New Argument....
- Thread starter Show Heifer
- Start date
Help Support Steer Planet:
aj
Well-known member
Doesn't Green Bay have a collectively owned football team or sumptin. All I can say is that when the terrorist's get to next world they are going to be pissed. When they open the door expecting 100 virgins and Reggie White is standing there with a baseball bat I would think that the fun will be over. ;D
Auto rescue bill in peril, opposed by GOP senators
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Associated Press Writer
1 hr 8 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Emergency aid for the nation's imperiled auto industry was thrown into jeopardy Wednesday, opposed by Republicans who were revolting against a hard-fought deal between Democrats and the Bush White House to speed $14 billion to ailing carmakers.
The House was on track to vote on the bailout Wednesday night, and Democrats held out hope that it could be enacted by week's end. But a growing number of GOP senators declared they would not go along.
The White House, though not formally endorsing an agreement with congressional Democrats, dispatched administration officials to Capitol Hill to make a case for the rescue package. During a contentious, closed-door luncheon with Senate Republicans, White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten got an earful of criticism from the rank-and-file, some of whom have already announced plans to block the measure.
"They got a good dose," said opponent Tom Coburn, R-Okla., as he emerged from the session.
Even auto state Republicans who have pushed hard for a bailout said the measure needed work. Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., said he wanted to see changes. And Sen. George V. Voinovich, R-Ohio, said the bill didn't have the necessary Republican votes to pass Congress.
The Republicans' revolt came as the House began procedural votes on the package.
It would provide money within days to cash-starved General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, while Ford Motor Co. — which has said it has enough liquidity to stay afloat — would be eligible for federal aid as well.
The plan would create a government "car czar," to be named by President George W. Bush to dole out the loans, with the power to force the carmakers into bankruptcy next spring if they didn't cut quick deals with labor unions, creditors and others to restructure their businesses and become viable.
Opposition from congressional Republicans reflected the tricky task of enacting yet another federal rescue in a bailout-weary Congress, with Bush's influence on the wane.
"People realize that this bill is an incredibly weak bill, (and) is the product of an administration that wants to kick the can down the road and let somebody else deal with it," said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn.
The scene so far has been somewhat reminiscent of the tense atmosphere of early October on Capitol Hill, when lawmakers argued, cajoled, threatened and lobbied one another, ultimately passing a $700 billion bailout plan that Bush signed into law for Wall Street financial firms.
Debate on the bailout unfolded as a congressional panel reviewing the financial rescue questioned the Bush administration's spending of those funds and challenged its reluctance to use the money to reduce foreclosures. The House was set to add language to the auto aid bill to require that banks that are bailed out by the government report quarterly on how much they have increased or decreased lending.
With Republicans balking and some absent from the emergency, postelection debate, mustering the 60 votes needed to advance the auto rescue measure in the Senate was proving tricky.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, the GOP leader, said Wednesday afternoon that his side had only recently gotten a copy of the measure. He said, "Everybody is still kind of poring through it, trying to figure out exactly what it does. But everybody understands the significance of the issue and the enormity of the problem."
Opposition wasn't limited to Republicans.
Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana announced he was against the measure because of a provision to bail out transit agencies. The bus and rail systems could be on the hook for billions of dollars in payments because exotic deals they entered into with investors — which have since been declared unlawful tax shelters — have gone sour.
At the White House, Deputy Chief of Staff Joel Kaplan told reporters at a late-morning briefing that the administration had yet to read the fine print of its "conceptual agreement" with congressional Democrats.
However, he indicated clear support, saying Bush would personally lobby Republicans.
House Republicans swiftly voiced their opposition and called for a plan that would instead provide government insurance to subsidize new private investment in the Big Three automakers, demand major labor givebacks and debt restructuring at the companies, and encourage them to declare bankruptcy.
Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, the minority leader, said the legislation "asks taxpayers to further subsidize a business model that is failing to meet the needs of American workers and consumers."
Under the bill being considered Wednesday, the carmakers would have to submit blueprints on March 31 to the industry overseer showing how they would restructure to ensure their survival, although they could be given until the end of May to negotiate with the government on a final agreement.
The carmakers initially asked Congress for $25 billion, then returned two weeks later to plead for as much as $34 billion. But with the White House refusing to dole out new spending for the Big Three, congressional Democrats agreed to use an existing program that was to help carmakers retool their factories to make more fuel-efficient cars.
That fund yielded only $15 billion in emergency loans, and when negotiators agreed to leave some money in the environmental program, the amount fell to $14 billion.
A breakthrough came when Democrats agreed to scrap language — which the White House had called a "poison pill" — that would have forced the carmakers to drop lawsuits challenging tough emissions limits in California and other states.
There was still heartburn among Republicans, however, over language that would force the automakers to abide by those states' limits. Democrats insisted on it as a kind of consolation prize for environmentalists, who already were livid at the raid of the fuel-efficiency program.
Kaplan said the Bush administration would work with President-elect Barack Obama's team on choosing the so-called "car czar," acknowledging that Bush's tenure ends soon and the automakers' woes will continue well into 2009.
Obama defended the auto bailout as necessary given the threat a potential Big Three collapse could pose to an already battered economy.
"As messy as it may be, I think there's a sense of, 'Let's stabilize the patient,'" he said in an interview published in Wednesday's Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times.
The car czar would have say-so over any major business decisions by the automakers while they were taking advantage of federal aid, with veto power over any transaction of $100 million or more. The companies — including the private equity firm Cerberus, which owns a majority stake in Chrysler — would have to open their books to the government overseer.
And if Chrysler defaulted on its loan, Cerberus would be responsible for reimbursing the government.
Also included in the bill is an unrelated pay raise for federal judges.
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Associated Press Writer
1 hr 8 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Emergency aid for the nation's imperiled auto industry was thrown into jeopardy Wednesday, opposed by Republicans who were revolting against a hard-fought deal between Democrats and the Bush White House to speed $14 billion to ailing carmakers.
The House was on track to vote on the bailout Wednesday night, and Democrats held out hope that it could be enacted by week's end. But a growing number of GOP senators declared they would not go along.
The White House, though not formally endorsing an agreement with congressional Democrats, dispatched administration officials to Capitol Hill to make a case for the rescue package. During a contentious, closed-door luncheon with Senate Republicans, White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten got an earful of criticism from the rank-and-file, some of whom have already announced plans to block the measure.
"They got a good dose," said opponent Tom Coburn, R-Okla., as he emerged from the session.
Even auto state Republicans who have pushed hard for a bailout said the measure needed work. Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., said he wanted to see changes. And Sen. George V. Voinovich, R-Ohio, said the bill didn't have the necessary Republican votes to pass Congress.
The Republicans' revolt came as the House began procedural votes on the package.
It would provide money within days to cash-starved General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, while Ford Motor Co. — which has said it has enough liquidity to stay afloat — would be eligible for federal aid as well.
The plan would create a government "car czar," to be named by President George W. Bush to dole out the loans, with the power to force the carmakers into bankruptcy next spring if they didn't cut quick deals with labor unions, creditors and others to restructure their businesses and become viable.
Opposition from congressional Republicans reflected the tricky task of enacting yet another federal rescue in a bailout-weary Congress, with Bush's influence on the wane.
"People realize that this bill is an incredibly weak bill, (and) is the product of an administration that wants to kick the can down the road and let somebody else deal with it," said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn.
The scene so far has been somewhat reminiscent of the tense atmosphere of early October on Capitol Hill, when lawmakers argued, cajoled, threatened and lobbied one another, ultimately passing a $700 billion bailout plan that Bush signed into law for Wall Street financial firms.
Debate on the bailout unfolded as a congressional panel reviewing the financial rescue questioned the Bush administration's spending of those funds and challenged its reluctance to use the money to reduce foreclosures. The House was set to add language to the auto aid bill to require that banks that are bailed out by the government report quarterly on how much they have increased or decreased lending.
With Republicans balking and some absent from the emergency, postelection debate, mustering the 60 votes needed to advance the auto rescue measure in the Senate was proving tricky.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, the GOP leader, said Wednesday afternoon that his side had only recently gotten a copy of the measure. He said, "Everybody is still kind of poring through it, trying to figure out exactly what it does. But everybody understands the significance of the issue and the enormity of the problem."
Opposition wasn't limited to Republicans.
Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana announced he was against the measure because of a provision to bail out transit agencies. The bus and rail systems could be on the hook for billions of dollars in payments because exotic deals they entered into with investors — which have since been declared unlawful tax shelters — have gone sour.
At the White House, Deputy Chief of Staff Joel Kaplan told reporters at a late-morning briefing that the administration had yet to read the fine print of its "conceptual agreement" with congressional Democrats.
However, he indicated clear support, saying Bush would personally lobby Republicans.
House Republicans swiftly voiced their opposition and called for a plan that would instead provide government insurance to subsidize new private investment in the Big Three automakers, demand major labor givebacks and debt restructuring at the companies, and encourage them to declare bankruptcy.
Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, the minority leader, said the legislation "asks taxpayers to further subsidize a business model that is failing to meet the needs of American workers and consumers."
Under the bill being considered Wednesday, the carmakers would have to submit blueprints on March 31 to the industry overseer showing how they would restructure to ensure their survival, although they could be given until the end of May to negotiate with the government on a final agreement.
The carmakers initially asked Congress for $25 billion, then returned two weeks later to plead for as much as $34 billion. But with the White House refusing to dole out new spending for the Big Three, congressional Democrats agreed to use an existing program that was to help carmakers retool their factories to make more fuel-efficient cars.
That fund yielded only $15 billion in emergency loans, and when negotiators agreed to leave some money in the environmental program, the amount fell to $14 billion.
A breakthrough came when Democrats agreed to scrap language — which the White House had called a "poison pill" — that would have forced the carmakers to drop lawsuits challenging tough emissions limits in California and other states.
There was still heartburn among Republicans, however, over language that would force the automakers to abide by those states' limits. Democrats insisted on it as a kind of consolation prize for environmentalists, who already were livid at the raid of the fuel-efficiency program.
Kaplan said the Bush administration would work with President-elect Barack Obama's team on choosing the so-called "car czar," acknowledging that Bush's tenure ends soon and the automakers' woes will continue well into 2009.
Obama defended the auto bailout as necessary given the threat a potential Big Three collapse could pose to an already battered economy.
"As messy as it may be, I think there's a sense of, 'Let's stabilize the patient,'" he said in an interview published in Wednesday's Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times.
The car czar would have say-so over any major business decisions by the automakers while they were taking advantage of federal aid, with veto power over any transaction of $100 million or more. The companies — including the private equity firm Cerberus, which owns a majority stake in Chrysler — would have to open their books to the government overseer.
And if Chrysler defaulted on its loan, Cerberus would be responsible for reimbursing the government.
Also included in the bill is an unrelated pay raise for federal judges.
aj
Well-known member
I hope they block the damn thing chapter 11 is the way to go. It will be quick and no interruption of services. I don't really think management will want Pelosie as their car commissar anyway.
Show Heifer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,221
A few thoughts:
Farwest - I worked a job that I made 35 and hour plus full benefits, including health (no deductable), dental, vision, 401K, etc. I was MISERABLE. So, I quit. It wasn't worth my sanity to make that much money (15 years ago). I went to a job that paid 15 an hour, no benefits and enjoyed it. But, that lead me to starting my own business. So maybe the lack of money IS the root of inovation? Anyway, I probably would never work for a union.....I am much to independent for that (surprise, surprise!!). So no, I would pass on the 70 an hour union job, but that is MY Choice. I do not hold a grudge against anyone who does.
I happen to believe that unions are the big downfall of the America system. Did you know that Toyota sold 9.3 million cars last year and made 15 Billion dollars and Cryslar sold 9.7 million cars and LOST 27 Million dollars? What is the difference????? Ahhh,,,,,,unions.
I can argue the bail out both ways. I do not think any business, regardless of what it is, should be given a free ride to fail from failure. BUT....we bailed out AIG, Starnes, etc. so why not? What is the difference in bailing out one industry vs. another?? EXCEPT that a lot of senators/congressman were invested in the AIG type companies and of course they wanted to say their butts.
Whatever......guess what? Those in power haven't listened to the public yet, I doubt if they are listening now.
AJ - ya beat me to the punch!!! Chapter 11 is the way to go......
Farwest - I worked a job that I made 35 and hour plus full benefits, including health (no deductable), dental, vision, 401K, etc. I was MISERABLE. So, I quit. It wasn't worth my sanity to make that much money (15 years ago). I went to a job that paid 15 an hour, no benefits and enjoyed it. But, that lead me to starting my own business. So maybe the lack of money IS the root of inovation? Anyway, I probably would never work for a union.....I am much to independent for that (surprise, surprise!!). So no, I would pass on the 70 an hour union job, but that is MY Choice. I do not hold a grudge against anyone who does.
I happen to believe that unions are the big downfall of the America system. Did you know that Toyota sold 9.3 million cars last year and made 15 Billion dollars and Cryslar sold 9.7 million cars and LOST 27 Million dollars? What is the difference????? Ahhh,,,,,,unions.
I can argue the bail out both ways. I do not think any business, regardless of what it is, should be given a free ride to fail from failure. BUT....we bailed out AIG, Starnes, etc. so why not? What is the difference in bailing out one industry vs. another?? EXCEPT that a lot of senators/congressman were invested in the AIG type companies and of course they wanted to say their butts.
Whatever......guess what? Those in power haven't listened to the public yet, I doubt if they are listening now.
AJ - ya beat me to the punch!!! Chapter 11 is the way to go......
SHOW HEIFER
I happen to believe that unions are the big downfall of the America system. Did you know that Toyota sold 9.3 million cars last year and made 15 Billion dollars and Cryslar sold 9.7 million cars and LOST 27 Million dollars? What is the difference?Huh?? Ahhh,,,,,,unions.
You're problem is that you're talking about the wrong question. Somehow we got into a discussion about unions when the question was on the economy. You MUST have discresionary spending to fuel the econmony. That is a fact, not an opinion, not a view not a position. My point was that unless workers earn high enough wages to spend money on more than their needs, the econmomy is going down the toilet, just as it is now. Who cares if Toyota made a bunch of money?? The money that their workers spend is what makes our economy go, not the money a few individuals in Japan put in their pockets. Chrysler had a far more positive effect on the economy of this country than Toyota did because Toyota workers make $15 an hour, just enough to get by and certainly not enough to get a loan to buy a house from me. If existence is your idea of how Americans should live then by all means there are many people just barely getting by. If Chrysler lost 27 million when they sold 9.3 million cars and the average Chysler product costs 20,000, which is of course low, then they only lost the retail value of 1350 cars or 1.45% of their total retail sales. The actual figure would probably be nearer 1.25%. Doesn't sound so bad considering the money the company puts into the economy of this country.
Again as far as unions go, I don't have a dog in that fight. I know for a fact that unions protect sorry workers, even if their management wishes they didn't have to. I also know for a fact that without at least the threat of organized employees, how corporations would treat their workers because I've been in management. And I know that whatever union contract is in place was agreed upon by some corporation that seemed to think they would do just fine when they signed the contract.
Also, and I don't know if it's a fact, but last night I heard Donald Trump say that union wages and benefits were only 10% of the cost of an automobile. If thats true then your presumption of what the difference between the profitability of Toyota vs. Chysler isn't true since 10% won't cover the difference between 15 Billion and -27 million.
And lastly, Toyota is now in the same boat with everyone else. Their cars cost more than most people who work for a living can afford, like their employees for instance. They aren't selling any cars either. Production of the Prius for America has been stopped since they are backed up on lots all over the country now. We should argue about Toyota. I don't know ANYTHING about the company, its cars, trucks, never been to its HQ in Japan, NOTHING. Just fire away
.
I happen to believe that unions are the big downfall of the America system. Did you know that Toyota sold 9.3 million cars last year and made 15 Billion dollars and Cryslar sold 9.7 million cars and LOST 27 Million dollars? What is the difference?Huh?? Ahhh,,,,,,unions.
You're problem is that you're talking about the wrong question. Somehow we got into a discussion about unions when the question was on the economy. You MUST have discresionary spending to fuel the econmony. That is a fact, not an opinion, not a view not a position. My point was that unless workers earn high enough wages to spend money on more than their needs, the econmomy is going down the toilet, just as it is now. Who cares if Toyota made a bunch of money?? The money that their workers spend is what makes our economy go, not the money a few individuals in Japan put in their pockets. Chrysler had a far more positive effect on the economy of this country than Toyota did because Toyota workers make $15 an hour, just enough to get by and certainly not enough to get a loan to buy a house from me. If existence is your idea of how Americans should live then by all means there are many people just barely getting by. If Chrysler lost 27 million when they sold 9.3 million cars and the average Chysler product costs 20,000, which is of course low, then they only lost the retail value of 1350 cars or 1.45% of their total retail sales. The actual figure would probably be nearer 1.25%. Doesn't sound so bad considering the money the company puts into the economy of this country.
Again as far as unions go, I don't have a dog in that fight. I know for a fact that unions protect sorry workers, even if their management wishes they didn't have to. I also know for a fact that without at least the threat of organized employees, how corporations would treat their workers because I've been in management. And I know that whatever union contract is in place was agreed upon by some corporation that seemed to think they would do just fine when they signed the contract.
Also, and I don't know if it's a fact, but last night I heard Donald Trump say that union wages and benefits were only 10% of the cost of an automobile. If thats true then your presumption of what the difference between the profitability of Toyota vs. Chysler isn't true since 10% won't cover the difference between 15 Billion and -27 million.
And lastly, Toyota is now in the same boat with everyone else. Their cars cost more than most people who work for a living can afford, like their employees for instance. They aren't selling any cars either. Production of the Prius for America has been stopped since they are backed up on lots all over the country now. We should argue about Toyota. I don't know ANYTHING about the company, its cars, trucks, never been to its HQ in Japan, NOTHING. Just fire away
.
knabe
Well-known member
so,
maybe used car dealers will start making money, and repair shops and the rate of turnover of materials to build new cars will slow?
this creates new opportunity. it has been ignored, and now it's "too big to fail". that's why failure is a good thing. it allows reallocation of resources. this is simply why the soviet union failed. they never allowed allocation of resources.
the problem is that government is always the best insulated from change. their cobbling together of constituencies is similar to how athens and sparta fought each other very recently after defeating xerxes.
jack be nimble, jack be quick, jack jump over the bailout stick. stop relying on others to invest your time and money.
what needs/wants are not being serviced? why are kids being lured to victim studies, text/camera phone abuse. redirect that energy. allow failure.
if a car dealer goes out of business, sell used cars, fix them up, sell integrity, sell value, don't wait for an idea, think of them.
perhaps start a movement to reduce government control to make it easier to do business by voting out republicans and democrats.
ooooooh it's toooo hard.
maybe used car dealers will start making money, and repair shops and the rate of turnover of materials to build new cars will slow?
this creates new opportunity. it has been ignored, and now it's "too big to fail". that's why failure is a good thing. it allows reallocation of resources. this is simply why the soviet union failed. they never allowed allocation of resources.
the problem is that government is always the best insulated from change. their cobbling together of constituencies is similar to how athens and sparta fought each other very recently after defeating xerxes.
jack be nimble, jack be quick, jack jump over the bailout stick. stop relying on others to invest your time and money.
what needs/wants are not being serviced? why are kids being lured to victim studies, text/camera phone abuse. redirect that energy. allow failure.
if a car dealer goes out of business, sell used cars, fix them up, sell integrity, sell value, don't wait for an idea, think of them.
perhaps start a movement to reduce government control to make it easier to do business by voting out republicans and democrats.
ooooooh it's toooo hard.
Naaah,
Used car dealers are going out of business left and right. The reason there was such a surge in auto sale over the last couple of years is that, per month, it was as cheap, or in some cases cheaper to buy a new car than a used car due to finance charges.
The only reason that I would be for helping out the auto industry is that it employs people who have high paying jobs and there are no new industries, unless the government were to give big incentives to those businesses based on attaining energy independence, to replace the wages those jobs provide. And it is the wages earned by workers that make the econmoy go, period.
Manufacturing and health care are the only industries that can pay a substantial wage and sustain growth and longevity. The manufacturing in this country is about gone now. Why? Wages? Horse hockey. The corporate tax rate is the second highest in the world. And your new presidnet wants to raise them. Don't get me started on the ability of the american people to elect a leader.
If the auto industry goes down, there will be no jobs to replace them. At least not in this generation. And I am not willing to go through a 20 year depression so that some other generation can enjoy the sacrifices I made. This stuff about "the market" correcting itself is hogwash. One, it's not a true free market. And two, there have never been pressures exerted on the market that are happening now and will in the near future. This is a global economy now. It is effected by thousands of pressure we have no more control over.
Its like the proverbial cattle cycle, up and down, high and low inventories every 10 years. All that no longer applies. The cattle herd hasn't been built back this time. The average age of a cattleman is geriatric, when they go no one there to replace them. pastures turning into fields, forrests or in the recent past, housing developments. That's how this economy is. The old rules don't apply.
Used car dealers are going out of business left and right. The reason there was such a surge in auto sale over the last couple of years is that, per month, it was as cheap, or in some cases cheaper to buy a new car than a used car due to finance charges.
The only reason that I would be for helping out the auto industry is that it employs people who have high paying jobs and there are no new industries, unless the government were to give big incentives to those businesses based on attaining energy independence, to replace the wages those jobs provide. And it is the wages earned by workers that make the econmoy go, period.
Manufacturing and health care are the only industries that can pay a substantial wage and sustain growth and longevity. The manufacturing in this country is about gone now. Why? Wages? Horse hockey. The corporate tax rate is the second highest in the world. And your new presidnet wants to raise them. Don't get me started on the ability of the american people to elect a leader.
If the auto industry goes down, there will be no jobs to replace them. At least not in this generation. And I am not willing to go through a 20 year depression so that some other generation can enjoy the sacrifices I made. This stuff about "the market" correcting itself is hogwash. One, it's not a true free market. And two, there have never been pressures exerted on the market that are happening now and will in the near future. This is a global economy now. It is effected by thousands of pressure we have no more control over.
Its like the proverbial cattle cycle, up and down, high and low inventories every 10 years. All that no longer applies. The cattle herd hasn't been built back this time. The average age of a cattleman is geriatric, when they go no one there to replace them. pastures turning into fields, forrests or in the recent past, housing developments. That's how this economy is. The old rules don't apply.
aj
Well-known member
The jobs won't be lost under a chapter 11. They will reorganize,trim the fat, and come back stronger. There needs to be a shakeout of things in my opinion. There are used cars out that won't need to be financed. Maybe everybody will drive mopeds that would make Algore one happy camper. Maybe Pelosie can visit camp gizmo in Kansas via a moped. I have been pissed off ever since the U.S. government let our buggy whip manufacturing base dissolve. You just can't get a good buggy whip anymore. Why should our kids and grandkids pay for our stupidity after we are dead. End this ignorance now I say. Let the free market sort it out. Why is it the government can never do with less but it is okay to tax the people just a little bit more and a little bit more. There is a reason that people are flocking into this country and it is because there is a big ole hog trough out there and we just keep filling it up and filling it up. Wait till health care is free. Maybe we will all be singing bye bye miss american pie and inviting our terrorists friends over for lunch from ft leavenworth. It will be a utopia.
An email I received yesterday that offers a perspective on the subject.
Subject: Ford vs Toyota......
A Japanese company ( Toyota ) and an American company (Ford Motors) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River
Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.
On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.
The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.
Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 7 people steering and 2 people rowing.
Feeling a deeper study was in order; American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.
They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing.
Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 2 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager.
They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 2 people rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the 'Rowing Team Quality First Program,' with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rowers. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses. The pension program was trimmed to 'equal the competition' and some of the resultant savings were channeled into morale boosting programs and teamwork posters.
The next year the Japanese won by two miles.
Humiliated, the American management laid-off one rower, halted development of a new canoe, sold all the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment.The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses.
The next year, try as he might, the lone designated rower was unable to even finish the race (having no paddles,) so he was laid off for unacceptable performance, all canoe equipment was sold and the next year's racing team was outsourced to India .
Sadly, the End.
Here's something else to think about: Ford has spent the last thirty years moving all most of its factories out of the US , claiming they can't make money paying American wages.
TOYOTA has spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the US. The last quarter's results:
TOYOTA makes 4 billion in profits while Ford racked up 9 billion in losses.
Ford folks are still scratching their heads, and collecting bonuses...
IF THIS WEREN'T SO TRUE IT MIGHT BE FUNNY!
Subject: Ford vs Toyota......
A Japanese company ( Toyota ) and an American company (Ford Motors) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River
Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.
On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.
The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.
Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 7 people steering and 2 people rowing.
Feeling a deeper study was in order; American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.
They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing.
Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 2 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager.
They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 2 people rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the 'Rowing Team Quality First Program,' with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rowers. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses. The pension program was trimmed to 'equal the competition' and some of the resultant savings were channeled into morale boosting programs and teamwork posters.
The next year the Japanese won by two miles.
Humiliated, the American management laid-off one rower, halted development of a new canoe, sold all the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment.The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses.
The next year, try as he might, the lone designated rower was unable to even finish the race (having no paddles,) so he was laid off for unacceptable performance, all canoe equipment was sold and the next year's racing team was outsourced to India .
Sadly, the End.
Here's something else to think about: Ford has spent the last thirty years moving all most of its factories out of the US , claiming they can't make money paying American wages.
TOYOTA has spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the US. The last quarter's results:
TOYOTA makes 4 billion in profits while Ford racked up 9 billion in losses.
Ford folks are still scratching their heads, and collecting bonuses...
IF THIS WEREN'T SO TRUE IT MIGHT BE FUNNY!
farwest
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2008
- Messages
- 916
Yeah i agree with showheifer, let's pay all union workers ten bucks and hour, show billions in profits, and deal out rice to the four family huts as the japanese do, that will spur the economy. If anyone thinks paying significantly lower wages of auto workers is going to lower the price of vehichles your wrong, they'll still get 40k for a pickup, just stick more in bonuses. Why not give it to middle income, spur the economy.
knabe
Well-known member
GONEWEST said:
all that means is there is an oversupply of cars. there's an oversupply of manufacturing capacity as well. it takes time for the lag to adjust. lags should not be subsidized. if you do, you make them bigger till they are "too big to fail". the lack of adjustment means that the adjustment will be bigger later. why is this so hard to understand?
JbarL
Well-known member
FXDS said:
ford overseas = no epa no osha no workerscomp liability no matching social security funds no insurance no "retirement" benifits no child labor laws no paid vacation no shortage of "employees"
toyota usa = fedreal tax abatments for plant construction ( for the coprpration) , state, county and municipalities tax subusidiies thru there residents tax pockets to get them in there area ....all for cars ?....nope....all for there local economy ?.....yep....dollars paid per hour means nothing when your livin' rent free...jbarll
knabe
Well-known member
perhaps the US government could treat US companies like foreign companies?
shortyjock89
Well-known member
knabe said:
Ah...but then...when you treat everyone the same, where's the diversity?
JbarL
Well-known member
bingo again knabe...most of the fall of our industrious supremency began about the same time unions started using less than good sense....the 70's....the steel industry was competing against china...who subsidized there nations out put buy making it for 1.87 a pound....and selling it on the "open" market for 1.58....subsidizing the .29 a pound ( paid by the chinese goverment ) insead of giving there population unemployment benifits....same money to the them....they do it to this day.....in the last year the chineses have bought up every piece of junk iron/ crushed car/ appliance/ piece of copper/ & aluminum that this county went around the farm and junk yards and picked it up for them !....check the junk/scrap prices now considered to 8 months ago....hows come they can buy it as junkfrom us....put tons on ship after ship, and take it to there country....and we give it away??...amercians have to play the "fair trade" game....and the others..china/indonisa/korea/india/japan/cambodia..and any other country you misght see listed on every hat or trousers or blouses and jackets you wear or toy or camera tv or tire youi purchase....they all seem to be playing the " whats good for my countries economy" game ? ...1974 chevy vega....the first american car to rust on the show room floor..do you think it was a production workers fault....or an executive guy who thought buying cheaper chinese steel would improve the bottom line?? ....either way....the workers and there "quality" as a labor force were the ones scruninized....lazy overpaid bums....kinda like ...new coke ...a few years back....it wasnt supposed to be "new coke"...it was supposed to be " more profitable" coke....but some bright thinker thought using a cheaper sugar supplier would "improve the stockholders earnings"....end result....it changed completely the taste of there origional product...and had to they had to market and spend millions on advertising to sell it untill a couple years supply of sugar was gone....ya cant fix stupid......lets make our own new rules...frame it up knabe....knabe said:
jbarlLatest posts
-
-
-
60 days to show and my steer needs more fat
- Latest: steer lover 4ever
-
Experience crossing up Belted Galloways?
- Latest: steer lover 4ever
-