Detroit in Ruins

[abeo]

Do you agree or disagree with the video's "assessments", about how Detroit got to the way it is today?

The video is 13 minutes long. As always ..... all comments and opinions are welcomed. Enjoy.

Detroit in Ruins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhJ_49leBw&feature=topvideos)

[Elmer]

The 13 minute video will probably limit honest participation.

Why don't you synopsize?

[808Lurker]

I trying to limit myself to not watching strange videoes linked on a forum by someone with an agenda.

There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... You can't get fooled again.

[tyman]

The 13 minute video will probably limit honest participation.

Why don't you synopsize?

Basically:

Detroit sucks.

[rrc06]

I started a thread about the suckage in Detroit awhile ago here (http://slickdeals.net/showthread.php?t=1629667)

[JimOfTroy]

Basically:

Detroit sucks.

But he's right, a wild dog vs. bear fight would be pretty cool.

[Juna]

The video is a bit long and has some slow points.

Synopsis:

Basically, the video is a guy pointing out how Detroit went from riches to ruins as a result of "leftist" policies implemented there by government over time. He's trying to draw comparison between the promises and agendas of current & former Detroit mayors & politicians and those of Obama & Congress and suggesting that similar promises & programs would yield similar results.

I tend to agree.

[Kate1240]

Bodies pile up in Detroit morgue; poor can't afford burial. http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/01/news/economy/_morgue/index.htm

Pontiac Silverdome sold for $583,000." http://detnews.com/article/20091117/METRO/911170327/Silverdome-sale-price-disappoints

[JimOfTroy]

The video is a bit long and has some slow points.

Synopsis:

Basically, the video is a guy pointing out how Detroit went from riches to ruins as a result of "leftist" policies implemented there by government over time. He's trying to draw comparison between the promises and agendas of current & former Detroit mayors & politicians and those of Obama & Congress and suggesting that similar promises & programs would yield similar results.

I tend to agree.

:iagree: Very well put. Excellent synopsis.

Plus a polar bear fell on a car.

[Hawk2007]

I trying to limit myself to not watching strange videoes linked on a forum by someone with an agenda.

There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... You can't get fooled again.


Come on, the best idea Barack could propose is to chain off Detroit and turn into a live amusement park.

Tax dollars could be spent turning Ford Expeditions into Land Rover like ATV vehicles and we could give tourists peanuts to feed the detroit residents with.

FTR - Despite how unions turned Detroit into an industrial cesspool, I would be okay with them running the theme park.

BTW - you don't even have to listen to the audio. Frankly, you can turn it off. You can watch a city that used to be one of the wealthiest in America turn into a wasteland.

[Hawk2007]

The video is a bit long and has some slow points.

Synopsis:

Basically, the video is a guy pointing out how Detroit went from riches to ruins as a result of "leftist" policies implemented there by government over time. He's trying to draw comparison between the promises and agendas of current & former Detroit mayors & politicians and those of Obama & Congress and suggesting that similar promises & programs would yield similar results.

I tend to agree.

the tl;dr

Detroit is a dump.

Excuse me...


Detroit is a farking dump...

[rrc06]

The idea that the Big 3 had an incentive to sell more SUVs and trucks (with their corresponding higher profit margins) to maintain profitability while still paying inflated UAW wages & benefits is quite ironic when you consider how many on the left would rather have Detroit produce smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.

Glad to see that the video brought this up.

[Hawk2007]

The idea that the Big 3 had an incentive to sell more SUVs and trucks (with their corresponding higher profit margins) to maintain profitability while still paying inflated UAW wages & benefits is quite ironic when you consider how many on the left would rather have Detroit produce smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.

Glad to see that the video brought this up.



Quite hilarious indeed. The big three cheerleaders in TP don't often bring up that one, do they. ;)

Interestingly enough, because of the UAW, I consider it anti-American to purchase a big three vehicle. Many "imports" and even luxury imports are made right here in America. So, you can drive an American made vehicle built by your fellow Americans but it doesn't have to come from Ford, GM or Chrysler and their brands.

[tyman]

The idea that the Big 3 had an incentive to sell more SUVs and trucks (with their corresponding higher profit margins) to maintain profitability while still paying inflated UAW wages & benefits is quite ironic when you consider how many on the left would rather have Detroit produce smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.

Glad to see that the video brought this up.

Watch Steven's other vids...he's spot on on just about everything. :D

But he's right, a wild dog vs. bear fight would be pretty cool.

:woot:

[808Lurker]

The video is a bit long and has some slow points.

Synopsis:

Basically, the video is a guy pointing out how Detroit went from riches to ruins as a result of "leftist" policies implemented there by government over time. He's trying to draw comparison between the promises and agendas of current & former Detroit mayors & politicians and those of Obama & Congress and suggesting that similar promises & programs would yield similar results.

I tend to agree.


So basically a Michael Moore type of "documentary"... glad I didn't watch it.

Did i make it in before it was blamed on the union...

Fake Edit: Guess not...

[808Lurker]

The idea that the Big 3 had an incentive to sell more SUVs and trucks (with their corresponding higher profit margins) to maintain profitability while still paying inflated UAW wages & benefits is quite ironic when you consider how many on the left would rather have Detroit produce smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.

Glad to see that the video brought this up.

If only those companies had decent management then we might not have had them failcascade. I mean seriously, Henry Ford was able to produce well designed, realiable vehicles while taking care of his employees.

I see no mention of paying inflated management wages & benefits, when you have the CEO of the big three, earning more per year then half the management staff of their competition.

[rrc06]

If only those companies had decent management then we might not have had them failcascade. I mean seriously, Henry Ford was able to produce well designed, realiable vehicles while taking care of his employees.

He also despised unions

I see no mention of paying inflated management wages & benefits, when you have the CEO of the big three, earning more per year then half the management staff of their competition.

so two wrongs make a right?

Also, can you show me any data that indicates that CEO pay did this (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/1127/048a.html) to the price of an american car the way UAW wages and benefits did? CEOs have been grossly overpaid at the Big 3 to be sure, but AFAIK, that is not what lead to the cost gap per vehicle between the foreign automakers and the Big 3.

[skiman]

He also despised unions


And Jews.

Just saying...

[MikeBear]

Come on, the best idea Barack could propose is to chain off Detroit and turn into a live amusement park.


They tried that in Flint years ago, it was called "AUTOWORLD". It lasted less than 1 year, they tried reviving it, but couldn't, and they finally bulldozed the whole complex. It was right down town, which was just one of their major mistakes in this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AutoWorld

YES, I did go there at their opening, on free tickets we got from our credit union!

As long as we have the Canadian socialist governor we have, nothing in Michigan is going to come back. Thank goodness she's out very soon!

[Dr. J]

The video is a bit long and has some slow points.

Synopsis:

Basically, the video is a guy pointing out how Detroit went from riches to ruins as a result of "leftist" policies implemented there by government over time. He's trying to draw comparison between the promises and agendas of current & former Detroit mayors & politicians and those of Obama & Congress and suggesting that similar promises & programs would yield similar results.

I tend to agree.

Didn't watch the video but I recall a news story awhile back (yeah it's going to be a PITA to find it) that noticed that cities that continually elect themselves (D) representation have also coincidentally seen increases in crime, drops in revenues and jobs, etc.

[lobo411]

Didn't watch the video but I recall a news story awhile back (yeah it's going to be a PITA to find it) that noticed that cities that continually elect themselves (D) representation have also coincidentally seen increases in crime, drops in revenues and jobs, etc.

Lemme guess...Fox News? ;)

[Dr. J]

Lemme guess...Fox News? ;)

no it was a paper but I can't find the source...

oops here it is, I think.

One source is the Gartman letter and the second is from Glen Beck (rehashing, yes I know):

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/20/beck.cities/index.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/gartman-blame-democratic-mayors-for-nationwide-poverty-2009-12

The actual Gartman letter is a subscription and although the link sums it up (Business Insider), Beck explains it best:

Poverty is one of the few national issues that, at least on the surface, unites us all. It's not a political condition; it's a human one. After all, when's the last time you've heard a politician campaign on a pro-poverty platform?

"... But although the problem may unite us, the solutions don't. And perhaps nothing illustrates that better than what's been happening in Detroit, Michigan, and Buffalo, New York.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly a third of the residents in those cities are living beneath the poverty line, the highest rates among large cities in the entire country."

"For example, Detroit, whose mayor has been indicted on felony charges, hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961. Buffalo has been even more stubborn. It started putting a Democrat in office back in 1954, and it hasn't stopped since.

Unfortunately, those two cities may be alone at the top of the poverty rate list, but they're not alone in their love for Democrats. Cincinnati, Ohio (third on the poverty rate list), hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1984. Cleveland, Ohio (fourth on the list), has been led by a Democrat since 1989. St. Louis, Missouri (sixth), hasn't had a Republican since 1949, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (eighth), since 1908, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (ninth), since 1952 and Newark, New Jersey (10th), since 1907.

The only two cities in the top 10 that I didn't mention (Miami, Florida, and El Paso, Texas) haven't had Republicans in office either -- just Democrats, independents or nonpartisans.

Over the past 50 years, the eight cities listed above have had Republican leadership for a combined 36 years. The rest of the time -- a combined 364 years -- they've been led by Democrats.

Five of the 10 cities with the highest poverty rates (Detroit, Buffalo, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Philadelphia and Newark) have had a Democratic stranglehold since at least 1961: more than 45 years. Two of the cities (Milwaukee and Newark) have been electing Democrats since the first Model T rolled off the assembly line in 1908.

Two cities, 100 years, all Democrats."

[LivninSC]

The video is a bit long and has some slow points.

Synopsis:

Basically, the video is a guy pointing out how Detroit went from riches to ruins as a result of "leftist" policies implemented there by government over time. He's trying to draw comparison between the promises and agendas of current & former Detroit mayors & politicians and those of Obama & Congress and suggesting that similar promises & programs would yield similar results.

I tend to agree.

I'm admittedly not going to watch the video but shouldn't they also include something about the Big 3 in the report? I mean once all those jobs left, and frankly inflated wages that left with them, what did they expect?

[Tony_Danza]

I'm admittedly not going to watch the video but shouldn't they also include something about the Big 3 in the report? I mean once all those jobs left, and frankly inflated wages that left with them, what did they expect?

The video is simple it's points are: The model cities program somehow made detroit dependent on the government, then the teachers union and the uaw ruined everything.

[808Lurker]

He also despised unions

He also took care of his workers, so there was no pressure for unions to form.


so two wrongs make a right?

No, however if you only acknowledge one wrong and put them blame on that one wrong, it doesn't make it right earlier. All the replies have been UAW killed detriot. I argue it was the unions, the Big 3 management and the politicians that did. If you place the blame on all 3, then I have no problems. However, it turned into another unions are to blame for everything thread.

Also, can you show me any data that indicates that CEO pay did this (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/1127/048a.html) to the price of an american car the way UAW wages and benefits did? CEOs have been grossly overpaid at the Big 3 to be sure, but AFAIK, that is not what lead to the cost gap per vehicle between the foreign automakers and the Big 3.

CEO pay and perks do contribute to the cost of the vehicle, but their mismanagement and ineptness contributed just as much to the fall of the Big 3 as the unions did.

[808Lurker]

no it was a paper but I can't find the source...

oops here it is, I think.

One source is the Gartman letter and the second is from Glen Beck (rehashing, yes I know):

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/20/beck.cities/index.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/gartman-blame-democratic-mayors-for-nationwide-poverty-2009-12

The actual Gartman letter is a subscription and although the link sums it up (Business Insider), Beck explains it best:

Poverty is one of the few national issues that, at least on the surface, unites us all. It's not a political condition; it's a human one. After all, when's the last time you've heard a politician campaign on a pro-poverty platform?

"... But although the problem may unite us, the solutions don't. And perhaps nothing illustrates that better than what's been happening in Detroit, Michigan, and Buffalo, New York.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly a third of the residents in those cities are living beneath the poverty line, the highest rates among large cities in the entire country."

"For example, Detroit, whose mayor has been indicted on felony charges, hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961. Buffalo has been even more stubborn. It started putting a Democrat in office back in 1954, and it hasn't stopped since.

Unfortunately, those two cities may be alone at the top of the poverty rate list, but they're not alone in their love for Democrats. Cincinnati, Ohio (third on the poverty rate list), hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1984. Cleveland, Ohio (fourth on the list), has been led by a Democrat since 1989. St. Louis, Missouri (sixth), hasn't had a Republican since 1949, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (eighth), since 1908, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (ninth), since 1952 and Newark, New Jersey (10th), since 1907.

The only two cities in the top 10 that I didn't mention (Miami, Florida, and El Paso, Texas) haven't had Republicans in office either -- just Democrats, independents or nonpartisans.

Over the past 50 years, the eight cities listed above have had Republican leadership for a combined 36 years. The rest of the time -- a combined 364 years -- they've been led by Democrats.

Five of the 10 cities with the highest poverty rates (Detroit, Buffalo, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Philadelphia and Newark) have had a Democratic stranglehold since at least 1961: more than 45 years. Two of the cities (Milwaukee and Newark) have been electing Democrats since the first Model T rolled off the assembly line in 1908.

Two cities, 100 years, all Democrats."


Holy steaming pile of propaganda.. Correlation does not equal casuality...

This is a typical example of why I can't take you seriously.

However, let's play this game. Americans over the past decade are getting more fat, poor and stupid. (test scores declining, poverty rates increasing, and obesity level increasing). This has been a relatively recent trend starting in past decade. Since the republicans have maintained power for a majority of those years, conclussion, Republicans are making this country poor, fat and stupid.

So my fellow Americans, it's not your fault if your poor, overweight or stupid, it's the Republicans!

[chazjr]

The average UAW worker earning $130,000 a year..!!

Are you kidding me.? The same thing is happening in California with their Over-paid Government Employees.. Who are also Unionized..

[appleyum]

The video is a bit long and has some slow points.

Synopsis:

Basically, the video is a guy pointing out how Detroit went from riches to ruins as a result of "leftist" policies implemented there by government over time. He's trying to draw comparison between the promises and agendas of current & former Detroit mayors & politicians and those of Obama & Congress and suggesting that similar promises & programs would yield similar results.

I tend to agree.
One additional in there. Union is ruining business(UAW) and society(Teacher's Union)

[808Lurker]

One additional in there. Union is ruining business(UAW) and society(Teacher's Union)


The lack of slavery is ruining business. I mean without a free (or the cost of some beans, loincloths and whips) source of labor our businesses are doomed to fail. We should follow China's example! No rights, prison labor, shoddy quality, so we can excel at producing cheap worthless junk.

So let's help businesses suceed in this climate, just vote YES! to "NO BUSINESS TAXES" and "SLAVERY!"

In all seriousness, UNIONS and BUSINESS have co-existed and thrived in this country for years. I know you all want to turn this country into China, but as long as someone makes something, there will be someone to sell it for a 200% markup.

Since we are throwing out insane ideas on how to save businesess's. Here you go!

1.. Any company that wants to do business in the US has to pay US taxes. Period.

2. Revoke all free trade agreements, and assign tariffs on goods we can produce. Free trade agreements just find the cheapest source of goods and labor and removes us out of competition for any goods. I know many Republicans want the average US worker to have the lifestyle of a starving ethopian.

3. Re-vamp the tax structure hugely. Treat any type of income the same, and tax it at a sliding scale. 5% to the poverty line, 15% to double the poverty line, 35% everything above that. No deductions, tax credits or loopholes. Everyone pays something.

4. Nuclear power in the places that can safely house it. Forget the solar and wind farms, put in 10-20 nuclear plants.

5. Forget this ethanol carp, ban GAS for automobiles in 10 years. Convert gasoline to hydrogen gas engines. Use the power from the nuclear plants to covert H20 to H2. Stations have 10 years to get their facilities up to par (hell even give them money to offset 1/2 the cost).

6. Reform copyright. Scale back the copyright terms to 20 years for creative works, 2 for software, 5 for hardware/phsycical methods. Make copyright non-transferable. The origional inventor maintains ownership but can lease his copyright out.

7. Bans national competitive sports in schools. Schools should be about learning, not football.

8. Cut social security payments by 20% and increase the retirement age.

9. Force speculators to take possession of the material they buy the futures of. Anyone shorting an item has to provide the item (and not cash equivalent) upon expiration of the term.

10. No bailouts. Period.

[appleyum]

The lack of slavery is ruining business. I mean without a free (or the cost of some beans, loincloths and whips) source of labor our businesses are doomed to fail. We should follow China's example! No rights, prison labor, shoddy quality, so we can excel at producing cheap worthless junk.

So let's help businesses suceed in this climate, just vote YES! to "NO BUSINESS TAXES" and "SLAVERY!"

In all seriousness, UNIONS and BUSINESS have co-existed and thrived in this country for years. I know you all want to turn this country into China, but as long as someone makes something, there will be someone to sell it for a 200% markup.

Since we are throwing out insane ideas on how to save businesess's. Here you go!

1.. Any company that wants to do business in the US has to pay US taxes. Period.

2. Revoke all free trade agreements, and assign tariffs on goods we can produce. Free trade agreements just find the cheapest source of goods and labor and removes us out of competition for any goods. I know many Republicans want the average US worker to have the lifestyle of a starving ethopian.

3. Re-vamp the tax structure hugely. Treat any type of income the same, and tax it at a sliding scale. 5% to the poverty line, 15% to double the poverty line, 35% everything above that. No deductions, tax credits or loopholes. Everyone pays something.

4. Nuclear power in the places that can safely house it. Forget the solar and wind farms, put in 10-20 nuclear plants.

5. Forget this ethanol carp, ban GAS for automobiles in 10 years. Convert gasoline to hydrogen gas engines. Use the power from the nuclear plants to covert H20 to H2. Stations have 10 years to get their facilities up to par (hell even give them money to offset 1/2 the cost).

6. Reform copyright. Scale back the copyright terms to 20 years for creative works, 2 for software, 5 for hardware/phsycical methods. Make copyright non-transferable. The origional inventor maintains ownership but can lease his copyright out.

7. Bans national competitive sports in schools. Schools should be about learning, not football.

8. Cut social security payments by 20% and increase the retirement age.

9. Force speculators to take possession of the material they buy the futures of. Anyone shorting an item has to provide the item (and not cash equivalent) upon expiration of the term.

10. No bailouts. Period.
What the hell? How in the world did you jump from no union to slavery?

[OhNoItsDEVO]

.

Since we are throwing out insane ideas on how to save businesess's. Here you go!

1.. Any company that wants to do business in the US has to pay US taxes. Period.

2. Revoke all free trade agreements, and assign tariffs on goods we can produce. Free trade agreements just find the cheapest source of goods and labor and removes us out of competition for any goods. I know many Republicans want the average US worker to have the lifestyle of a starving ethopian.

3. Re-vamp the tax structure hugely. Treat any type of income the same, and tax it at a sliding scale. 5% to the poverty line, 15% to double the poverty line, 35% everything above that. No deductions, tax credits or loopholes. Everyone pays something.

4. Nuclear power in the places that can safely house it. Forget the solar and wind farms, put in 10-20 nuclear plants.

5. Forget this ethanol carp, ban GAS for automobiles in 10 years. Convert gasoline to hydrogen gas engines. Use the power from the nuclear plants to covert H20 to H2. Stations have 10 years to get their facilities up to par (hell even give them money to offset 1/2 the cost).

6. Reform copyright. Scale back the copyright terms to 20 years for creative works, 2 for software, 5 for hardware/phsycical methods. Make copyright non-transferable. The origional inventor maintains ownership but can lease his copyright out.

7. Bans national competitive sports in schools. Schools should be about learning, not football.

8. Cut social security payments by 20% and increase the retirement age.

9. Force speculators to take possession of the material they buy the futures of. Anyone shorting an item has to provide the item (and not cash equivalent) upon expiration of the term.

10. No bailouts. Period.

I actually agree with most of that.

[JimOfTroy]

The lack of slavery is ruining business...

Strangest rant ever?

[rrc06]

The lack of slavery is ruining business. I mean without a free (or the cost of some beans, loincloths and whips) source of labor our businesses are doomed to fail. We should follow China's example! No rights, prison labor, shoddy quality, so we can excel at producing cheap worthless junk.

So let's help businesses suceed in this climate, just vote YES! to "NO BUSINESS TAXES" and "SLAVERY!"

In all seriousness, UNIONS and BUSINESS have co-existed and thrived in this country for years. I know you all want to turn this country into China, but as long as someone makes something, there will be someone to sell it for a 200% markup.

Since we are throwing out insane ideas on how to save businesess's. Here you go!

1.. Any company that wants to do business in the US has to pay US taxes. Period.

2. Revoke all free trade agreements, and assign tariffs on goods we can produce. Free trade agreements just find the cheapest source of goods and labor and removes us out of competition for any goods. I know many Republicans want the average US worker to have the lifestyle of a starving ethopian.

3. Re-vamp the tax structure hugely. Treat any type of income the same, and tax it at a sliding scale. 5% to the poverty line, 15% to double the poverty line, 35% everything above that. No deductions, tax credits or loopholes. Everyone pays something.

4. Nuclear power in the places that can safely house it. Forget the solar and wind farms, put in 10-20 nuclear plants.

5. Forget this ethanol carp, ban GAS for automobiles in 10 years. Convert gasoline to hydrogen gas engines. Use the power from the nuclear plants to covert H20 to H2. Stations have 10 years to get their facilities up to par (hell even give them money to offset 1/2 the cost).

6. Reform copyright. Scale back the copyright terms to 20 years for creative works, 2 for software, 5 for hardware/phsycical methods. Make copyright non-transferable. The origional inventor maintains ownership but can lease his copyright out.

7. Bans national competitive sports in schools. Schools should be about learning, not football.

8. Cut social security payments by 20% and increase the retirement age.

9. Force speculators to take possession of the material they buy the futures of. Anyone shorting an item has to provide the item (and not cash equivalent) upon expiration of the term.

10. No bailouts. Period.

Surprisingly, I agree with much of what you have posted.

[808Lurker]

What the hell? How in the world did you jump from no union to slavery?

Strangest rant ever?

Well, the way things are now, to compete with Chinese workers. Even if everything was equivalent, it would still be cheaper for businesses to hire chinese workers at 49 cents / hr then an American worker. The thing with free trade it is always about the lowest demonitater. Taxes to high here, move to an Island with 0% taxes, too expensive to pay 7 bucks / hr for a guy to assemble your widgets, go to China where you can hire them for 0.49 cents an hour (and ship it here for $0.20), or the philipines where you can pay your wages with a bag of rice.

The end result, for the US businesses to compete successfully with they would have to pay a comparable wage. I don't know anyone who would work a logn demanding job for $4/day (even the illegal mexican workers wouldn't work for that much). Hence the slavery comment.

The average UAW worker earning $130,000 a year..!!

Links to show this is even remotely accurate. I know a couple UAW workers might earn that much, but definately not the average. Is this more shock inaccuate facts..

www.uaw.org/organize/advantage.cfm
Wages and benefits for the average union worker in the private sector totaled $37.02 per hour in September 2009,

37.02 * 40 * 52 = $77,001.6

Some may say thats too much... but the 140k is definately pulled out of thin air.

[Tony_Danza]

Links to show this is even remotely accurate. I know a couple UAW workers might earn that much, but definately not the average. Is this more shock inaccuate facts..

www.uaw.org/organize/advantage.cfm


37.02 * 40 * 52 = $77,001.6

Some may say thats too much... but the 140k is definately pulled out of thin air.

The 140k is if you include the legacy costs of retired workers and apply it to the current workforce. It is pretty disingenuous to count it towards current worker's salary (same with healthcare too) but the big 3 still has to pay those costs.

[808Lurker]

The 140k is if you include the legacy costs of retired workers and apply it to the current workforce. It is pretty disingenuous to count it towards current worker's salary (same with healthcare too) but the big 3 still has to pay those costs.

Thats not what they said...

The average UAW worker earning $130,000 a year..!!

No offense, but if I am making $50k/year, and you say i am making $120k/year because of benefits paid to someone else, and use that as an excuse to tell me I am overpaid. I will kindly tell you were to put it.

It was put forth that "the average UAW worker earns $130k / year", not the "average worker + currently retired worker" is costing the company $130k/year. See the difference.

I still think the over-generous retirement packages were a big failure on management to see the long-term picture. Also keep in mind, the unions have taken over the liability of the pensions away from the Big 3, not to excuse all their actions, so that cost should be going down. I think the inflated number has to do with shoring up the funding for the transition.

Again, the impending failure of our economy is traced back to a generation that "took care of themselves" by setting up some lavish programs and benefits at the expensive of their children and grandkids. So while you guys might blame the unions, I blame the babyboomers and their selfishness...

[Tony_Danza]

Oh don't get me wrong I agree with you. I'm just telling you were they pulled the bullsh*t from

[appleyum]

I actually agree with most of that.

Surprisingly, I agree with much of what you have posted.

:lol: :iagree:

[PaulG78]

Come on, the best idea Barack could propose is to chain off Detroit and turn into a live amusement park.


Nope the best idea is the one those of us on the west side of MI have been pushing for years. Sell, or hell at this point give, Detroit to Canada. Of coarse we would keep the Red Wings and move them to Grand Rapids. ;)

[Danman114]

2. Revoke all free trade agreements, and assign tariffs on goods we can produce. Free trade agreements just find the cheapest source of goods and labor and removes us out of competition for any goods. I know many Republicans want the average US worker to have the lifestyle of a starving ethopian.

5. Forget this ethanol carp, ban GAS for automobiles in 10 years. Convert gasoline to hydrogen gas engines. Use the power from the nuclear plants to covert H20 to H2. Stations have 10 years to get their facilities up to par (hell even give them money to offset 1/2 the cost).
These two are hugely expensive, and would only serve to harm consumers. The idea that starting trade wars is somehow beneficial to our society is lost on me.

7. Bans national competitive sports in schools. Schools should be about learning, not football.
Why not just ban sports in general? Shouldn't high school be about learning? How about we just outlaw fun?

[rrc06]

So while you guys might blame the unions, I blame the babyboomers and their selfishness...

Many of whom were in unions at the time :P

[Dr. J]

Holy steaming pile of propaganda.. Correlation does not equal casuality...

This is a typical example of why I can't take you seriously.

However, let's play this game. Americans over the past decade are getting more fat, poor and stupid. (test scores declining, poverty rates increasing, and obesity level increasing). This has been a relatively recent trend starting in past decade. Since the republicans have maintained power for a majority of those years, conclussion, Republicans are making this country poor, fat and stupid.

So my fellow Americans, it's not your fault if your poor, overweight or stupid, it's the Republicans!

Thanks.

..... and your likening of non union representation to slavery took the cake.

[abeo]

The 140k is if you include the legacy costs of retired workers and apply it to the current workforce. It is pretty disingenuous to count it towards current worker's salary (same with healthcare too) but the big 3 still has to pay those costs.

:no:

$73.26 (GM's active worker wages and benefits) x 2080 hours per year = $152,380.80 (Cost to GM per worker per year)



UAW Workers Actually Cost the Big Three Automakers $70 an Hour (http://www.heritage.org/Research/economy/wm2162.cfm)

UAW Workers Actually Cost the Big Three Automakers $70 an Hour
by James Sherk

The United Auto Workers (UAW) wants Congress to bail out General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler to prevent their undergoing restructuring in bankruptcy proceedings. In bankruptcy, a judge could order union contracts to be renegotiated to reflect competitive realities. Many analysts have objected that hourly autoworkers at the Big Three are some of the most highly paid workers in America, costing the Big Three over $70 an hour in wages and current and future benefits. All taxpayers should not be taxed to preserve the affluence of a few.

Some observers argue that UAW members do not actually earn this much.[1] They argue this figure includes the cost of benefits paid to current retirees as well as wages and benefits paid to current workers and that the actual hourly earnings of current UAW members are much lower. This is a mistaken interpretation of the financial data released by the Detroit automakers.

Cash Compensation

Chart 1 shows the average hourly compensation for UAW workers and the average compensation for all private sector workers. These figures are based upon calculations by the Detroit automakers themselves as published in SEC filings, their annual reports, and other materials. According to briefing materials prepared by General Motors, "The total of both cash compensation and benefits provided to GM hourly workers in 2006 amounted to approximately $73.26 per active hour worked."

UAW workers are highly paid, but not all this compensation comes as cash wages. Breaking the $73.26 figure down, General Motors reports that it pays base wages of roughly $30 an hour. At the end of December 2006, the average vehicle assembler at GM earned $28.02 an hour; the average machine repair electrician earned $32.43.[2]

Other provisions raise cash earnings above this base pay. For example, workers at Ford earn 10 percent premium payments for taking midnight shifts and double time for overtime hours worked on Sundays.[3]

Autoworkers put in substantial overtime hours at higher rates, raising earnings above their base pay. GM reported that its average hourly employee worked 315 overtime hours in 2006. Including all monetary payments--base wages, shift premiums, overtime pay, as well as vacation and holiday pay--GM reported an average hourly pay of $39.68 an hour in 2006.[4] About 54 percent of the average UAW employee at GM's earnings came in cash in 2006.

Earned Benefits

The remaining $33.58 an hour of hourly labor costs that GM reports--46 percent of total compensation--was paid as benefits. These benefits include[5]:

* Hospital, surgical, and prescription drug benefits;
* Dental and vision benefits;
* Group life insurance;
* Disability benefits;
* Supplemental Unemployment Benefits (SUB);
* Pension payments to workers pensions accounts to be paid out at retirement;
* Unemployment compensation; and
* Payroll taxes (employer's share).

These benefits cost the Detroit automakers significant amounts of money. Critics contend that these benefit figures include the cost of providing retirement and health benefits to currently retired workers, not just benefits for current workers. Since there are more retired than active employees this makes it appear that GM employees earn far more than they actually do.

This contention contradicts the plain meaning of what the automakers have reported in SEC filings and in their public statements and would be contrary to generally accepted accounting principles.

Under the accounting rules established by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, the Detroit automakers must report their liability for future benefits as they accrue.[6] The hourly benefits figure includes payments into defined benefit pension plans to provide future pensions to current workers. It also includes the estimated costs of future retirement health benefits that current workers earn today.

Chrysler, for example, reports paying $20.14 an hour in health costs for its hourly employees. That figure includes the estimated cost of their health benefits in retirement, calculated according to Financial Accounting Standard 106.[7] The government does not allow Chrysler to promise to pay tens of thousands of dollars in health benefits in the future without reporting that cost on its balance sheets today.

Excludes Legacy Costs

The hourly benefit figures the Detroit automakers report covers the cost of current and future benefits earned by actively working employees. It does not include the cost of paying health benefits and pensions to current retirees.

Before they requested a bailout, the Big Three automakers specifically explained that their labor cost figures do not include the cost of past work. General Motors states in its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission that:

GM maintains hourly and salaried benefit plans that provide postretirement medical, dental, vision, and life insurance to most U.S. and Canadian retirees and eligible dependents. The cost of such benefits is recognized in the consolidated financial statements during the period employees provide service to GM.[8]

In other words, GM records the expense for retiree benefits when workers earn the benefits, not years later when they collect their benefits. In less technical language, Ford explains that their total average hourly labor costs include:

(1) All the dollars paid to employees, (2) the cost of contractual benefits for employees, and (3) the cost of statutory payments, such as Social Security and Workers' Compensation--all calculated on the basis of hours worked by employees.[9]

Average hourly costs include the costs of wages and benefits (current and future) to employees divided by the number of hours worked by those same employees. It does not include the benefits paid to retirees.[10] This is in accord with standard accounting principles that require the Big Three to report their costs as they occur. Labor costs are the costs to the Detroit automakers of employing its current workers, not paying former workers for services performed decades ago.

Retirement Benefits Alone Cost $31 an Hour

The argument that retiree pension and health benefits inflate the hourly labor costs of the Detroit automakers cannot withstand basic scrutiny. For instance, General Motors UAW retirement plan paid $4.9 billion to 291,000 retirees and surviving spouses in 2006.[11] That works out to $31.04 an hour when apportioned among active workers.[12] That figure accounts for virtually all GM's benefit costs--before accounting for health care costs, disability benefits, supplemental unemployment benefits, or any of the other benefits GM provides. GM pays too much in retirement benefits to have labor costs of only $70 an hour if that figure included benefits to current retirees.

Labor Costs Similar Despite Retiree Differences

The Detroit automakers pay similar wages at each company despite having very different numbers of retirees to provide for. Table 1 shows the average hourly labor costs for the Big Three and the ratio of retirees to active workers at each company. General Motors has far more retirees per active worker than Ford or Chrysler. For each active worker at GM, there were 3.8 retirees or dependants in 2006. At Chrysler this ratio was half as much: two retirees for each worker. At Ford there were only 1.6 retirees per worker. If the hourly labor costs included retiree benefits, hourly wages at GM would be much higher than at either Ford or Chrysler.

But this is not the case. General Motors did not have the highest hourly labor costs despite having more retirees. Chrysler paid $2.60 an hour more in labor costs in 2006 than GM did. Ford paid only $2.75 an hour less than GM did, despite having half as many retirees relative to workers to provide for. All three automakers had roughly the same hourly labor costs despite having very different numbers of retirees to provide for. Hourly labor costs account for the expense of providing wages and benefits to current workers but do not include legacy costs.

Taxing the Many to Pay the Few

UAW spokespeople have roundly condemned the estimate of labor costs in excess of $70 per current worker hour. They assert these figures include the cost of current retiree pension and health benefits. They have done so, however, without marshalling evidence to support their case.

The Detroit automakers explain in their SEC filings that their benefit expenses are for current workers, not former employees. This is because they follow generally accepted accounting principles in preparing these estimates. If the figures did include current retiree benefits, the average hourly amount would be much higher than they actually report. UAW employees earn far more than most Americans do. Congress should not tax all Americans to bailout the Detroit automakers in order to preserve high earnings for a few.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/economy/images/wm2162_chart1.gifhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/economy/images/wm2162_table1.gif

[Tony_Danza]

:no:

$73.26 (GM's active worker wages and benefits) x 2080 hours per year = $152,380.80 (Cost to GM per worker per year)

:shake:

But then what's the source of that $70 hourly figure? It didn't come out of thin air. Analysts came up with it by including the cost of all employer-provided benefits -- namely, health insurance and pensions -- and then dividing by the number of workers. The result, they found, was that benefits for Big Three cost about $42 per hour, per employee. Add that to the wages -- again, $28 per hour -- and you get the $70 figure. Voila.

Except ... notice something weird about this calculation? It's not as if each active worker is getting health benefits and pensions worth $42 per hour. That would come to nearly twice his or her wages. (Talk about gold-plated coverage!) Instead, each active worker is getting benefits equal only to a fraction of that -- probably around $10 per hour, according to estimates from the International Motor Vehicle Program. The number only gets to $70 an hour if you include the cost of benefits for retirees -- in other words, the cost of benefits for other people. One of the few people to grasp this was Portfolio.com's Felix Salmon. As he noted recently, the claim that workers are getting $70 an hour in compensation is just "not true."

http://www.uaw.org/auto/11_25_08auto2.cfm

Also

No. That figure is derived from what the auto companies pay in wages, health, retirement and other benefits, and includes the cost of providing benefits to retirees.

The automakers arrived at the $70+ figure by adding up all the costs associated with providing wages and benefits to current and retired workers and dividing the total by the number of hours worked by current employees.

The result is the per-hour labor cost to the automakers, which is very different from "pay" or "wages" or even "wages and benefits" earned by their workers. As David Leonhardt pointed out in the New York Times (countering, in a sense, the earlier piece by Sorkin), the average GM, Ford and Chrysler worker receives compensation – wages, bonuses, overtime and paid time off – of about $40 an hour. Add in benefits such as health insurance and pensions and you get to about $55. Another $15 or so in benefits to retirees (known as "legacy costs") brings the number to roughly $70.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_auto_workers_really_make_more_than.html

[Dr. J]

And that's somehow an unknown?

When figuring the cost of an employee, you have to figure in all "compensation" which includes health insurance, pension, etc. With the UAW in control,, not only do they get paid rather well for relatively unskilled jobs, but their other compensation is very highly valued, from the ludicrous pensions to things like options/discounts on vehicles. as a general rule of thumb for most employees with benefits, your salary is only 2/3 of your total compensation.

[808Lurker]

When figuring the cost of an employee, you have to figure in all "compensation" which includes health insurance, pension, etc.

You need to modify that to say..

When figuring the cost of an employee, you have to figure in all "compensation" which includes health insurance, pension, etc to that employee.

With the UAW in control,, not only do they get paid rather well for relatively unskilled jobs, but their other compensation is very highly valued, from the ludicrous pensions to things like options/discounts on vehicles.

I was thinking the same thing about the CEO"s. They get very well paid for relatively unskilled jobs, but their other compensation is very highly valued, from the ludicrous pensions to things like options/discounts on vehicles.

as a general rule of thumb for most employees with benefits, your salary is only 2/3 of your total compensation.

Let's use your "general rule"

The general wage is $28 / hr, add in 1/3 for benefits would bring it to $42/hr

The big thing you guys seem to be omitting is

Autoworkers put in substantial overtime hours at higher rates, raising earnings above their base pay. GM reported that its average hourly employee worked 315 overtime hours in 2006.

As David Leonhardt pointed out in the New York Times (countering, in a sense, the earlier piece by Sorkin), the average GM, Ford and Chrysler worker receives compensation – wages, bonuses, overtime and paid time off – of about $40 an hour.

The inflated wages also includes a substanial amount of overtime. I am pretty sure you would want to be paid overtime for work you do. The fact that the company pays so much in overtime is a sign of bad management. However, using the overtime as an excuse to why people are "overpaid" is really inacurrate.

IE. If I pay you $20 / hr for the 8 hrs of work you do, then ask you to work 8 hrs of overtime at $30 / hr every day. Its really bad and tacky of me to complain you are overpaid because you made ( (20 + 30) * 40 * 52) = $104,000.00 a year.. I mean 104k!

[DBC]

That guys videos suck. Seriously.

I don't understand why he has such a hardon for the word leftist. He sounds like he's soaking his shorts every time he says that word. Why can't he say douche, child molester or something different once in a while?

[moey]

The inflated wages also includes a substanial amount of overtime. I am pretty sure you would want to be paid overtime for work you do. The fact that the company pays so much in overtime is a sign of bad management.

or workers who dont work much so they can get overtime

[moey]

Detroit has certainly seen better days however this video is in the same couple blocks. You could find this in most big cities.

[808Lurker]

or workers who dont work much so they can get overtime

That makes no sense. If you are a manager and your employees aren't doing their job, why would you pay them overtime for them not to do their job longer.

[moey]

That makes no sense. If you are a manager and your employees aren't doing their job, why would you pay them overtime for them not to do their job longer.

well if you know you have 700 units to make in a week, and will get paid overtime on Saturday and Sunday if you dont have 700 done why do 700 in 5 days. Do 500 and get paid for Saturday and Sunday. That has been my experience working in a autoplant as a production supervisor. Or better yet call in sick Friday but be available Saturday and feeling much better.

[JimOfTroy]

I was thinking the same thing about the CEO"s. They get very well paid for relatively unskilled jobs, but their other compensation is very highly valued, from the ludicrous pensions to things like options/discounts on vehicles.

To state that a CEO is a relatively unskilled job is ignorant. Are their compensation packages excessive? Probably in many cases. But Average Joe Worker cannot step into the roll of a CEO with a little bit of training and be successful. Also, the CEO where I work is one of the first in and last out each day, and from what I understand from friends working at other companies, that's fairly common.

The inflated wages also includes a substanial amount of overtime. I am pretty sure you would want to be paid overtime for work you do. The fact that the company pays so much in overtime is a sign of bad management. However, using the overtime as an excuse to why people are "overpaid" is really inacurrate.

This is not necessarily true. There are valid reasons for a company to have employees work overtime. For instance, the work flow could be inconsistent. In which case it's less expensive to have an employee to work overtime then to have temporary workers who you have to train. Especially since the unions wouldn't let you bring in a non-union worker to pick up the slack, which means the company would also have all the extra benefits that come with hiring a union worker.

[JimOfTroy]

Detroit has certainly seen better days however this video is in the same couple blocks. You could find this in most big cities.

Having a few crappy blocks doesn't drag the average home price in the city to $7,500. (the video said $5,700 iirc, but the article I found from March 09 said $7,500 so I'll go with that)

The whole city is a dump. I saw a documentary on it a while ago where they drove around and it's not just abandoned decrepit houses, there are a lot of large office buildings that are completely empty, windows all busted out at the bottom floors etc. To say Detroit has seen better days is like saying The Beatles had a few fans.

[808Lurker]

well if you know you have 700 units to make in a week, and will get paid overtime on Saturday and Sunday if you dont have 700 done why do 700 in 5 days. Do 500 and get paid for Saturday and Sunday. That has been my experience working in a autoplant as a production supervisor. Or better yet call in sick Friday but be available Saturday and feeling much better.

Sounds like a very dumb way to do business. I figure a good manager would know roughly how many units per day my guys would produce. So I would know on day 1 if the guys were slacking. If they were slacking and not doing the work, I would find out whats slowing down production and address it before it became a huge issues requiring a lot of overtime.

[808Lurker]

I just thought of the problem. This is what is wrong with this country.

We keep rewarding bad behavior.

A CEO drives a company in the ground, they get a golden parachute.
Workers don't do the jobs they are paid for, we give them overtime to fix it.
Waiters/Waitresses do a bad job and we tip them anyway..

[JimOfTroy]

Sounds like a very dumb way to do business. I figure a good manager would know roughly how many units per day my guys would produce. So I would know on day 1 if the guys were slacking. If they were slacking and not doing the work, I would find out whats slowing down production and address it before it became a huge issues requiring a lot of overtime.

The unions largely get in the way of what you are suggesting. It's extremely difficult to fire someone in a union and without the threat of losing their jobs you get precisely what moey is suggesting.

[JimOfTroy]

I just thought of the problem. This is what is wrong with this country.

We keep rewarding bad behavior.

A CEO drives a company in the ground, they get a golden parachute.
Workers don't do the jobs they are paid for, we give them overtime to fix it.
Waiters/Waitresses do a bad job and we tip them anyway..

Valid points.

The CEO example is fairly unjustifiable except to say that those golden parachutes are arranged when the person is hired and the company believes that he will do good for the company. And that most public companies don't get driven to the ground by a CEO, it just seems that way because when it happens a big deal is made out of it.

You can blame unions and our sue happy culture for the second example. As I said, unions make it extremely difficult to fire people, and even without them our sue happy culture has these vultures suing for wrongful termination and if the company doesn't have an abundance of proof that the employee sucked and they gave him adequate opportunity to correct it, the company gets hosed. Where I work it takes MONTHS to fire someone. Even without a union, you have to put them on corrective action plans multiple times, document every shortfall. It's a huge hassle.

The third example, well, those people need tips to compensate for their paltry wages. Most are paid much less than minimum wage as tips are intended to make up the difference. Bad service is not always their fault, and the way I see it, enough people stiff them for stuff that isn't their fault already. So I'm fine with tipping, though I certainly tip much better for good service then poor service.

[Tony_Danza]

Or you could blame the big 3 for putting out a product people don't want to buy.

[808Lurker]

Valid points.

The CEO example is fairly unjustifiable except to say that those golden parachutes are arranged when the person is hired and the company believes that he will do good for the company. And that most public companies don't get driven to the ground by a CEO, it just seems that way because when it happens a big deal is made out of it.

Why would anyone negotiate a huge package for someone when you dont even know the quality of their work. That is a big failing, that you can reward someone multi-millions before you know if they suck or not.

You can blame unions and our sue happy culture for the second example. As I said, unions make it extremely difficult to fire people, and even without them our sue happy culture has these vultures suing for wrongful termination and if the company doesn't have an abundance of proof that the employee sucked and they gave him adequate opportunity to correct it, the company gets hosed. Where I work it takes MONTHS to fire someone. Even without a union, you have to put them on corrective action plans multiple times, document every shortfall. It's a huge hassle.

I am not sure how it is with other unions, but it is rather easy for fire someone here for cause. The main problem is management won't follow the proper proceedure.

Small Infractions - lateness, shoddy work, etc.

Step 1:
Verbal Warning, supervisors writes a summary of the warning, puts it in the file.
Step 2:
Written Warning, Meet with employee + union rep, issue written warning.
Step 3:
Final: (not necessary, but sometimes given). Employer meets with employee and union rep, letting employee he is being terminated and he/she is to leave the premisis. HR is notified, employee is gone.

Major Infractions: Drug Use, Drunk driving, Stealing, etc
Step 1: Employer meets with Employee + Union Rep, letting him know employee has voilated a major rule and his employee is being terminated. (Unless Employer wants to give Employee a 2nd chance, but not necessary). Employee gets escorted off the premesis.

The main problem is the supervisiors don't like being the bad guy, so they don't file the verbal warnings or really confront the guy. So they are allowed to continue their bad behavior and others follow it, because they know management is not doing antyhing about it.

Most union people don't like working with slackers, it increases our workload and makes the job harder. There is one guy that 1/2 the office wants gone, but management refuses to go to Step 2.

In all honesty, what power do the unions have if you follow the correct proceedure. There are set ways to fire people (based on the contract) and if an employer follows that they are safe. The only thing the union can do is file a lawsuit, and as mentioned earlier if it was done correctly then they are SOL. You guys keep saying Unions make it difficult to fire people? How exactly? I guarantee you that if the employer fires 1 slacker, everyone is not going on strike. If anything, I bet they would be happy to get rid of the slacker.

The third example, well, those people need tips to compensate for their paltry wages. Most are paid much less than minimum wage as tips are intended to make up the difference. Bad service is not always their fault, and the way I see it, enough people stiff them for stuff that isn't their fault already. So I'm fine with tipping, though I certainly tip much better for good service then poor service.

Why "tip" someone when they don't do their job. If they don't receive money for a "bad job", then maybe thats an incentive to do a good job.

[Hawk2007]

I was thinking the same thing about the CEO"s. They get very well paid for relatively unskilled jobs, but their other compensation is very highly valued, from the ludicrous pensions to things like options/discounts on vehicles.





One, you're completely off base that CEOs have "relatively unskilled jobs". Also, they are but one person. There can only be one CEO. Even if the CEO is getting $50 million per year in compensation and benefits, that's but 333 UAW employees with their $150,000 cost. Auto manufacturers have way more than 333 union workers.

So, you're basically trying to pass the blame wholly onto "unfair" executive compensation packages.

But, we can agree the big 3 give ludicrous pensions. Buying an American domestic auto is like buying into the Soprano family.

[808Lurker]

UAW employees with their $150,000 cost.

Now it's $150,000!

You might want to read the thread. The actual amount the average UAW worker makes is closer to 75k (not including overtime). I like how the number gets inflated artifically to make a point. Soon it will be 200k!

[Hawk2007]

Now it's $150,000!

You might want to read the thread. The actual amount the average UAW worker makes is closer to 75k (not including overtime). I like how the number gets inflated artifically to make a point. Soon it will be 200k!


Ok, if you want me to show how irrelevant the $150K figure is, I'll play your game.

Hypothetically, each executive makes $100 million USDollars in total compensation/benefits per year. There are 8 of them. So, $800 million just to the executives.

Each "minion" employee makes $75,000 per year in total compensation.

Divide $800 million by $75,000, and that's only 10,000 employees.

Keep in mind, GM has 244,500 employees worldwide. http://www.gm.com/corporate/about/company.jsp

That's a mere 10,000 of 244,000 is a paltry 4.1%.

[Hawk2007]

btw 808, you're just reinforcing the confidence I have in the "foreign" automakers. We don't have to deal with their tens of billions in debt, persistent pension problems, stratospheric executive pay, etc.

It's pointless to buy a big three auto when you can support your fellow Americans with an "import".

[808Lurker]

Ok, if you want me to show how irrelevant the $150K figure is, I'll play your game.

Hypothetically, each executive makes $100 million USDollars in total compensation/benefits per year. There are 8 of them. So, $800 million just to the executives.

Each "minion" employee makes $75,000 per year in total compensation.

Divide $800 million by $75,000, and that's only 10,000 employees.

Keep in mind, GM has 244,500 employees worldwide. http://www.gm.com/corporate/about/company.jsp

That's a mere 10,000 of 244,000 is a paltry 4.1%.

You could also say the same thing about janitors. Let's say the average janitory makes $60k / year and there are 30 of them for a company of 244,000. Since there are so few janitors compared to the workforce, we can pay them $5 mil / each a year and it wouldn't make a difference?

Legacy costs are killing the Big 3, the avergage salary is 75k, yet with overtime and pensions for retired workers it pushes the legacy costs per worker up to 140k. You could almost hire 2 workers for every worker, working now.

Who is to blame for that? I blame short sighted bad management. Unions can ask for the world, it doesn't mean the company needs to give it to them. The same bad management that retired with multi-million dollar lavish programs themselves.

btw 808, you're just reinforcing the confidence I have in the "foreign" automakers. We don't have to deal with their tens of billions in debt, persistent pension problems, stratospheric executive pay, etc.

It's pointless to buy a big three auto when you can support your fellow Americans with an "import".

If your car was made in the US by American workers, then you are supporting mainstreet America, good for you. The one great thing about the foreign companies is they have decent management and plan for the long term. I even hear Kia has a plant in Georgia now, i might have to give them a shot.

[Hawk2007]

You could also say the same thing about janitors. Let's say the average janitory makes $60k / year and there are 30 of them for a company of 244,000. Since there are so few janitors compared to the workforce, we can pay them $5 mil / each a year and it wouldn't make a difference?

In the grand scheme of things, no, it would not which is why isolating a particular group of people, executives or janitors, and placing the blame on them is pointless.

The vast majority of a GM employees are not in white collar management. They're the people working the lines that likely have little more than a HS education, and can retire at the age of 48-50 after they do their 30 years. Autoworkers make good money for limited skill labor as it is. Their pension plans are among the best in the nation. Most companies did away with pensions a long time ago, because the cost becomes astronomical as we continue to live longer and longer.

I don't think anyone here is completely absolving GM management of blame. However, your belittlement of the influence the UAW has had on the big three is concerning.

If executive compensation really gets your blood boiling, you ought to check out the perks of the UAW leadership structure. All I can say is that if I were the UAW president or sitting in a high spot within their structure, I would have a pretty big smile on my face right now especially with Barack and the democrats where they are now inside the 4-9-5.

[rrc06]

Who is to blame for that? I blame short sighted bad management. Unions can ask for the world, it doesn't mean the company needs to give it to them. .
I even hear Kia has a plant in Georgia now, i might have to give them a shot.

It's good to know that, as a union member, you are supportive of right-to-work states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law).

[Hawk2007]

http://i.imgur.com/DQ4WO.jpg

[Krazen1211]

How do these people keep voting Democrat?

[REDCELL]

How do these people keep voting Democrat?

Does anyone else even run?? In Shitcago...all one usually needs to do is win the Dem Primary....

[Krazen1211]

Does anyone else even run?? In Shitcago...all one usually needs to do is win the Dem Primary....

Well, after 8 years of a Democratic governor and 650,000 jobs lost during her tenure, they voted for Bernero over Snyder for governor.

Snyder won the entire rest of the state though.

[ninedayfall75]

Basically:

Detroit sucks.

Detroit has sucked for many, many years now.

[tyman]

Detroit has sucked for many, many years now.

That's the point of the thread. ;)

[smegalicious]

To state that a CEO is a relatively unskilled job is ignorant. Are their compensation packages excessive? Probably in many cases. But Average Joe Worker cannot step into the roll of a CEO with a little bit of training and be successful. Also, the CEO where I work is one of the first in and last out each day, and from what I understand from friends working at other companies, that's fairly common.
And, IMHO, Undercover Boss has shown us that the CEO cannot always step into the role of Average Joe Worker with just a little bit of training and be successful. ;)

In the grand scheme of things, no, it would not which is why isolating a particular group of people, executives or janitors, and placing the blame on them is pointless.
Increasing the amount of salary paid out by a company -- even a large company -- by over $148 million a year doesn't "make a difference" in the grand scheme of things?

The vast majority of a GM employees are not in white collar management. They're the people working the lines that likely have little more than a HS education, and can retire at the age of 48-50 after they do their 30 years. Autoworkers make good money for limited skill labor as it is. Their pension plans are among the best in the nation. Most companies did away with pensions a long time ago, because the cost becomes astronomical as we continue to live longer and longer.
What percentage of current GM (or even UAW) workers are still eligible for such generous pension plans?

If executive compensation really gets your blood boiling, you ought to check out the perks of the UAW leadership structure. All I can say is that if I were the UAW president or sitting in a high spot within their structure, I would have a pretty big smile on my face right now especially with Barack and the democrats where they are now inside the 4-9-5.
The salary of the UAW President (http://detnews.com/article/20070413/auto01/704130353/UAW-officers-get-pay-raise) was less than $160k (in 2006).

The salary of the GM CEO (http://www.companypay.com/executive/compensation/general-motors-corp.asp?yr=2008) was over $14 million (in 2007).

[rrc06]

I think this is a benefit to public-sector union workers that sounds reasonable....

Detroit Mayor Offers $1,000 Homes To Cops, Firemen (http://consumerist.com/2011/02/detroit-mayor-offers-1000-homes-to-cops-firemen.html)

In a bold offer that speaks volumes about Detroit's housing market as well as its state of public safety, the city's mayor has offered to provide homes for as little as $1,000 to police and firefighters.

CBS Detroit reports that the initiative, dubbed Project 14, could fill some vacant homes and provide a break to safety workers, more than half of which live in the suburbs.

Project 14 comes 12 years after the state legislature did away with a law that required Detroit cops to live within the city. The money won't come from new tax dollars, but from neighborhood stabilization funding, HUD money and contributions from banks and credit unions.

[Mixels]

I think this is a benefit to public-sector union workers that sounds reasonable....

Detroit Mayor Offers $1,000 Homes To Cops, Firemen (http://consumerist.com/2011/02/detroit-mayor-offers-1000-homes-to-cops-firemen.html)
I am always and forever against any program, especially in poor areas or areas with high crime, that is designed to reward public service men and women in any way the should make the job seem desirable for the sake of the reward. The reason is simple: such policies increase the rate at which the effected departments become corrupt. They simultaneously do very little or nothing to improve the effectiveness of those departments.

I understand the sentiment behind the idea. I believe all public servicemen and servicewomen should be held in the highest esteem, provided they are acting in a selfless way. Selflessness, however, is at the very core of the respect which is owed to them. When these service people are given any other reason to be doing their job aside from actually doing the job itself, efficiency and effectiveness both go toward bad, and the road to worse is paved with golden bricks.

[cruizerfish]

I was thinking this thread was resurrected due to the Eminem commercial for the Shyster 200. Makes me want to move. ;)

[Mixels]

I was thinking this thread was resurrected due to the Eminem commercial for the Shyster 200. Makes me want to move. ;)
Drive that car in Detroit and watch what happens. :D

[cruizerfish]

Drive that car in Detroit and watch what happens. :D

Yeppers, Jesse (http://www.aolnews.com/2010/09/03/jesse-jacksons-cadillac-suv-stripped-as-he-promoted-green-jobs/) knows all too well! :lmao:

[Mixels]

Yeppers, Jesse (http://www.aolnews.com/2010/09/03/jesse-jacksons-cadillac-suv-stripped-as-he-promoted-green-jobs/) knows all too well! :lmao:
"We build 'em. We don't drive 'em. You think we stupid?"

[JimOfTroy]

And, IMHO, Undercover Boss has shown us that the CEO cannot always step into the role of Average Joe Worker with just a little bit of training and be successful. ;)
Other than just being obnoxious, is there any real point to this comment?

And that show is about as reflective of reality as The Hills. It's a sham that panders to anti-rich crowd. I wouldn't expect many 60 year olds who haven't worked manual labor in decades to be able to just step in on a production line somewhere and be as proficient as the people who do it every day.

[TheWoman]

I am always and forever against any program, especially in poor areas or areas with high crime, that is designed to reward public service men and women in any way the should make the job seem desirable for the sake of the reward. The reason is simple: such policies increase the rate at which the effected departments become corrupt. They simultaneously do very little or nothing to improve the effectiveness of those departments.

I understand the sentiment behind the idea. I believe all public servicemen and servicewomen should be held in the highest esteem, provided they are acting in a selfless way. Selflessness, however, is at the very core of the respect which is owed to them. When these service people are given any other reason to be doing their job aside from actually doing the job itself, efficiency and effectiveness both go toward bad, and the road to worse is paved with golden bricks.

So you are against paying them as well? If not, how is this so terribly different from a paycheck?

[rrc06]

I am always and forever against any program, especially in poor areas or areas with high crime, that is designed to reward public service men and women in any way the should make the job seem desirable for the sake of the reward. The reason is simple: such policies increase the rate at which the effected departments become corrupt. They simultaneously do very little or nothing to improve the effectiveness of those departments.

I understand the sentiment behind the idea. I believe all public servicemen and servicewomen should be held in the highest esteem, provided they are acting in a selfless way. Selflessness, however, is at the very core of the respect which is owed to them. When these service people are given any other reason to be doing their job aside from actually doing the job itself, efficiency and effectiveness both go toward bad, and the road to worse is paved with golden bricks.

They can't even give away houses in detroit for $1. If these public sector workers will actually live in detroit and pay property taxes to cover their salaries, that would be great for the private sector in the area :nod:

[Mixels]

They can't even give away houses in detroit for $1. If these public sector workers will actually live in detroit and pay property taxes to cover their salaries, that would be great for the private sector in the area :nod:
If the general public can buy a house of similar inherent value for the same price, I'm all for it. It's not the redistribution of houses that I am against. It is a policy that makes public service jobs attractive for ulterior reasons. I'll gladly take a house for $1 or $1,000, by the way, if it's in livable condition and of equal value to the houses that the public service people would receive under this proposed program. Just tell me where to sign up.

So you are against paying them as well? If not, how is this so terribly different from a paycheck?
I am not against paying them. This is different from giving them a paycheck because, presumably, they already get paychecks. They should be paid an appropriate salary, appropriation being estimated according to the cost of living for four individuals in a home valued at about $100,000 on a thirty-year mortgage. There is nothing wrong with paying these people. There is something very, very wrong with paying them too much and/or rewarding them in inappropriate ways.

If no one wants to do the job for a fair amount of money, the answer (for a public service position) is not to increase pay. The only way that city is ever going to get better is if it is salvaged. Continuously putting dirty bandages on a wound that won't stop bleeding is no remedy at all.

[TheWoman]

If the general public can buy a house of similar inherent value for the same price, I'm all for it. It's not the redistribution of houses that I am against. It is a policy that makes public service jobs attractive for ulterior reasons. I'll gladly take a house for $1 or $1,000, by the way, if it's in livable condition and of equal value to the houses that the public service people would receive under this proposed program. Just tell me where to sign up.

I am not against paying them. This is different from giving them a paycheck because, presumably, they already get paychecks. They should be paid an appropriate salary, appropriation being estimated according to the cost of living for four individuals in a home valued at about $100,000 on a thirty-year mortgage. There is nothing wrong with paying these people. There is something very, very wrong with paying them too much and/or rewarding them in inappropriate ways.
How is rewarding with a cheap house more inappropriate than rewarding with cheap health insurance or a pension? Compensation is compensation, no matter what form it comes in. Why is cheap housing an "ulterior reason" but cheap health insurance or paid sick leave not?

If no one wants to do the job for a fair amount of money, the answer (for a public service position) is not to increase pay. The only way that city is ever going to get better is if it is salvaged. Continuously putting dirty bandages on a wound that won't stop bleeding is no remedy at all.

In this economy with high unemployment, if the pay is really fair it shouldn't be hard to find people to do the job. If they are having trouble finding people, then maybe the amount of money isn't so fair after all.

As the city declines and crime goes up the "fair" wage for police officers must increase because the job becomes harder and more dangerous. At the same time, as people leave the city and tax revenues decrease, the city has less to spend. Meanwhile, the city has a huge problem with abandoned homes, which invite more crime and decay. It sounds like a pretty good solution to me---they don't have to pay more to attract employees and (a few of) the vacant homes are no longer vacant. I know I would rather have a firefighter living next door than a vacant house.

[TheWoman]

I just did a zillow search for homes recently sold in the two neighborhoods listed in this article (http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2011/02/07/mayor-pushing-police-to-live-in-detroit/).

http://www.zillow.com/homes/East-English-Village-detroit,-mi_rb/

lets just say these aren't particularly valuable homes being given away.

[rrc06]

If the general public can buy a house of similar inherent value for the same price, I'm all for it. It's not the redistribution of houses that I am against. It is a policy that makes public service jobs attractive for ulterior reasons. I'll gladly take a house for $1 or $1,000, by the way, if it's in livable condition and of equal value to the houses that the public service people would receive under this proposed program. Just tell me where to sign up.
.

In many cases, you'll have to pay the owed property taxes, get rid of liens, and spruce the places up. Many of them have been gutted of pipes, wiring etc.

Detroit homes sell for $1 amid mortgage and car industry crisis (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/02/detroit-homes-mortgage-foreclosures-80)

Technically, Brumit paid $95 for the land and $5 for the house on Lawley Street – which fitted what estate agents euphemistically call an opportunity.

[Shellac]

I just did a zillow search for homes recently sold in the two neighborhoods listed in this article (http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2011/02/07/mayor-pushing-police-to-live-in-detroit/).

http://www.zillow.com/homes/East-English-Village-detroit,-mi_rb/

lets just say these aren't particularly valuable homes being given away.


They're not the best houses but they plan to fix them up. From a Detroit Free Press article:

The city plans to spend up to $150,000 to renovate each abandoned home to be used in the program. Officers will be offered up to a $25,000 down payment and forgivable loans.

Of course many of the people that they will offer the homes to owe more on the houses they have in the suburbs than the houses are worth and can't move.

[Mixels]

How is rewarding with a cheap house more inappropriate than rewarding with cheap health insurance or a pension? Compensation is compensation, no matter what form it comes in. Why is cheap housing an "ulterior reason" but cheap health insurance or paid sick leave not?


In this economy with high unemployment, if the pay is really fair it shouldn't be hard to find people to do the job. If they are having trouble finding people, then maybe the amount of money isn't so fair after all.

As the city declines and crime goes up the "fair" wage for police officers must increase because the job becomes harder and more dangerous. At the same time, as people leave the city and tax revenues decrease, the city has less to spend. Meanwhile, the city has a huge problem with abandoned homes, which invite more crime and decay. It sounds like a pretty good solution to me---they don't have to pay more to attract employees and (a few of) the vacant homes are no longer vacant. I know I would rather have a firefighter living next door than a vacant house.
I never said I agree with the status quo, and finding people who are willing to do the job is not the same as finding the people who are best suited to do the job. That is the distinction my entire point revolves around.

In many cases, you'll have to pay the owed property taxes, get rid of liens, and spruce the places up. Many of them have been gutted of pipes, wiring etc.

Detroit homes sell for $1 amid mortgage and car industry crisis (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/02/detroit-homes-mortgage-foreclosures-80)
Uh huh, but I don't suppose those $1 garbage bins are the homes these city workers will be getting for $1,000. At least not in their ruined conditions.

[DJPlayer]

The video is a bit long and has some slow points.

Synopsis:

Basically, the video is a guy pointing out how Detroit went from riches to ruins as a result of "leftist" policies implemented there by government over time. He's trying to draw comparison between the promises and agendas of current & former Detroit mayors & politicians and those of Obama & Congress and suggesting that similar promises & programs would yield similar results.

I tend to agree.

thanks for the synopsis.. b/c I did not want to watch the video. Detroit is a crap whole city.. and it sure doesn't help that it's based around unionized (many now unemployed) big3 workers. The city has dug it's whole and I can't imagine them finding a successful way to escape it.