General Motors

Status
Not open for further replies.
But the thing that is misleading is that he is saying that it was society's capital as if we (the nation or the taxpayers) were an investor. We are actually mostly consumers and those that patronized GM got something for that capital they gave them (a car). I don't think they really care what was done with the money as long as they could get their car fixed when they needed too. This is a totally misleading article.

A lot of Americans are investors. Anyone with a retirement plan outside of a savings account, a mattress, or a mason jar and a shovel is also an investor. I'm an investor in multiple corporations through my own personal investments and through my 401k. I've given them capital (money) in exchange for shares in hopes that I will get more back in return (either through dividends or increased share value--ideally both!).

Those shares of GM (which raised capital--money--for GM) represented the investments of people in one way or another. If you check Google Finance, you'll see that in the last 10 years, GM's stock value has decreased 95.6% in value. That's losses, both realized and unrealized, that have taken money out of the pockets of investors--of wealthy investors, yes, but also of regular GM employees who bought stock for their retirement and non-employees who also thought it would be a good investment. It's taken money out of the pockets of Americans who may never even have owned a GM vehicle.

GM and Ford are a net drain. They are money-losing investments, and throwing more money at the company in the form of a bailout won't change it. The bailout will just be lost by GM/Ford's poor business performance. That's the purpose of his article--his opinion piece--and there's nothing misleading about it.
 
i heard some of the GM execs have stated that if they receive government help, they'll cut their own salaries to a dollar. a noble gesture. it woulda been nice if banking execs made a similar sacrafice when they received their bailouts.
 
i heard some of the GM execs have stated that if they receive government help, they'll cut their own salaries to a dollar. a noble gesture. it woulda been nice if banking execs made a similar sacrafice when they received their bailouts.
i will believe that when i see it...........
 
i heard some of the GM execs have stated that if they receive government help, they'll cut their own salaries to a dollar. a noble gesture. it woulda been nice if banking execs made a similar sacrafice when they received their bailouts.

I'm calling "bull ****" on that one, since I'm sure the bailout will include benefits for the CEOs of the automobile industry much like it did for those in charge of the banks and investment firms which went under.
 
clearly, in the end, the execs who would sacrifice their salaries will be fine, but its still a generous gesture to show that they're willing to make sacrifices to get the help. and i dont see any other execs who are receiving bailout money doing that.

whether or not the bailout would include executive benefits, i dont know. i dont think it should, obviously. i hope it doesnt. and at this point, with things not looking good, i dont think the execs are expecting it, nor do i think it would be a sticking point for them.
 
Found a column from Mitt Romney on the bailout. He gives some interesting insight.

They could get this guy to be the car czar. :D

Op-Ed Contributor
Let Detroit Go Bankrupt


Article Tools Sponsored By
By MITT ROMNEY
Published: November 18, 2008

Boston

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for this year’s Republican presidential nomination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html
 
The CEO's of the big 3 automakers will be in front of the Senate again today with their hand out
 
I was just reading on Romney and what's he's done as a buissnessman to turn around struggling companies. He is definitley a guy to listen to on this subject.

I was leaning toward the bailout but the more I've learned it looks like that's just gonna be a band-aid and not a permanent solution.
 
Tell that to Barney "it won't hurt to try a bailout" Frank. Paulson might not allow them to use the TARP fund but they will find a loophole. Reid and Pelosi want it, so it probably going to happen. That is all that matters.

That is the part that scares me....
 
According to some news "blips" last night, it doesn't look all that good for the automakers. It's been a pretty unfriendly reception they've gotten at the hearings so far.
 
According to some news "blips" last night, it doesn't look all that good for the automakers. It's been a pretty unfriendly reception they've gotten at the hearings so far.

Probably the AIG situation. It showed what can go wrong.

It's good that the AIG thing was discovered, though.

Otherwise the public and politicians wouldn't be giving the bailouts more of a look over.

What I don't get is how so many politicians were fooled so easily by the bailout. Giving that much money with zero accountability to anyone is a blatantly stupid mistake.
 
Lets assume you are your parents, you pull in $100,000 a year total. It's you, your spouse, your kid, your car and your home. Alread, off the Bat, you are paying 33% in income Taxes alone. There goes $33,333, leaving your with $77,777. Then, you have FICA Taxes (Social Security, etc) of 6.5%. There goes $5,055.50. Leaving you $72,721.50. Then, you have your mortage, let's say it's $1000 a month. That leaves you with $60,721.50. Now, you also have your regular grocery bills, that's about $400 a month. Leaving you with $54.721.50.

Then, you have your car, with the State Licensing Fee, of about $100, so you now have $54,621.50. Oh, crap, you forgot about State and City Taxes, State Taxes about about 5%, but that's on what you earned, not what wealth you have, so there goes another $5,000, leaving you $49,621.50. And a City tax of 3%. So, there goes another $3000 bucks. Leaving you with $46,621.50. AND there's Property Tax. Which is $3000 a year on your $180,000 home. So, we are down to what? $43,621.50.

Now, you have cable and cell phone bills, $100 a month for Cable and Internet, leaving you with $42421, and $100 a month for that Family Plan Cell phone Bill. $41.221.

Then, $350 a month for those car payments, $4200 a year. Down to $37,021. Electric, that $75 a month, $900. Leaving $36,121. Then Gas for the car, $25 a week. Thats $1300 a year. Leaving you with $34821.

Crap, Anita is going to College? That's how much again?

And we still have home owners insurance, Car Insurance, Jr's School Fees, Anita's College Books, the Family dog to take care of and feed. And, we even will have to pay H&R Block to file our taxes. Then, we have membership fees at CostCo.

That $100,000 a year income doesn't look so hot now does it?

are you trying to make me sick? many do just fine on far less. we have been convinced that we need all these things to live a happy life. its bull.

I don't see why not. You paid for that service with your tax dollars. You do pay taxes, don't you?



At least they are willing to that that amount of risk. It seems like you are not. In fact GM realizes the risk to the point that they refuse to go bankrupt and are daring enough to go the the government to ask for assistance. That is the difference between you and them.



And what if you can get a loan to keep you afloat until the market improves? You would be kicking yourself for not doing that. Running out of money is not an excuse to go out of business. That is what loans are for. A company should and will go out of business if there is no longer a market for their products.

capitalism only works if failure is an option. if gm collapses it will not be the end of the world. other auto makers will absord alot of their assets and better more efficient businesses will rise from the ashes.

we can not reward poor performance.

and stop with the doom and gloom already. the world will keep ticking without gm. now if apple was on the rocks i would be alot more worried.
 
are you trying to make me sick? many do just fine on far less. we have been convinced that we need all these things to live a happy life. its bull.

I was just pointing out the Fact the Government Taxes us way too much, and if we can keep more of our earned income, we all would be better off for it.
 
Unless of course our earned income is less than Minimum Wage which you want to get rid of.


:thing: :doom: :thing:
 
Unless of course our earned income is less than Minimum Wage which you want to get rid of.
Again, would you rather have a Job, or would you rather people lose jobs?

Anyone else notice how Unemployment went up, every time theirs a Minimum Wage increase? Weird.
 
Again, would you rather have a Job, or would you rather people lose jobs?

Anyone else notice how Unemployment went up, every time theirs a Minimum Wage increase? Weird.

And yet profit percentage went up for corporations. So when the system is right the Employers will be getting 200% profit and the workers will be making 2.15 an hour. Cost of living keeps going up and we're expected to live off 5 bucks an hour?

Try living off minimum wage. It sucks. Much less under minimum wage.


:thing: :doom: :thing:
 
And yet profit percentage went up for corporations. So when the system is right the Employers will be getting 200% profit and the workers will be making 2.15 an hour. Cost of living keeps going up and we're expected to live off 5 bucks an hour?

Try living off minimum wage. It sucks. Much less under minimum wage.
When was the last time your earned only minimum wage? I know you are a Server, but, when really was the last time you only earned Minimum Wage. Your profile says you are 37, is that correct?
 
I'm a small business owner. My business is me. I'm a DJ. I'm an actor. I'm a voice over artist. I'm a bartender. I'm a waiter.

But sometimes when I can't get gigs, I take jobs wherever I can get them. And when I do more likely than not its for minimum. And in places like Chicago I have to live in Demilitarized Zones because that's the only place I can afford.

It's tough. It sucks. And most of the time I barely squeek by.


Barely squeeking by is no way to live.



:thing: :doom: :thing:
 
I'm a small business owner. My business is me. I'm a DJ. I'm an actor. I'm a voice over artist. I'm a bartender. I'm a waiter.

But sometimes when I can't get gigs, I take jobs wherever I can get them. And when I do more likely than not its for minimum. And in places like Chicago I have to live in Demilitarized Zones because that's the only place I can afford.

It's tough. It sucks. And most of the time I barely squeek by.


Barely squeeking by is no way to live.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

Then you should try a profession that pays more....bartending doesn't pay much unless you're doing it full time....drop the DJ and acting BS and get a real job....
 
...capitalism only works if failure is an option. if gm collapses it will not be the end of the world. other auto makers will absord alot of their assets and better more efficient businesses will rise from the ashes.

we can not reward poor performance.

and stop with the doom and gloom already. the world will keep ticking without gm. now if apple was on the rocks i would be alot more worried.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/b...artner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

Yeah, right.
 
Was that sarcasm?


:thing: :doom: :thing:

Yes and no.....the job I have isn't the most glamourous in the world, but it pays well and it affords me my bad habits (comics, games, going to San Diego for Comic Con, etc)....you're struggling because the field you are in has no money in it at entry level....so try a new field....do something else
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,310
Messages
22,083,777
Members
45,883
Latest member
marvel2099fan89
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"