Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I look at this as a catch 22. If we had not bailed the automobile companies out, unemployment rates would have gone up into the 30% range. The bailout kept the unemployment rates from skyrocketing to record levels. I will give that a little credit. However, when we did bail the companies out, they aren't producing many jobs for Americans, if at all.
And the chart showing the worker/CEO pay gap tells me this: there is so much greed in this nation. So many people talk about how it's expensive to create jobs in this nation, but few people ever consider that CEO's get paid over 400 times more than the average work.
The fact is, the only thing many people care about is money, period. The bailout didn't solve that problem. There should have been conditions on the bailout. That being said, I doubt many companies would have taken the bailout under those conditions. We are in an era where companies are looking for a cheap workforce, at least many companies are. As far as alot of companies consider it, it isn't about the worker, it's about the bottom line. It is about the money.
One reason we need to find cheap low cost labor is because American upper management vastly overpays itself.
Really, are American CEOs 40 times better than their Japanese and European counterparts?
Yep, GM is opening manufacturing plants in China - to manufacture vehicles for both Chinese and US customers.
Thanks for taking our tax dollars to China!
That is not what your article says. You are combining 2 different sections of the article to try and make a point that is never even made.
The article leaves the topic of GM for 2 paragraphs to simply discuss import rates in the 2 nations and how Chinese cars are only taxed at 2.5% while US cars are taxed at 35%. No where in the article does it say these plants will make American Cars
And what kind of plants? Will those plants make products for China?
BTW...Should the Japanese, Koreans and Germans remove their U.S. plants?
The only problem i'd have is if they close a U.S. plant and reopen it in China.
Oh, and BTW...HELL YEA I'm glad that we bailed them out. Absolutely.
Clinton and Obama - GOOD!
Bush - BAD!
"Today we take a major step toward China's entry into the World Trade Organization and a major step toward answering some of the central challenges of this new century,"
The same people touting our lavish American lifestyle (especially for the poor) can't also complain that China demands much less in wages and benefits, tax rates, regulations, etc.
This is what happens in an international economy, and with the state of our domestic manufacturing sector, we can't exactly resort to isolationism, not anymore.
Aren't the right wingers always proclaiming that businesses have a right to be profitable? Well this is how it's done.
If you're content to lose jobs it is.
We could create a more business friendly environment and keep a lot more of those jobs here.
Europe and most Asian nations tax these corporations at about half the rate we do.
It's stupid for us to high-ball business when they have so many other places to go.
It is utter delusion to asserte that anybody bailed GM out. We bailed out the UAW. GM would have survived intact. It "may" have had to reorganize under the protection of Bankruptcy, but that is what BK is for.
The bailout was just a payofff to UAW.
I live in SE Michigan where everyone knows that if the lazy UAW members weren't making $30+/hr and huge stack of expensive benefits besides, US auto makers would expand and hire right here.
A few pampered union members have destroyed everyone else's opportunities.
"Today we take a major step toward China's entry into the World Trade Organization and a major step toward answering some of the central challenges of this new century,"
I guess he wanted to open the Chinese market to US goods, but he didn't count on the vastly overpaid mostly Republican CEOs outsourcing all of our jobs there.
I guess he wanted to open the Chinese market to US goods, but he didn't count on the vastly overpaid mostly Republican CEOs outsourcing all of our jobs there.
So, opening some plants in China INSTEAD of the U.S. is OK?
Yes.
If you cannot compete globally, then go home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm31828
I'll bet that is the case, too. After all, Japanese and Korean auto makers have actually opened factories in the US to build their cars for the US market because the transport of those vehicles is a large expense...
Actually it was to avoid the import tariffs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter
I guess. I mean, you don't really expect a company as large as GM not to manufacture elsewhere, do you?
Well, no, what I expect is consistency in philosophy and belief system.....instead of adopting an hypocritical position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf
If the federal government didn't step in, then all of General Motors would have gone to liquidation.
No,.....liquidation would be a Chapter 7.
GMC would have filed a Chapter 11 to reorganize, or possibly a Chapter 13 to keep creditors off of their back, assuming there actually were any creditors standing on their heads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gomexico
Building cars in the USA and shipping them to China, solely to satisfy that Chinese market, is an irresponsible business practice. It would price the vehicles so high GM could not be competitive with other manufacturers. And from China GM will export to other Asian countries. Does this cost US jobs? I doubt it. Does it strengthen GM and benefit its shareholders? Yes. Seems to me it's a 'win-win' situation.
Uh, gosh, I've been telling you and everyone else that for the last 6 years and you're just now getting it?
That's fantastic.
Glad to see you're all starting to get on-board with Economics, Common Sense and Reality.
Average pay of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) to average worker:
And what metrics were used in this supposedly scientific study?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Rossi
It is utter delusion to asserte that anybody bailed GM out. We bailed out the UAW. GM would have survived intact. It "may" have had to reorganize under the protection of Bankruptcy, but that is what BK is for.
The bailout was just a payofff to UAW.
That's it precisely.
The Ball-Out was to protect UAW pension plans....uh, especially those for union leaders --- not keep GMC from joining AMC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD
Look at the Progs defending outsourcing when it is done under the Obama admin.
Hahahahaha I know....seriously, what did you expect? Should have known they'd flip-flop-waffle sooner or later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
I look at this as a catch 22. If we had not bailed the automobile companies out, unemployment rates would have gone up into the 30% range. The bailout kept the unemployment rates from skyrocketing to record levels.
There's no evidence to support your claim.
You are...of course....referring to a study was incorrectly cited.
One in 10 Jobs Tied to Autos? Not so Fast
The figure is routinely attributed to the Center for Automotive Research, but officials at the nonprofit organization, which has ties to labor and government, claim they never said it and have no idea where it came from. "It's such an exaggeration. I kind of grit my teeth every time I hear it," said Debbie Maranger Menk, a project manager at the center who researches the industry.
The Center, she said, estimates some 350,000 people in the United States are directly employed by automakers, both foreign and domestic, and that 2.1 million jobs are indirectly connected to the industry including suppliers.
And the chart showing the worker/CEO pay gap tells me this...
It tells me you refuse to ask if the data was correctly gathered and uses the same metric, you know, so as not to skew the results for propaganda purposes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
As far as alot of companies consider it, it isn't about the worker, it's about the bottom line. It is about the money.
Uh-huh, so, uh, I'm guessing you don't have a 401(k) plan, don't want one, and don't have any retirement investments, you know, because you're independently wealthy and can afford to live a luxurious life-style on your monthly Social Security check that will probably be cut 32%-36%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob
The ratio in 1980 was about 30:1
Uh, they started calculating the pay differently. It now includes not just salary, but all related benefits and perks, such as company car, company credit card, pension/retirement, and all other benefits such as stock options.
The shareholders don't have a problem......so why do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob
Say, what started happening to the US Middle Class in the 1980s?
You mean the MTV Generation?
Generation X-Box and Generation Y-Work got stupid with their finances.....that's what happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KRAMERCAT
Really, are American CEOs 40 times better than their Japanese and European counterparts?
I don't know....how many Fiats, Peugeots, SEATs, DBIs, Valmets or Dacias do you see on the road?
I guess they ain't that good.
Trading Advantageously...
One reason we need to find cheap low cost labor is because American upper management vastly overpays itself.
Really, are American CEOs 40 times better than their Japanese and European counterparts?
And meanwhile, those at the bottom try to make a living.
There is a big difference between what I think a large company should do for its employees, and what is happening now. I think a company should care about the workers and should create jobs. However, I know that alot of companies aren't going to be concerned about that. It doesn't surprise me that CEO's in the USA make so much money. It is often expected. It doesn't surprise me because workers are seen as expendable.
Nike, headquartered in the suburbs of Portland,OR, doesn't make a single shoe in the USA as far as I know. Nike doesn't even own the factories that makes their shoes. They contract the work to factory owners in places like Vietnam, China, and India. Meanwhile, the consumer pays $200 for a pair of Jordans. Nike gets cheap labor and the consumer gets expensive goods in this case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
