in a new Porsche when their neighbor's house is being
foreclosed," said Christoph Stuermer, an analyst at research firm IHS
Global Insight in Frankfurt. For VW, the closure shows the new Golf
"can't defy gravity," he said.
Shares Decline
Porsche dropped 3.23 euros, or 5.8 percent, to 52.77 euros in
Frankfurt trading. VW, which is part-owned by Porsche, fell 74.71
euros, or 23 percent, to 255 euros, the most since Oct. 29. Its
decline was intensified as investors sold stock to match a reweighting
of the company in global indexes compiled by MSCI, due to take place
tonight.
Volkswagen, Europe's largest carmaker, will also shutter parts of the
Wolfsburg plant on Dec. 5, the official said. In addition to the next
generation of the best-selling Golf, the factory makes components for
the Golf-based Variant station wagon and assembles the Touran minivan
and Tiguan compact sport-utility vehicle. The halt in production has
yet to be approved by management and labor representatives.
"No company is able to extricate itself from this crisis, not even
Volkswagen," said Frank Schwope, a Hanover-based analyst at NordLB
with a "sell" recommendation on the stock. "It would be a delusion for
any carmaker to expect to get through this maelstrom without extending
Christmas vacation."
Production at Porsche's Stuttgart plant was already halted for one day
last week, the company said in a statement, without specifying on
which days the other closures will fall. Wages won't be affected
because of overtime already banked by workers.
Georg Stuerzer, a Munich-based analyst with UniCredit, said the stock-
market reaction to Porsche's announcement was "much too negative" as
the stoppages equate to only about 1,500 cars.
Jobs Slashed
Other European carmakers are already firing or laying off workers to
rein in production and clear inventories of unsold vehicles that have
grown since the start of the year.
PSA Peugeot Citroen, Europe's second-biggest carmaker, plans to slash
3,550 posts through voluntary departures, among them 2,700 office
jobs, the Paris-based company said Nov. 20. The cuts follow the
elimination of 15,000 positions in the past two years as the company
sought to reduce costs.
Renault SA, the French No. 2., has almost "no production left to cut"
this year after announcing 6,000 job cuts in the summer and shuttering
several plants through December, Michel Gornet, head of manufacturing
and logistics, said Nov. 18.
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, the world's largest maker of luxury
autos, is reducing the global workforce by 8,100 people. The company
will also eliminate 500 temporary posts at its factory in Leipzig,
Germany, it said today.
Volkswagen share-price decline reduces gains this year to 63 percent
and values the company at 79 billion euros.
MSCI Adjustment
MSCI said Nov. 17 it would consider 40 percent of VW's common equity
as so-called free float for its indexes, down from 50 percent
previously. Funds whose only mandate is to mirror company weightings
must reduce their holdings in the carmaker when the change happens
tonight as part of MSCI's semi-annual rebalance of indexes.
Volkswagen's free float, or pool of shares available to trade, was cut
after Porsche said Oct. 26 it owned a 42.6 percent stake and options
equivalent to a further 31.5 percent. VW accounts for 0.34 percent of
the MSCI World Index, and 8.8 percent of the MSCI Germany, Bloomberg
data show.
To contact the reporter on this story: Andreas Cremer in Berlin at
acr...@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: November 25, 2008 12:15 EST
american hating conservatives who blame union workers, are caught
lying again:Nissan Motor Co. is burning thru cash, Japan's third-
largest automaker, said it won't display its latest car and truck
models at the Detroit or Chicago auto shows as the company works to
conserve funds amid sagging industrywide demand
nissan burning thru cash
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aH4PKXzyZB7I
Nissan Pulling Out of Detroit, Chicago Auto Shows (Update2)
By Alan Ohnsman
Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Nissan Motor Co., Japan's third- largest
automaker, said it won't display its latest car and truck models at
the Detroit or Chicago auto shows as the company works to conserve
funds amid sagging industrywide demand.
Nissan last week unveiled three new models at the Los Angeles Auto
Show and had no major model line additions that would be ready for the
Detroit show in January, Alan Buddendeck, Nissan's vice president of
corporate communications for North America, said in an interview
today.
With its decision, Tokyo-based Nissan becomes the seventh carmaker to
pull out of Detroit, the main U.S. showcase for new models. Last week
Mitsubishi Motors Corp., Japan's fifth-largest automaker, said it
wouldn't attend Detroit this year, following similar decisions by
Suzuki Motor Corp., Ferrari SpA, Land Rover and Bayerische Motoren
Werke AG's Rolls-Royce. Porsche SE abandoned Detroit in 2007.
"It's a surprise for Nissan to cancel, since they are one of the
Japanese Big 3 and you'd expect them to have a presence at every major
auto show," said George Peterson, president of industry consultant
AutoPacific Inc. in Tustin, California.
"Given how weak the market is right now, it's also understandable
since these shows are very expensive events, and can cost millions of
dollars in some cases," Peterson said.
Slowing Demand
Industrywide U.S. sales of new autos have fallen 15 percent this year,
and dropped 32 percent in October as the credit crunch cut loan access
and a sagging economy pushed consumer confidence to a record low.
Nissan's U.S. deliveries are down 6.2 percent in 2008.
General Motors Corp. canceled plans this month to unveil new models in
Los Angeles, citing a need to conserve funds.
"It's no slight against Detroit or Chicago," Buddendeck said. "We had
good success with the three vehicles announced in Los Angeles and
those announcements are the same ones we would have discussed at the
other shows."
Nissan in Los Angeles unveiled a U.S. version of its box- shaped Cube
wagon that goes on sale early next year, as well as the 370Z sports
coupe and convertible version of its Infiniti G37 luxury car.
Nissan's U.S. operations are based in Franklin, Tennessee. The
company's American depositary receipts rose 6.3 percent to $7.58 at
5:20 p.m. New York time in Nasdaq Stock Market composite trading.
To contact the reporter on this story: Alan Ohnsman in Los Angeles at
aohn...@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: November 24, 2008 18:34 EST
lying american hating conservatives blame the workers, whilst
automakers around the world are reeling just like detroit is:Car sales
in Europe have fallen dramatically since July, with an estimated 17
percent drop in the fourth quarter alone
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081120/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_france_peugeot_citroen
Peugeot Citroen to cut 2,700 jobs
PARIS - French automaker PSA Peugeot Citroen said Thursday it plans to
cut 2,700 jobs in response to the worsening economic crisis that has
seen European car sales plummet.
The plan, to be carried out through voluntary departures, is necessary
because doing nothing "could throw into question, in the long run, the
very survival of the group and its 200,000 jobs," the company said in
a statement.
In a statement, the car maker said the cuts would be made "at all
sites and in all group departments."
Car sales in Europe have fallen dramatically since July, with an
estimated 17 percent drop in the fourth quarter alone, Peugeot Citroen
said.
"This recession will continue in 2009," the company warned, with a
minimum decline of 10 percent Europe-wide for the year, Peugeot
Citroen forecast.
The carmaker also announced a plan to shift about 900 factory workers
from its plant in Rennes to other sites, because of a "significant
drop" in demand for the mid- to upper-range sedans built at Rennes.
Peugeot shares fell on the news, and at 0930 GMT were down 3.3 percent
at 12.89 ($16.29).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lying conservatives, filled with hate and rage against the american
worker, have been caught lying again: PSA Peugeot CitroenEurope's
second- biggest carmaker, plans to cut 3,550 jobs through voluntary
departures as the region's auto-market downturn gathers pace
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aKVorLa7.luQ
Peugeot to Cut 3,550 Jobs on `Violent' Sales Slump (Update1)
By Laurence Frost
Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) --, PSA Peugeot CitroenEurope's second- biggest
carmaker, plans to cut 3,550 jobs through voluntary departures as the
region's auto-market downturn gathers pace.
Peugeot aims to eliminate 2,700 white-collar positions across France
and 850 at its plant in Rennes, France, the Paris- based carmaker said
in a statement today.
The plan is a response to the ``financial and industrial crisis
affecting the whole economy, leading to a violent decline in sales,''
Peugeot said.
European auto registrations plunged almost 15 percent in October, with
Peugeot's dropping 16 percent, as housing slumps in Spain, the U.K.
and Italy compounded consumers' worries and discouraged large
purchases. Along with smaller domestic rival Renault SA, Peugeot is
temporarily shuttering plants to reduce inventories of unsold
vehicles.
An additional 900 factory workers at Rennes will be asked to choose
between transfers to other French plants or voluntary departures,
company spokesman Pierre-Olivier Salmon said in a telephone interview.
``This wasn't part of our planning,'' he said. ``We thought the job
cuts carried out last year would be enough, but the economic crisis
has changed that.''
The Rennes plant assembles the Citroen C5 and Peugeot 407 mid-sized
cars, a category of vehicle whose sales have been hurt by higher fuel
costs and new environmental taxes on larger engines, in addition to
the overall market decline.
The cuts are in addition to 3,000 voluntary departures Peugeot
announced in February, after cutting 8,200 French jobs in 2007 and
2,100 elsewhere in Europe.
Peugeot fell as much as 62 cents, or 4.7 percent, to 12.71 euros in
Paris trading, the fifth straight daily decline, and was down 3.8
percent as of 10:17 a.m.
To contact the reporter on this story: Laurence Frost in Paris at
lfr...@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: November 20, 2008 04:17 EST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lying american hating conservatives caught lying again:Toyota Motor
Corp. said Wednesday it will reduce production in the United States to
cope with slowing sales in the world's largest economy
http://www.startribune.com/local/34732514.html?elr=KArksUUUU
Toyota to reduce output, trim temporary workers in US amid slowing
sales
Associated Press
Last update: November 19, 2008 - 5:49 AM
TOKYO - Toyota Motor Corp. said Wednesday it will reduce production in
the United States to cope with slowing sales in the world's largest
economy.
Toyota will stop production at all its plants in the U.S. and Canada
for two extra days in addition to the regular Christmas holidays next
month, and cut about half of 500 temporary workers at a plant in
Georgetown, Kentucky by March, company spokeswoman Kayo Doi said.
Beginning January, Japan's top automaker plans to reduce production of
the Sienna minivan at its Indiana plant, and slow a line for the Camry
and Avalon sedans at the Kentucky plant, Doi said.
At New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. in Fremont, California -- its
joint venture with General Motors Corp. -- Toyota will eliminate a
shift producing the Tacoma pickup truck.
The production cuts are the latest effort by the company to deal with
shrinking demand in the U.S., which is expected to slip into recession
this year.
Earlier this month, Toyota said net profit for the July-September
quarter plunged 69 percent and downgraded its full-year profit
forecast to about a third of last year's result. Officials said the
company is also assessing its manufacturing operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lying american hating conservatives caught in a lie again:Honda,
Japan's second-largest carmaker, retreated 4.8 percent to 1,814 yen
after it said yesterday it will trim production at U.S. plants by
18,000 more cars, bringing total cuts to 50,000 units since August
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aSLyxXcu.ua0&refer=home
Asian Stocks Fall for 5th Day as Recession Deepens; Honda Drops
By Kyung Bok Cho and Shani Raja
Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Asian stocks fell for the fifth day after oil
plunged below $50, Taiwan and Singapore forecast further contractions,
and U.S. unemployment claims approached a 26-year high as the global
slowdown deepens.
Woodside Petroleum Ltd., Australia's No. 2 oil producer, slumped 7.2
percent as crude declined to its lowest since May 2005. Canon Inc. and
Nintendo Co., which get at least three- quarters of their sales from
overseas markets, slid more than 4 percent. Honda Motor Co., earning
more than half its sales in North America, dropped 4.8 percent after
saying it will cut production there further.
``Markets are progressively pricing in a deeper and more prolonged
recession,'' said Prasad Patkar, who helps manage about $800 million
at Platypus Asset Management in Sydney. ``A depression is too ugly to
contemplate. It's an ultra-low probability, but not zero
probability.''
The MSCI Asia Pacific Index slumped 1.8 percent to 73.81 at 10:22 a.m.
in Tokyo, set for its lowest close since Aug. 19, 2003. The gauge is
set to lose 11 percent this week, the second-biggest weekly decline on
record.
The index has plunged 53 percent in 2008 as global financial
companies' losses and writedowns from the collapse of the U.S.
subprime-mortgage market passed $950 billion. Rallies have fizzled --
most recently a 25 percent gain posted in the seven trading days
following Oct. 27 -- as the economies of the U.S., Japan and the euro-
zone enter recession.
Japan's Nikkei 225 Stock Average lost 2.8 percent to 7,487.09. The
Bank of Japan will conclude its policy meeting today, with interest
rates expected to remain unchanged.
Benchmark indexes in Taiwan and Singapore lost more than 2 percent
after the nations said their economies will contract as exports
decline.
Resources Fall
South Korea's Kospi index was on course for its longest losing streak
since September 2000 as it fell for the ninth day. KB Financial Group
Inc. led declines after UBS AG said the economy will shrink 3 percent
next year, compared with a previous forecast for an expansion.
U.S. stocks tumbled yesterday, with the Standard & Poor's 500 Index
dropping 6.7 percent to its lowest in 11 years, as economic data
pointed to a worsening recession and lawmakers postponed a vote on a
plan to salvage the auto industry. Futures on the S&P 500 advanced 0.9
percent.
Woodside dropped 7.2 percent to A$28.43. Crude oil for December
delivery plunged 8.7 percent to $49.42 a barrel in New York and
touched $48.55 in after-hours trading, the lowest since May 2005.
Futures have dropped 67 percent since reaching a record $147.27 on
July 11.
Rio Tinto Group, the world's third-largest mining company, slipped 4
percent to A$54.99. A measure of six metals traded on the London Metal
Exchange, including copper and zinc, slipped 3.5 percent to the lowest
since July 2005.
Evidence of Recession
Contract iron ore prices, at a record after six years of gains, may
decline as much as 20 percent next year as demand in China stalls and
cash prices slump, Standard Chartered Plc said in a report.
Canon, the world's biggest camera maker, declined 4 percent to 2,505
yen in Tokyo. Nintendo, the largest maker of handheld video-game
consoles, fell 4.1 percent to 25,900 won in Osaka.
U.S. government data yesterday showed initial jobless claims climbed
to a higher-than-forecast 542,000 in the week ended Nov. 15, while the
Conference Board's index of leading economic indicators fell for a
third time in four months. Manufacturing in the Philadelphia area
shrank in November at the fastest pace in 18 years, according to an
index tracked by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
Taiwan, Singapore
Taiwan's economy will sink into a recession this year after exports
slumped, following its first contraction since 2003, the government
said yesterday. Singapore, which is already in recession, today
lowered its growth forecast for a fourth time this year and said the
economy may contract in 2009.
Cathay Financial Holding Co., Taiwan's largest listed financial-
services company, dropped 3.7 percent to NT$28.90. Jardine Matheson
Holdings Ltd., which owns office buildings, supermarkets and hotels
across Asia, lost 5.6 percent to S$17.46 in Singapore.
Falling demand has forced companies to reduce production or cut
prices. Honda, Japan's second-largest carmaker, retreated 4.8 percent
to 1,814 yen after it said yesterday it will trim production at U.S.
plants by 18,000 more cars, bringing total cuts to 50,000 units since
August.
KB, owner of South Korea's biggest bank, tumbled 9.2 percent to 22,300
won. The stock is set to lose 31 percent this week. Daewoo Engineering
& Construction Co., the nation's biggest builder, retreated 6.3
percent to 7,160 won.
`Credit Bubble'
``Korea's credit bubble is popping at the seams even as policymakers
now attempt to shore up the system,'' Duncan Wooldridge, UBS's chief
Asia economist in Hong Kong, wrote in a note yesterday. Slowing
exports, rising unemployment and expanding household debt are risks to
the economy, he said.
Orix Corp., a Japanese financial services provider, fell 15 percent to
5,240 yen, the lowest since April 2003. The company said yesterday it
will sell 150 billion yen ($1.6 billion) in convertible bonds to pay
back debt.
To contact the reporter for this story: Kyung Bok Cho in Seoul at
kc...@bloomberg.net; Shani Raja in Sydney at sra...@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: November 20, 2008 20:42 EST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lying american hating conservatives, caught in a lie again:Japanese
carmakers are cutting jobs and output as sales decline, nissan,
Daihatsu Motor Co. Japan's largest minicar-maker, and mazda are now
all being affected
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aab4TEVjPWKg
Nissan Leads Car Shares Lower on U.S. Economy Outlook (Update2)
By Makiko Kitamura
Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Nissan Motor Co., Japan's third- largest
carmaker, led auto shares lower in Tokyo after U.S. unemployment
claims surged to the highest since 1992, worsening the outlook for
exports.
Nissan dropped as much as 24 yen, or 7.3 percent, the most in two
weeks, to 303 yen, and traded at 309 yen as of 10:13 a.m. The shares
have plunged 75 percent this year. Toyota Motor Corp., Japan's biggest
carmaker, fell 2.4 percent to 2,875 yen, and Honda Motor Co., the
second-largest, declined 4.6 percent to 1,818 yen.
Japan's three biggest carmakers traditionally earn at least half of
their operating profit in the U.S., the world's largest auto market.
Industrywide car sales are headed for the worst year since 1991 as
banks cut back on lending and unemployment rises.
``It doesn't look like car sales will improve as the economy is
getting worse,'' said Mitsuo Shimizu, a market analyst at Cosmo
Securities Co. in Tokyo.
``Drowning in Debt''
Initial jobless claims climbed to a higher-than-forecast 542,000 in
the week ended Nov. 15, the Labor Department said yesterday in
Washington. The Conference Board's index of leading economic
indicators declined 0.8 percent, and a measure of manufacturing in the
Philadelphia region fell to an 18-year low.
Bank of America Corp. Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis, who heads
the biggest U.S. retail bank, said yesterday the nation is ``drowning
in debt.''
A stronger yen is also eroding the value of the carmakers' overseas
sales. Japan's currency headed for a third weekly gain against the
dollar, trading at 94.16 yen against the U.S. currency.
Japanese carmakers are cutting jobs and output as sales decline. Honda
said yesterday it is trimming production plans at U.S. factories by an
additional 18,000 units. Honda has cut a total of 50,000 units from
its U.S. plans since August.
Daihatsu Motor Co. Japan's largest minicar-maker, fell as much as 7
percent. Mazda Motor Corp. fell as much as 6.8 percent.
To contact the reporter on this story: Makiko Kitamura in Tokyo at
mkita...@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: November 20, 2008 20:47 EST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lying american hating conservatives, have been caught in a lie
again:Toyota Motor Corp., Japan's biggest carmaker, will cut its
domestic temporary workforce by 50 percent as vehicle demand slumps
globally
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYTDkEfkwqg4&refer=home
Toyota Will Cut 3,000 Jobs in Japan as Car Sales Fall (Update3)
By Makiko Kitamura
Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Toyota Motor Corp., Japan's biggest carmaker,
will cut its domestic temporary workforce by 50 percent as vehicle
demand slumps globally.
Toyota will cut the number of temporary workers to 3,000 from 6,000 by
the end of March, spokesman Paul Nolasco said today in a phone
interview.
The automaker follows Mazda Motor Corp. and Isuzu Motors Ltd., which
yesterday said they would slash a combined 2,700 temporary jobs in
Japan in response to slowing sales. Earlier this month, Toyota
forecast a 68 percent drop in full-year net income, the biggest
decline in at least 18 years, as a global recession cripples auto
demand.
``Falling export demand is having a big impact on production in
Japan,'' said Hirofumi Yokoi, a Tokyo-based analyst at automotive
consulting company CSM Worldwide. ``It's unlikely plants will get shut
down, but if things get worse, lines, shifts will have to be stopped
and plans for new factories will be delayed.''
Japanese companies, which focused on hiring easy-to-fire contract
workers during the 15 years of lackluster economic growth that
followed the bursting of the bubble economy in 1990, are now shedding
them as the global recession cuts demand. Temporary and part-time
workers make up 33 percent of Japan's workforce, up from 20 percent in
1991, according to the Labor Ministry.
Honda, Nissan
Honda Motor Co., Japan's second-largest carmaker, also said today it
is cutting 270 temporary workers at its Saitama plant, where the
carmaker is reducing output of Accord sedans by 40,000 units. Honda is
also cutting production in the U.K. of Civic compacts and CR-V sport-
utility vehicles by 21,000 units.
Nissan Motor Co. said last week it will reduce its domestic production
by an additional 72,000 units. Japan's third-largest automaker had its
credit rating cut one notch today by Fitch Ratings, which cited the
company's dependence on the weak U.S. auto market and an appreciation
of the yen.
Toyota gained 4.6 percent to 3,080 yen at the close of trading today
in Tokyo. The shares have dropped 49 percent this year, set for the
worst annual performance since at least 1975.
Credit Crunch
The credit crunch has crippled U.S. vehicle sales, forcing General
Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC to seek a combined $25
billion in U.S. government loans as they burn through cash. U.S.
unemployment claims for the week ended Nov. 15 surged to the highest
since 1992 as Americans filed 542,000 initial jobless claims.
Japan's exports declined at the fastest pace in almost seven years in
October, and Toyota's U.S. sales plunged 23 percent last month.
Toyota, heading for its first drop in U.S. sales in 13 years, will
extend the Christmas-New Year closure at its U.S. and Canadian plants
by two days. The carmaker will also cut Sienna minivan output in
Indiana by half in January and slow one of two Georgetown, Kentucky,
factory lines.
While no full-time employees will be laid off, the company will
eliminate at least 50 percent of its 500 temporary workers at the
Georgetown plant during the first three months of 2009.
To contact the reporter on this story: Makiko Kitamura in Tokyo at
mkita...@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: November 21, 2008 03:26 ESt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
talk.politics.misc, alt.politics.liberalism, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
alt.politics.economics, alt.politics
lying american hating conservative caught lying again, the worlds
automakers are all in trouble. the reason why american companies are
in worse shape, is that the economic panic started here first.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=akcQFqTVeTxk
Honda Scraps Detroit Press Events to Promote Vehicles (Update1)
By Alan Ohnsman
Nov. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Honda Motor Co., Japan's second- largest
carmaker, said it won't hold press conferences to promote new models
at the Detroit auto show in January as the U.S. industry struggles to
survive.
"We're not going to be doing 'traditional' product unveilings in
Detroit," Kurt Antonius, a spokesman for the Tokyo-based company's
U.S. unit, said in an interview today. Honda will still display its
latest cars and trucks, he said.
Honda's move makes it the biggest automaker to pare its plans for the
North American International Auto Show, the main U.S. forum for new
vehicles. Nissan Motor Co., No. 3 in Japan, said yesterday it's
conserving funds by skipping Detroit in January and the Chicago show
in February.
The Asian brands are mired in the industrywide slump that cut U.S.
auto sales by 15 percent through October. U.S. automakers led by
General Motors Corp. are seeking $25 billion in federal loans to help
stave off a financial collapse.
Mitsubishi Motors Corp., Japan's fifth-largest automaker, said last
week it wouldn't attend the Detroit show, following similar decisions
by Suzuki Motor Corp., Ferrari SpA, Land Rover and Bayerische Motoren
Werke AG's Rolls-Royce. Porsche SE abandoned Detroit in 2007.
Toyota Motor Corp., Japan's largest automaker, isn't changing its
plans to unveil new Toyota and Lexus models in Detroit, said Mike
Michels, a spokesman. Hyundai Motor Co., Kia Motors Corp. and Mazda
Motor Corp. all said today they still plan to attend the Detroit show.
Honda and Tokyo-based Nissan ranked fifth and sixth, respectively, in
U.S. sales through last month, behind GM, Toyota, Ford Motor Co. and
Chrysler LLC.
Press previews for the Detroit show run Jan. 13 through Jan. 15.
Honda's U.S. operations are based in Torrance, California.
To contact the reporter on this story: Alan Ohnsman in Los Angeles at
aohn...@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: November 25, 2008 16:06 EST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=alpH1eJ8IE9o&refer=home
Toyota Rating Cut to AA by Fitch, Outlook Negative (Update1)
Email | Print | A A A
By Makiko Kitamura
Nov. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Toyota Motor Corp.'s debt rating was cut by
Fitch Ratings, the first such downgrade in 10 years, as the U.S. auto
slump damps earnings at the carmaker with the industry's best credit.
Fitch cut Toyota's senior unsecured debt rating to AA from AAA with a
negative outlook on the company, it said in a report today.
A lower debt rating raises borrowing costs for Toyota, potentially
hindering its ability to offer interest-free loans to boost sales in
the U.S. The automaker slashed its profit forecast 56 percent earlier
this month after higher fuel costs and the credit crunch pushed
industrywide October U.S. sales to the lowest level since 1983.
``Toyota is suffering severely from the ongoing turmoil in the global
automotive sector,'' said Tatsuya Mizuno, director at Fitch Ratings,
in the report. ``The negative developments in the industry are so
substantial and fundamental that even the strongest player -- Toyota
-- can no longer support a `AAA' rating.''
The rating cut is the company's first since Moody's Investors Service
reduced its long-term debt rating from Aaa to Aa1 in 1998. Moody's
raised the company back up to Aaa in 2003. Standard & Poor's has rated
the carmaker AAA since 1985.
Toyota fell 4.2 percent to 3,000 yen today in Tokyo. The stock has
dropped 50 percent this year, set for the worst annual performance
since at least 1975.
To contact the reporter on this story: Makiko Kitamura in Tokyo at
mkita...@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: November 25, 2008 20:24 EST
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=at1f6F88JpSk
Porsche Sales Fall on Recession; VW Deal Faces Delay (Update1)
Email | Print | A A A
By Andreas Cremer
Nov. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Porsche SE reported a 15 percent drop in four-
month sales and said it may delay taking control of Volkswagen AG as
the credit crisis and global recession shatter demand for its iconic
911 sports car.
Revenue in the period through November may drop to "slightly above 2
billion euros" ($2.6 billion), Porsche said today at a briefing in
Stuttgart, Germany, where the company is based. Year-earlier sales
amounted to 2.36 billion euros.
Chief Executive Officer Wendelin Wiedeking said Porsche may no longer
take 50 percent ownership of Volkswagen this year as the global
economy contracts. Porsche, which posted a record 6.39 billion-euro
profit in the 12 months through July, will halt production at its main
plant for seven days between now and the end of January after U.S.
deliveries fell 50 percent in October, including a 40 percent decline
in sales of the 911.
"Signs of a severe slump in demand in the global automobile industry
are highly visible," Wiedeking said. "Porsche cannot escape this
overall downward trend." While it's "increasingly unlikely" that the
VW stake will surpass 50 percent this year, the company will take
control "as quickly as possible" and is committed to owning 75 percent
by the end of 2009, he said.
Porsche was trading up 2.66 euros, or 5 percent, at 55.43 euros as of
10:25 in Frankfurt. Delays to the Volkswagen takeover may boost the
company's cash position by allowing it to realize gains on share
options. Porsche said last month it owned 42.6 percent of Wolfsburg,
Germany-based VW, Europe's biggest carmaker, and had options
equivalent to a further 31.5 percent.
Capital Gains
"They are changing the view from one month to another so it is very
difficult to assess what they will do and when," said Olivier Pouteau,
a Paris-based analyst at Oddo & Cie. with an "add" rating on Porsche.
"Porsche is still sitting on very important capital gains stemming
from their options, and they are indicating they will prioritize
what's economically viable for the company in their strategy with
Volkswagen."
The drop in four-month revenue threatens the first fall in Porsche's
annual sales since 1993. CEO Wiedeking declined to give a forecast for
full-year profit, saying that to do so would be "grossly careless" and
"too unreliable."
Deliveries through November probably fell 18 percent to 25,200
vehicles and there may be a "noticeable decline" in the full-year
figure from the 98,652 vehicles handed over last fiscal year, the
company said. The future development of business in the U.S. -- the
biggest market for the 911 --"can hardly be reliably calculated," it
said.
U.S. Slide
Porsche's U.S. operation last month sold only 584 911s, including the
$190,000 GT2 model that can exceed 200 miles (320 kilometers) per
hour. Deliveries of the less-costly Boxster, including the Cayman
coupe, fell 78 percent to 153 units and the Cayenne SUV recorded 690
sales, down 42 percent.
Chief Financial Officer Holger Haerter said Porsche isn't prepared to
buy Volkswagen shares at "economically absurd prices." To do so would
create "considerable risks" for possible cost deductions and inflict
an "unforeseeable burden" on Porsche's earnings, he said.
VW, which traded little changed at 256.03 euros today, is valued in
Porsche's books at 117 euros a share and the company could "live" with
a price of 200 euros, the CFO said.
Wiedeking said Porsche's own share price, down 60 percent this year,
does not fairly reflect the company's prospects nor the value of the
holding in Volkswagen. He called previous declines in the stock
"incomprehensible."
To contact the reporter on this story: Andreas Cremer in Stuttgart,
Germany at acr...@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: November 26, 2008 06:36 EST
John Galt
> John Galt wrote:
>> Balanced View wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unions are not the problem. Labor costs now make up 8 percent to 10
>>> percent of the cost of a vehicle.
>>
>> Did you add in the cost of the retirees?
>
> At GM it's being taken over by the UAW in 2010 under VEBA, another
> concession they made back in 2007.
Yea, but TODAY, they have the pensions, and thus the burdened labor
costs are higher than 8-10%, if I'm not mistaken.
Put another way, the average Toyota costs about two thousand less to
build than the comparable Chevy. So, the buyer is getting 2K more car
with the foreign manufacturer.
Make me POTUS for a day, and I'd ask the union boss how much more it
would cost to take the pensions 1/1/09 instead of 1/1/10, and that's the
amount of money I'd give, not to the manufacturers, but to the union
pension fund. I guarantee it's far less than the 25B the auto
manufacturers are *starting* with.
Then, I'd tell the auto manufacturers to get back on their jets and run
their businesses. No more money, and good luck. Time to build good cars
and quit making excuses.
JG
John Galt
> On Nov 28, 1:51 pm, Stan de SD <StanD...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Note the considerable pressure for the auto industry bailout from the
>> unions. The fact that their pension liabilities are crippling the US
>> automaker's ability to compete doesn't seem to register any
>> acknowledgement of culpability in the current debacle. They will just
>> line of for their share of the bailot loot. You can thank BOTH major
>> political parties for enabling the entitlement mentality among the
>> population at large... :O|
>
> how can one person be so stupid, its almost impossible not to see
> that this is hitting all car makers world wide.
True, but you're ignoring SCOPE:
Toyota: Forward estimates $3.47 per share
Honda: Forward estimates $2.24 per share
Nissan: Forward estimates $.52 per share
Daimler: Forward estimates $4.74 per share
Tata Motors: Forward estimates $1.23 per share
General Motors: Forward estimates $17.27 LOSS per share
Ford: Forward estimates $2.35 LOSS per share
JG
forbi...@msn.com
> Yea, but TODAY, they have the pensions, and thus the burdened labor
> costs are higher than 8-10%, if I'm not mistaken.
Do you know how stupid this sounds?
The costs of pensions were supposed to have been included in
the cars sold when the expense was incurred. If this was not
the case then GM was lying about the costs of their cars in
the past. They were stealing from those workers by promising
what they didn't fund or they are stealing from today's workers
by taking from their production to fund promises they made in
the past but weren't funding.
Vid...@tcq.net
> Vide...@tcq.net wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 1:51 pm, Stan de SD <StanD...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Note the considerable pressure for the auto industry bailout from the
> >> unions. The fact that their pension liabilities are crippling the US
> >> automaker's ability to compete doesn't seem to register any
> >> acknowledgement of culpability in the current debacle. They will just
> >> line of for their share of the bailot loot. You can thank BOTH major
> >> political parties for enabling the entitlement mentality among the
> >> population at large... :O|
>
> > how can one person be so stupid, its almost impossible not to see
> > that this is hitting all car makers world wide.
>
> True, but you're ignoring SCOPE:
>
> Toyota: Forward estimates $3.47 per share
> Honda: Forward estimates $2.24 per share
> Nissan: Forward estimates $.52 per share
> Daimler: Forward estimates $4.74 per share
> Tata Motors: Forward estimates $1.23 per share
>
> General Motors: Forward estimates $17.27 LOSS per share
> Ford: Forward estimates $2.35 LOSS per share
>
> JG
forward estimates!!!!!!!!!! ROTFLOL. by the time those so called
estimates come due, all of those companies will be far worse off, and
the idiots who lied, yes lied, about their profits, will be back
peddling fast. the estimates for this last quarters profits, let alone
next years are laughable. toyota is about to be downgraded, nissan is
burning thru cash, honda has announced they will not roll out new
models, and you take the words of a bunch of shills who belong in jail
for their out right lies.
John Galt
> On Nov 28, 4:36 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yea, but TODAY, they have the pensions, and thus the burdened labor
>> costs are higher than 8-10%, if I'm not mistaken.
>
> Do you know how stupid this sounds?
Oh, do tell. [Yawn]
> The costs of pensions were supposed to have been included in
> the cars sold when the expense was incurred.
Obviously. Pensions, being a labor cost, are part of the cost of goods
sold. You don't book them when paid, however -- you book them when you
fund.
> If this was not
> the case then GM was lying about the costs of their cars in
> the past.
I am unaware of a time when the funding of pensions would *not* have
been part of the cost of goods sold. However, if you're looking for me
to say that the GM management team is competent, no go. This has not
been a very competent management team for some time.
They were stealing from those workers by promising
> what they didn't fund or they are stealing from today's workers
> by taking from their production to fund promises they made in
> the past but weren't funding.
I've heard some analysts suggesting that GM management has known for
decades they were making pension commitments that they were unlikely
ever to keep. The decline in their market share is not news, and it
doesn't take a genius to do the math and realize that the day would come
when the funding of pensions at the required rate was impossible.
JG