Time for Jeff Bridges to dump Hyundai

[Rt.66]

I disagree. GM could have gone on paying $14 an hour to new hires and $27hr (about what Toyota and Honda pay US employees) to their very long term UAW employeees forever IF, if…. the 3 unfair trade advantages mentioned above had been addressed.

I’ve read that all 3 together add up to $4-$6k per car. Can you imagine how much more development GM could put into small profit margin economy cars had it not been for the Unfair advantage that Toyota, Hyundia etc. enjoy from their Job friendly and aggressive Governments?

GMs legacy costs are not an evil, anchor of non-competetiveness we should be chastising them for. Those legacy costs are pensions and healthcare. Important things that we all should be fortunate enough to have. They are doing our country a solid. Our Gov. should recognize that and provide a fair trade counterbalance to keep those flowing.

What do they do instead? Send the jobs to China, Japan and Korea and have the tax payer pick up the bill for folks cheated and thrown into poverty?

I don’t care what it is anyone does for work I would just as eagerly defend any pension you earned.

Its f@cked up to let retired people and American jobs take it in the @ss because people in charge thinks its cool to allow foriegn countries with predatory, unfair and unjust trade policies to scam us into GD2.

[EconProf]

OK guys, we’ve pretty much exhausted the pros and cons of protectionism and talked plenty about the past.
Here’s my take on the future. The Obama administration and UAW now owns most of GM and Chrysler. Said companies cannot make profitable vehicles when pitted against foreign-owned companies producing in the non-unionized southern states.
Look for OM (ObamaMotors) to tilt the playing field for their union buddies by making American taxpayers subsidize Chrysler, OM, and probably soon Ford car sales by subsidizing them to give them a competitive advantage over non-unionized foreign-owned car makers. Exhibit one is the “cash for clunkers” bill currently whizzing through congress that will pay buyers getting into a slightly higher mileage new car than the one they are trading in, presumably to be junked? (talk about wasteful).
Exhibit Two is the Chevy Volt, the high-mileage, high priced ($39,000 or so), being developed that will only sell with the promised tax credits, state and federal (aka forced gift from taxpayers) amounting to many thousands of dollars per vehicle.
In short, the free trade era in which consumers had choices, foreign competitors forced product improvement in US vehicles, and foreign-owned US plants embarrassed GM, Ford, and Chrysler into facing their own problems is now over. Protectionism won out. Obama is our president and needs to repay his debt to the UAW.

[EconProf]

OK guys, we’ve pretty much exhausted the pros and cons of protectionism and talked plenty about the past.
Here’s my take on the future. The Obama administration and UAW now owns most of GM and Chrysler. Said companies cannot make profitable vehicles when pitted against foreign-owned companies producing in the non-unionized southern states.
Look for OM (ObamaMotors) to tilt the playing field for their union buddies by making American taxpayers subsidize Chrysler, OM, and probably soon Ford car sales by subsidizing them to give them a competitive advantage over non-unionized foreign-owned car makers. Exhibit one is the “cash for clunkers” bill currently whizzing through congress that will pay buyers getting into a slightly higher mileage new car than the one they are trading in, presumably to be junked? (talk about wasteful).
Exhibit Two is the Chevy Volt, the high-mileage, high priced ($39,000 or so), being developed that will only sell with the promised tax credits, state and federal (aka forced gift from taxpayers) amounting to many thousands of dollars per vehicle.
In short, the free trade era in which consumers had choices, foreign competitors forced product improvement in US vehicles, and foreign-owned US plants embarrassed GM, Ford, and Chrysler into facing their own problems is now over. Protectionism won out. Obama is our president and needs to repay his debt to the UAW.

[EconProf]

OK guys, we’ve pretty much exhausted the pros and cons of protectionism and talked plenty about the past.
Here’s my take on the future. The Obama administration and UAW now owns most of GM and Chrysler. Said companies cannot make profitable vehicles when pitted against foreign-owned companies producing in the non-unionized southern states.
Look for OM (ObamaMotors) to tilt the playing field for their union buddies by making American taxpayers subsidize Chrysler, OM, and probably soon Ford car sales by subsidizing them to give them a competitive advantage over non-unionized foreign-owned car makers. Exhibit one is the “cash for clunkers” bill currently whizzing through congress that will pay buyers getting into a slightly higher mileage new car than the one they are trading in, presumably to be junked? (talk about wasteful).
Exhibit Two is the Chevy Volt, the high-mileage, high priced ($39,000 or so), being developed that will only sell with the promised tax credits, state and federal (aka forced gift from taxpayers) amounting to many thousands of dollars per vehicle.
In short, the free trade era in which consumers had choices, foreign competitors forced product improvement in US vehicles, and foreign-owned US plants embarrassed GM, Ford, and Chrysler into facing their own problems is now over. Protectionism won out. Obama is our president and needs to repay his debt to the UAW.

[EconProf]

OK guys, we’ve pretty much exhausted the pros and cons of protectionism and talked plenty about the past.
Here’s my take on the future. The Obama administration and UAW now owns most of GM and Chrysler. Said companies cannot make profitable vehicles when pitted against foreign-owned companies producing in the non-unionized southern states.
Look for OM (ObamaMotors) to tilt the playing field for their union buddies by making American taxpayers subsidize Chrysler, OM, and probably soon Ford car sales by subsidizing them to give them a competitive advantage over non-unionized foreign-owned car makers. Exhibit one is the “cash for clunkers” bill currently whizzing through congress that will pay buyers getting into a slightly higher mileage new car than the one they are trading in, presumably to be junked? (talk about wasteful).
Exhibit Two is the Chevy Volt, the high-mileage, high priced ($39,000 or so), being developed that will only sell with the promised tax credits, state and federal (aka forced gift from taxpayers) amounting to many thousands of dollars per vehicle.
In short, the free trade era in which consumers had choices, foreign competitors forced product improvement in US vehicles, and foreign-owned US plants embarrassed GM, Ford, and Chrysler into facing their own problems is now over. Protectionism won out. Obama is our president and needs to repay his debt to the UAW.

[EconProf]

OK guys, we’ve pretty much exhausted the pros and cons of protectionism and talked plenty about the past.
Here’s my take on the future. The Obama administration and UAW now owns most of GM and Chrysler. Said companies cannot make profitable vehicles when pitted against foreign-owned companies producing in the non-unionized southern states.
Look for OM (ObamaMotors) to tilt the playing field for their union buddies by making American taxpayers subsidize Chrysler, OM, and probably soon Ford car sales by subsidizing them to give them a competitive advantage over non-unionized foreign-owned car makers. Exhibit one is the “cash for clunkers” bill currently whizzing through congress that will pay buyers getting into a slightly higher mileage new car than the one they are trading in, presumably to be junked? (talk about wasteful).
Exhibit Two is the Chevy Volt, the high-mileage, high priced ($39,000 or so), being developed that will only sell with the promised tax credits, state and federal (aka forced gift from taxpayers) amounting to many thousands of dollars per vehicle.
In short, the free trade era in which consumers had choices, foreign competitors forced product improvement in US vehicles, and foreign-owned US plants embarrassed GM, Ford, and Chrysler into facing their own problems is now over. Protectionism won out. Obama is our president and needs to repay his debt to the UAW.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rt.66: Have you ever read one of the GM, Chrysler or Ford collective bargaining agreements? I’m not asking to be snide, I’m asking because I’m curious.

It was possible to go to work at a GM plant right out of high school (18 years old) and retire with a full pension and benefits (including an awesome health plan) at 48 years of age.

Now look at that from an actuarial standpoint. If, say, the average life expectancy is 68 years old for an American male (and I’m just using that number for simplicity), then GM is now carrying a partially burdened (meaning they’re not paying a full salary, but continuing to pay pension and benefits) retiree for up to 20 years.

This is the scenario I meant when I talked about short-sighted thinking amongst the unions. The unions were fully aware of the “tail” that GM was carrying and that the tail was growing longer and, more importantly, “wider” (meaning there were not only issues with direct costs of maintaining it, but also unfunded pension liability issues), but chose to continue down what amounted to a blind alley and a dead end.

Again, not trying to demonize labor, but they were completely and KNOWINGLY complicit in this mess. And, this mess has nothing to do with foreign competition or unfair labor practices. This is a mess of labor’s own creation and management’s duplicity.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rt.66: Have you ever read one of the GM, Chrysler or Ford collective bargaining agreements? I’m not asking to be snide, I’m asking because I’m curious.

It was possible to go to work at a GM plant right out of high school (18 years old) and retire with a full pension and benefits (including an awesome health plan) at 48 years of age.

Now look at that from an actuarial standpoint. If, say, the average life expectancy is 68 years old for an American male (and I’m just using that number for simplicity), then GM is now carrying a partially burdened (meaning they’re not paying a full salary, but continuing to pay pension and benefits) retiree for up to 20 years.

This is the scenario I meant when I talked about short-sighted thinking amongst the unions. The unions were fully aware of the “tail” that GM was carrying and that the tail was growing longer and, more importantly, “wider” (meaning there were not only issues with direct costs of maintaining it, but also unfunded pension liability issues), but chose to continue down what amounted to a blind alley and a dead end.

Again, not trying to demonize labor, but they were completely and KNOWINGLY complicit in this mess. And, this mess has nothing to do with foreign competition or unfair labor practices. This is a mess of labor’s own creation and management’s duplicity.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rt.66: Have you ever read one of the GM, Chrysler or Ford collective bargaining agreements? I’m not asking to be snide, I’m asking because I’m curious.

It was possible to go to work at a GM plant right out of high school (18 years old) and retire with a full pension and benefits (including an awesome health plan) at 48 years of age.

Now look at that from an actuarial standpoint. If, say, the average life expectancy is 68 years old for an American male (and I’m just using that number for simplicity), then GM is now carrying a partially burdened (meaning they’re not paying a full salary, but continuing to pay pension and benefits) retiree for up to 20 years.

This is the scenario I meant when I talked about short-sighted thinking amongst the unions. The unions were fully aware of the “tail” that GM was carrying and that the tail was growing longer and, more importantly, “wider” (meaning there were not only issues with direct costs of maintaining it, but also unfunded pension liability issues), but chose to continue down what amounted to a blind alley and a dead end.

Again, not trying to demonize labor, but they were completely and KNOWINGLY complicit in this mess. And, this mess has nothing to do with foreign competition or unfair labor practices. This is a mess of labor’s own creation and management’s duplicity.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rt.66: Have you ever read one of the GM, Chrysler or Ford collective bargaining agreements? I’m not asking to be snide, I’m asking because I’m curious.

It was possible to go to work at a GM plant right out of high school (18 years old) and retire with a full pension and benefits (including an awesome health plan) at 48 years of age.

Now look at that from an actuarial standpoint. If, say, the average life expectancy is 68 years old for an American male (and I’m just using that number for simplicity), then GM is now carrying a partially burdened (meaning they’re not paying a full salary, but continuing to pay pension and benefits) retiree for up to 20 years.

This is the scenario I meant when I talked about short-sighted thinking amongst the unions. The unions were fully aware of the “tail” that GM was carrying and that the tail was growing longer and, more importantly, “wider” (meaning there were not only issues with direct costs of maintaining it, but also unfunded pension liability issues), but chose to continue down what amounted to a blind alley and a dead end.

Again, not trying to demonize labor, but they were completely and KNOWINGLY complicit in this mess. And, this mess has nothing to do with foreign competition or unfair labor practices. This is a mess of labor’s own creation and management’s duplicity.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rt.66: Have you ever read one of the GM, Chrysler or Ford collective bargaining agreements? I’m not asking to be snide, I’m asking because I’m curious.

It was possible to go to work at a GM plant right out of high school (18 years old) and retire with a full pension and benefits (including an awesome health plan) at 48 years of age.

Now look at that from an actuarial standpoint. If, say, the average life expectancy is 68 years old for an American male (and I’m just using that number for simplicity), then GM is now carrying a partially burdened (meaning they’re not paying a full salary, but continuing to pay pension and benefits) retiree for up to 20 years.

This is the scenario I meant when I talked about short-sighted thinking amongst the unions. The unions were fully aware of the “tail” that GM was carrying and that the tail was growing longer and, more importantly, “wider” (meaning there were not only issues with direct costs of maintaining it, but also unfunded pension liability issues), but chose to continue down what amounted to a blind alley and a dead end.

Again, not trying to demonize labor, but they were completely and KNOWINGLY complicit in this mess. And, this mess has nothing to do with foreign competition or unfair labor practices. This is a mess of labor’s own creation and management’s duplicity.

[Rt.66]

The Japanese Gov. funded a large part of Toyota’s Prius development.

I’d say foreign Govs. Embarrassed the US Gov. by protecting, funding and nurturing their automakers to the point at which we find our manufacturers in the predicament we are in today.

People, you cannot disagree that our very own manufacturers have been put at a distinct disadvantage for decades. Everything else is just looking for a reason by looking past the reason.

[Rt.66]

The Japanese Gov. funded a large part of Toyota’s Prius development.

I’d say foreign Govs. Embarrassed the US Gov. by protecting, funding and nurturing their automakers to the point at which we find our manufacturers in the predicament we are in today.

People, you cannot disagree that our very own manufacturers have been put at a distinct disadvantage for decades. Everything else is just looking for a reason by looking past the reason.

[Rt.66]

The Japanese Gov. funded a large part of Toyota’s Prius development.

I’d say foreign Govs. Embarrassed the US Gov. by protecting, funding and nurturing their automakers to the point at which we find our manufacturers in the predicament we are in today.

People, you cannot disagree that our very own manufacturers have been put at a distinct disadvantage for decades. Everything else is just looking for a reason by looking past the reason.

[Rt.66]

The Japanese Gov. funded a large part of Toyota’s Prius development.

I’d say foreign Govs. Embarrassed the US Gov. by protecting, funding and nurturing their automakers to the point at which we find our manufacturers in the predicament we are in today.

People, you cannot disagree that our very own manufacturers have been put at a distinct disadvantage for decades. Everything else is just looking for a reason by looking past the reason.

[Author]

Posts