| Author | Message | ||
     Jerry_haughton |
folks: i understand this is a volatile topic, but there's no need for hurling insults. it's ok to disagree with someone's point of view, to even strongly disagree, but please do so with at least a modicum of respect and courtesy. please.  Happy Holidays, Ferris | ||
| Rocketsprink |
The Party is over I still can't get over the jealousy here. Such hate and jealousy. I can't deal with such ignorance. Of course, this coming from a resident of a state with Arnold in charge. Goodbye for good. Enjoy. The worst is yet to come, and you all welcome it with open arms. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
With the reputation Buell has in the Motorcycle world, why on Earth would you buy one? I mean, other than the 1125, which has been riddled with problems, the rest are oil leaking, air cooled, push rod, old technology, rattle cans. They aren't fast, the headlight are too dim......... the list goes on and on. Why not buy one of those high tech, much more reliable, better built foreign bikes? Yea, inquiring minds DO want to know | ||
| Court |
I deleted it because it had some information about one of our foreman who's paycheck was over $10,000 in a single week. The party for the UAW is over and this "loan" does nothing but start foaming the runway. Let me get this right. Based on your comments about the comparison of the workers wages and the CEO's . . give me a number, say 25%, 42% or 78% that you think would be fair? My point is that trying to base "fair" upon such a comparison is pure silliness. Last year my wife's boss had take home pay of over $52,000,000. He was the CEO of the company . . . his "skin" was in the game, it was him who was at risk. How much do you think it would have been fair for my wife, the Chief Financial Office of the Hedge Fund, with a pricey education and 25+ years experience on Wall Street to make? I'd love to make, as an example, the $187,000/yr that John's secretary made and I'm sure, since it's only 0.003596 (less than 1%) of John's salary it's fine by your basis. My point is that union folks are making excellent wages. I recall dragging up on a $3.11/hr gig to chase a $3.33/hr I.B.E.W. gig and some overtime building a 161kV line into the Ford truck plant in Claycomo, MO. I was thrilled then. My Grandfather and Father were both union members their entire careers. .. BUT . . . that was a day when UNION meant "top quality" not "you'd better use us of else and by the way you pay us weather we work or not". The party is over and we're seeing but the tip of the iceberg. Obama is not smart enough to unravel this. (Message edited by court on December 20, 2008) | ||
| Oldog |
The fact that the Toyota Pruis sales figures have dropped so dramatically recently may be a sign of people waking up. You think any one thought about the batteries or the other complex drive systems, for marginaly better fuel econ, While they are largely dependable, we know in time They will wear out and have to be replaced My 0.02$ The auto industry is at a cross roads, either change or die. ALL aspects must be scrutinized, exec pay & bennies, labor pay & bennies, product quality and innovation, and reasonable financing and trade practices. The way we do it now does not work. Bickering and Finger pointing do not solve problems. We the good 'ol US of A collectivly need to stop and think LONG TERM about all aspects of this situation, FWIW I was not impressed by Washingtons posturing over the charter jet thing, even though I in principal agreed with them. these finnancial issues are a symptom of a larger over all problem. Starting with individuals and our culture Unitll the excesses of all sides are dealt with and the employees and management of the big 3 work together to over come these issues The out come is (in my mind) certain no amount of bail out will solve that. | ||
| Court |
By the way . . . I am a big union supporter. But I support the union that has for 3 generations been a source of pride in workmanship and livelihood for my family not the current bunch of hooligans. I'm not sure the UAW's ship is sunk but it's going to require more of this "Change" that everyone is talking about. I'm not certain the mindset of the current leadership has sufficient flexibility. My fear is that they will piss away a great opportunity, complete with good wages and benefits, to make these changes and enter the new economy and will, instead, hold fast to the mindset of the past and watch their retirement benefits go the way of Air Traffic Controllers and Enron 401(K)'s . . . Change is coming and it has nothing to do with Barack. The writing has been on the wall. . . when I got to New York City it was solidly 100% union, possessing the necessary (from my undergrad Labor Law and Legislation studies in 1977) attributes, notably population density (we're #1) and the ability to isolate the area (nice to be on an island and all access by tunnels and bridges where a Teamster can be stationed at each and keep non-union loads out). . .today NYC is about 7% union labor and they can't keep enough inflatable rats in stock. The unions need to start selling skill again. Competency never seems to go out of style and is always in demand. | ||
| Oldog |
The unions need to start selling skill again. Competency never seems to go out of style and is always in demand. The unions used to run the best vocational education programs, with high standards. I have been involved with projects with union labour, its been mixed, at 2 sites 1 us 1 canada, the work was of the highest quality and done in a timely manner, 100% accurate, Another, in the US where the job was way over staffed quality was average and the progress was hindered by issues with individuals, I have been in one lumber plant where the management was draconian - abusive at times they unionized safety got better productivity dropped, eventualy the production went off shore, and the remaining business was sold. Another where productivity is good and safety is excelent, the business is growing - the employees are engaged activly with the management to make it go. to a degree its about the culture of the business I think some of Courts stories about his foray into management bear this out. The UAW has the opportunity here to set the standard and help hold the management of the Big 3 in line, as they demonstrate that they are willing to work the problem or they can continue as they have and ALL loose. | ||
| Xl1200r |
Define fair. Fair that the CEO makes more in one year than said employee will make throughout their career and retirement? Fair pay by whose standards? China's? Japans? Korea's? Fair based on what the market will bear. Whether anyone likes it not, the market says these CEOs are worth what they're paid here in the U.S. The story is very different abroad (and admittadly more "in-line"), but these guys are competeing for jobs in the states, not Europe or Japan. And like it or not, the market says that UAW workers earn more than they'r worth without a UAW patch on their sleeve, again, for here in the U.S. I'm not exactly pro-union, nor am I anti-union according to the fundamentals. But the power gained by the UAW has been abused, and now it seems both the UAW and the corporate counterparts are locked in this wage battle driving labor costs up on both ends. Does Wagoneer do enough to justify his $39,000+ a day pay (for 2007)? Probably not, but try to pay him less and he'll just go work for some other big company willing to pay him similarly. American CEOs are sickengly high, but that's what the market dictates on this side of the pond. Could this be the start of a change for that? Possibly. Hopefully. But expect line workers wages to do the same. (Message edited by xl1200r on December 20, 2008) | ||
| Cityxslicker |
fair is fair what the market will bare with private funds, or money earned privately. The moment you start getting tax payer funds; I want some DAMN accountability for it. and a golden parachute of 1 million a day (the last CEO of WAMU got paid that) is flippin ridiculous. You should not expect the taxpaying populace to front the bill for that kind of extravagence and not suspect that a revolution is around the corner. I am still miffed that i have to pay all sorts of social benes for programs I will never see the benefit of (dont even get me started on funds poured into education, medicare, medicaid,prisons or social security) *all great failures in my opinion. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
And for some levity. 100th post I forgot how to embed it. thanks for the tip Froggy. (Message edited by cityxslicker on December 20, 2008) | ||
| Oldog |
Does Wagoneer do enough to justify his $39,000+ a day pay (for 2007)? Probably not, but try to pay him less and he'll just go work for some other big company willing to pay him similarly. perhaps or like the other end of the car makers issue he will price himself out of a job.. } | ||
| Ceejay |
At 39,000 a day I'd think he'd be alright for awhile | ||
| Xbduck |
Well not every CEO should be CEO. Aug. 6 2007 "Chrystler's new CEO was fired from his previous company...", that would be Home Depot he was fired from. Guess who gained huge market shares while he was in charge? Lowe's did that's who. I wish I could get a new job for more money after being fired. I would say house cleaning is in order but that would be redundant. It just may be that the blue bloods that have a great number of corporations convinced that they are the answer, really aren't the answer. There are a lot of brilliant minds in the world, it just may be that they, the Big 3, need to go get some of them. As to unions, well the world would be a much much uglier place with out them, argue all you want, the history is there for you to read. Having worked in a union manufacturing job, I would say that just like everything else in this world they have been in places bastardized. | ||
| Ceejay |
I'm having trouble with this thread. I'm an american. I drive a ford truck, I build stuff. I have buell motorcycle and think its one of the best bikes I've could have purchased. My dad made spark plugs for over 15 yrs. bought our house, cars, bikes, and fun thanks maybe in part to the UAW. But I can't for the life of me seem to see how a segment of the industry can continue to exist and prosper when they expect the auto industry to cover ~1500 per vehicle more than those who don't use the UAW for its workforce. Think about that number. To most that gets eaten up in leather seats, or a DVD system. But if you compile it over a whole vehicle line, and then a whole family, and then to a whole badge(ford f150, F150 and explorer, Ford). the cost become astounding. Think about how much wind tunnel testing that is, exhuast noise, cabin refinement, or paint durability. This isn't a trivial cost, that money doens't come from trees. I watched friends after thier 90 day probation by a new dodge truck(38,000). What 20 yr. old should have a ~40,000 car? I wish them the best of luck but its been coming for some time. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Toyota Prius sales have dropped because, there are no more eco-snobs left to sell them to. VW already make a conventional car, a Polo, that uses LESS than a Prius, Honda are already producing a greener (albeit very expensive) alternative in their Hydrogen powered fuel cell car, which imho, is the way of the future. Just about every manufacturer has some sort of hybrid for sale, these days, so why buy a boring ugly Prius? On a side note, when we're all driving nice clean, quiet, vehicles that all you can hear is the tyre hiss, the number of pedestrians killed is going to skyrocket, is anyone addressing this issue? | ||
| Xl1200r |
City, I do see your point regarding CEO compesation, especially when public funds are involved - but I don't know how well it would go over (i.e. help anything), and we also need to remember despite these loans, these companies aren't federally owned. If you got a federal Stafford Loan for college, would you take it if you were then told which school you had to go to? I know, not the same, but similar. The video is great, BTW, lol. Toyota Prius sales have dropped because, there are no more eco-snobs left to sell them to. Not likely. Sales are falling because the looks of the car have gone from "novel" (something people LINED UP to have so everyone knew they had a hybrid) to just weird and dated. On top of that, gas prices are so low now that a hybrid doesn't make economic sense anymore. It likely won't stay that way, but that's the case right now. On a side note, when we're all driving nice clean, quiet, vehicles that all you can hear is the tyre hiss, the number of pedestrians killed is going to skyrocket, is anyone addressing this issue? It was posted some time back, but there's some group fighting to put noise makers on hybrid vehicles so that blind people don't get hit by them when crossing the street. Madness. | ||
| Reindog |
The Party is over I still can't get over the jealousy here. Such hate and jealousy. I can't deal with such ignorance. Of course, this coming from a resident of a state with Arnold in charge. Goodbye for good. Enjoy. The worst is yet to come, and you all welcome it with open arms. I presume this rather ambiguous posting is directed at me. The Party IS over and it has nothing to do with my personal feelings. How can the Big Three possibly compete in this global market when the cost of Labor is significantly out of line to what the market will bear? The UAW is an anachronism unless it changes and it has demonstrated last week that it is unwilling to do so. It somehow believes that Obama will magically save them. He can only prolong it but can't change it. I, too, believe that Unions have their place in society. I was Brother of Teamster Local 278 for almost five years when I worked for UPS. They negotiated realistic contracts that permitted the company to remain competitive and also defended the workers from unfair management practices. All in all, it was a good experience. The UAW exists several counties from reality right now. They can not compete. Big3 Management is pretty bullocksed up also but the shareholders CAN fix that problem. I am neither jealous nor hateful. Maybe a tad ignorant but I know I have plenty of good company. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Why is the UAW a sacred cow? Are there auto workers being paid and treated fairly without the UAW? Unions can only function when they are funded by the workers. The workers are willing to give up a small portion of their earnings in order to support the Union because the workers feel that there is more gained than is given up by the union "dues". Unions should work themselves out of existence. Once they are no longer needed, they cease to exist. I believe we are at that point with the UAW. | ||
| Xl1200r |
Unions can only function when they are funded by the workers. The workers are willing to give up a small portion of their earnings in order to support the Union because the workers feel that there is more gained than is given up by the union "dues". I'm not certain how the UAW works, but around here State Government is the biggest employer, and it's a Union gig. If you want to be in the Union, they take some amount of your wages as dues and you get a little membership card and monthly mailing, as well as all the other perks (discounts on skiing, travel, etc). If you DON'T want to be in the Union, that's no problem. You won't get any of the Union benefits, BUT, they'll still keep the same amount from your pay to support the Union that you don't belong to. They exist because they force themselves to in some cases. | ||
| Bill0351 |
I thought this was full of good information regardless or whether you agree with the ideas proposed in the article. The idea that an executive in a publicly traded company could justify a $52,000,000 salary is just plain ludicrous. His “skin was in the game?” Following that logic, a Marine 0311 should be pulling twice that. In fact, the only thing that CEO risks is his ability to pull $50,000,000 paychecks. Since one $50,000,000 paycheck obviates the need for another paycheck EVER, the risk just isn’t there. I am also wondering why the pay disparity between the average worker and the top executive is ten times greater than it was in 1980. Are they ten times more necessary? Are they ten times better than they were? Are they worth twenty times what German and Japanese CEOs make? Crazy CEO pay isn't the only problem our system faces, but it's sure part of the problem. Rein in Runaway CEO Pay June 7th, 2008 Support HR3876 Income Equity Act of 2007 Legislation to limit the deductibility of excessive CEO pay to 25 times the pay of the lowest paid worker in a firm. The runaway CEO pay problem CEOs of major U.S. companies today make more in a day than their average employees make in a year. Last year, CEOs made an average of $10.8 million in total compensation, including stock options grants, according to an Associated Press survey of 386 Fortune 500 companies. That’s more than 364 times the pay of an average worker and 885 times the annual income of a full-time minimum wage earner. In the last three decades, there has been an explosion in the gap between the compensation of top CEOs and their employees. In 1980, the ratio between highest paid and average compensation in a Fortune 500 company was 42 to one. By 2000, it has risen to over 500 to one. In 2007, the ratio was 411 to one. CEO pay matters A growing body of research points to the fact that runaway CEO pay undermines company performance and shifts profits away from employees and shareholders to management. Bloated CEO pay rewards a focus on short-term gains over longer-term growth. Many investment analysts view excessive pay as a warning signal of an accountability breakdown between board and management –and a symptom of an overly cozy board and compensation committee. Doesn’t CEO pay reflect corporate performance? A 2006 Corporate Library study found that high increases in compensation did not reflect significant long-term improvements in company performance. One of the most outrageous examples was Edward Whitacre, CEO of AT&T, who made $34 million over the years 2004 and 2005, despite a 40-point drop in his company’s stock from 2001-2005. A July 2005 Moody’s study suggested that firms that paid excessive compensation could actually face higher credit risks. The investor service found that firms which had large unexplained bonuses and option grants during the period 1993-2003 experienced dramatically higher default and downgrade rates. Should government establish ceilings for executive pay? The Income Equity Act does not set a ceiling or dictate what proper compensation practices should be. Under the current tax system, however, the more corporations overpay their executives, the less they pay in taxes. Taxpayers subsidize excessive CEO compensation by allowing bloated paychecks to be a fully deductible “business expense.” These deductions effectively shift the tax burden onto average Americans. By capping the amount of the deduction to a ratio with lowest paid workers, we create incentives in the tax code for reducing pay disparities. Potential Revenue from Income Equity Act There remains no meaningful limits on how much corporations can deduct from their income taxes for executive compensation. If companies were required to pay taxes on amounts above 25 times what the lowest-paid worker in their company earns, it could generate significant revenue. If such a cap had been applied to the CEOs of just the 386 companies included in the Associated Press survey, it could have generated tax revenues of as much as $1.4 billion in 2006. What does the Income Equity Act do? HR 3876 Income Equity Act of 2007 amends the Internal Revenue Code to deny corporations a tax deduction for payments of excessive compensation to any employee that exceed 25 times the lowest compensation paid to another employee. The law also requires corporations to file a report on compensation to the Secretary of Treasury, establishing a uniform reporting requirement on the ratio between top and bottom compensation. If the Income Equity Act were in effect, U.S. companies with employees who earn the minimum wage could still pay their top executive $304,200 and deduct the full amount from their corporate income taxes. A company whose lowest-paid workers made the average of $29,544 could pay their CEO $738,000 and deduct the full amount from their taxes. Those companies that wished to pay their CEOs above these levels could either keep their full tax deduction by raising the pay of their lowest-paid workers or simply pay taxes on any amounts above 25 times the lowest-paid worker’s pay. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Yep, and are ball players 20 times better than they were in the 1980's? It's what the market will bear. The straw man argument here is the assumption that if you paid the CEO's $5M instead of $50M that somehow part of that difference in pay would go to the workers? Why would what a CEO is paid make any difference to what they pay the guy sweeping the floor? Why would it make any difference to what they pay the machinist or the line worker? It's class warfare red meat. You should be GLAD they are paying that CEO $52M. Over HALF of what that CEO is paid went in taxes, Federal, State, and Local. After they paid taxes on the income, they paid taxes on what they bought: Caviar, Yachts, Exotic Cars, Luxury Homes, etc. What they didn't spend was invested the gains of which were, you guested it, taxed. In the end of everything, when what is left is transferred at death, they again lose 50% of what is left in......taxes. When the socialist utopia where the CEO of the company makes only 5 times more than the lowest, uneducated, unskilled worker, the taxes for every citizen will be at least 50% in order to replace the lost tax base of that dirty bastard CEO. These arguments are tiresome and trite. | ||
| Strokizator |
Dang, I'd love to make 25 times what my lowest paid employee makes. People tend to forget that this country is not comprised of a few large companies with overpaid CEO's, but is a nation of small businesses. Arguing about what CEO's make is similar to arguing whether A-Rod, Randy Moss, etc was worth his salary this year. It is unlikely that any highly paid athlete is actually "worth" all they make but apparently the owners think so. Same could be said for the board of directors who set the salary of the CEO. | ||
| Xl1200r |
Bill - good article, but I think you could expect to see a LOT of outsourcing (not neccesarily overseas, mind you) to ensure that the company keeps the lowest paid employee at a higher level. Hell, honestly, the CEO could own his own consultant firm, be the only employee, and charge the corporation fees instead of payroll. Bam, instant loophole. Also, how do you limit this? If I own my own business and don't employee anyone, does that mean I can only make 1/25th of what I pay myself? Did the universe just explode? What if I own a garage, and I pay some high-school kid $6 an hour, 10 hours a week to come sweep the floor and empty the trash? My income should be limited to $78,000/yr? Ft - good point as well. Also, these outrageously paid people do fund entire industries that employ others - super-lux travel, super high-end homes, super high-end cars, private aircraft, the list goes on. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Instead of aspiring to grow your own earning abilities, socialist/communists must pull down those making more than them to make things "equal". I'm not a millionaire. I probably won't ever be. It doesn't keep me from trying. It also doesn't mean that I feel like I can dictate to someone else what they can and can't make. Placing a salary cap on companies is stupid. Why don't we place a salary cap on Surgeons? They make WAY more than 25 times their receptionist. They shouldn't make more than $250,000. Why would I want to pursue advanced degrees, spend time in law school, continually work to push the knowledge envelope if there is no compensation at the end of it. Pulling those from the top down doesn't raise those at the bottom. All are pulled down. | ||
| Buellinachinashop |
"Ladies on Bikes" goes to hell, but these political threads live on? I call "foul". | ||
| Court |
>>>It is unlikely that any highly paid athlete is actually "worth" all they make but apparently the owners think so. I'd say that is inaccurate. Players salaries are determined by a very precise and actuarial based mathematical formula. No owner, fool or no fool, would pay $1 more for a player than they could get back plus a reasonable return on their investment. There is much written about it and I'll be it's easy to find. We, the minions, tend to look at lottery sized salaries as being based on purely subjective thought. Why do you think, let's use an exec for an example, that someone would be paid $52M rather than $$49M? | ||
| Bill0351 |
"Yep, and are ball players 20 times better than they were in the 1980's? It's what the market will bear." More accurately, it's a matter of how many eggs you can squeeze out of a golden goose until you kill it. Of course, you can never be too sure of how far to go until you have a dead goose on your hands. Besides, ball players aren't a good point of comparison. The dynamics of a team sport are nothing like a large corporation. Not to mention, salary caps have been a part of major league sports for years. That, and I'm not aware of any major sports teams that are publicly traded. I should be happy that a CEO makes $50,000,000 per year? That money couldn't be better used to build infrastructure and develop product? The only way that $50,000,000 would have been open to taxation is if it was paid to a single individual? Yes FB.... All arguments that don't follow your ideas of a free market are tiresome and trite. Oh.... And all proposed regulations of anything having to do with tax rates and income is a sign of an impending socialist revolution. Again... I am always entertained by your desire to make sure nobody cheats the very wealthy out of their just rewards. There are currently many problems that face our country. Huge and bloated salaries for upper management are just part of the issues we face. I'm relieved Rick Wagoner got his 64% raise in 2007. Imagine how bad things would have been at GM if they hadn't done that! If only AMC had thrown more money at their upper management, maybe Kenosha would still be churning out Pacers and Gremlins today! | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Why do you think a guy who runs a construction company and who's family had a successful grocery company and makes more money than 99.999998% of the people on the board would spend the time and effort to go to law school? Could it be to continue to remain competitive and marketable? It is unrealistic to assume that someone who makes $52M is done working on their resume. Could the same be said for the line worker who simply bitches about how much the CEO made last year and pulls the lever for any shill promising to "share the wealth". (Message edited by ft_bstrd on December 22, 2008) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
What is the total revenue of the company that paid the CEO $52M? Any tax reform that is designed to "share the wealth" or "equalize compensation" IS socialism. If the shoe fits.... | ||
| Xl1200r |
No salary cap on baseball. I don't know the $50 mil figure, but as an example... Rick Wagoneer made $14,400,000 in 2007. GM did $166,100,000,000 in revenue that same year. Wagoneers pay was less than 0.009% of the total revenue. Yeah, they lost money in the process. But those losses can also be attributed to the poor quality ratings everyone screams about, or the boring designs. Should the designer, engineer or line worker not get paid when the company looses money as well? |
