home

Sunday Talk Open Thread

Tell us what they are yakking about (Hillary at State). I'll be back this evening hopefully.

Oh by the way, how about them Gators?!

One last thing, here is Glenn Greenwald concern trolling again on John Brennan. (I am joking about the concern trollling. I was attacked last week by the Obama Bots for voicing the same concerns.)

This is an Open Thread.

< Saturday Night Open Thread | In Praise of Craig Watkins >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Reverse Mortgages to Save the Mortgage Crisis (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by cpa1 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 10:06:41 AM EST
    I  have an idea.  Let's say someone who never should have gotten a mortgage is about to default.  The government steps in and forces an agreement with the mortgagee and the mortgagor whereby the Treasury now has an equity interest in that property, like a reverse mortgage.  Rates are lowered and the length of the mortgage is increased.  That costs the banks and the person owning the house but he or she still has a house.  Now, the banks are a little more protected but, in order to accomplish this deal, which the Treasury guarantees, the Treasury is give a percentage of the house upon sale, let's say 15%.   If the homeowner can't pay and just walks away, the bank loses the 15%.  If the homeowner stays paying off the longer mortgage, when it sells, 15% goes to the Treasury.
    What will that do?  It will change the panic and not smack the face of all the taxpayers who have not purchased mortgages way out of their range.  It changes the mood and makes people more productive and that is necessary to keep the real estate tax base intact and financially viable to provide money for the states, the schools and the local municipalities.

    Republicans are great for bleeding the economy and then telling everyone we have to be lean and mean and cut everywhere.  Well, you cannot grow an economy if the the 90% can't spend, buy American products and services and ultimately provide tax revenues to keep our economy and obligations going.  Republicans want GM, Ford and Chrysler to file for chapter 11.  That will kill those companies because who is going to buy a car from a company that could not be there in a year?  Plus, who pays for the pension obligations of their retirees and who pays for the Medicaid all these millions of people will be seeking.  We need to find a way to grow not recede.

    What do you all think?

    Chapter 11 could work IF (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by oldpro on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 11:55:56 AM EST
    the lending market was not frozen.  It is.  That sends the companies into Chapter 7 and they are out of business.

    Parent
    How about we just skip the banks (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:34:45 PM EST
    and let the government buy the mortgages.  OK, banks can continue to adminster the monthly payments for a small fee.  But the risk & payoff are owned by the government, and the public.

    If we're going to make up new money, let's spend it more wisely than handing it to banks or auto companies.  

    Parent

    that was the plan (none / 0) (#27)
    by jedimom on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:55:12 PM EST
    that is the HOLC plan!  originally Paulson represented the purchase of the mortgage securities as the plan Congress approved, thus the acronym TARP (troubled asset repurchase program)

    did everyone see Kucinich, even ISSA!! all over Kashkari friday! it was AWESOME!!

    He said he doesnt think the us govt should be in the business of bailing out failing financial institutions when Kucinich asked why they werent buying the mortgage debt!

    suuure they are just funding banks to buy other healthy banks, yeah Kucinich isnt happy about the PNC buyout

    let me find the clip!

    PS Sheila Bair is fighting to get 2 million + morts modified under her FDIC plan and Paulson and Bush are fighting her, she went ahead and put it on the FDIC website friday anyway HA! Love Sheila Bair!

    FDIC plan here:
    http://tinyurl.com/55e9hy

    Kashkari testifies about TARP status to Congress Friday here:
    http://tinyurl.com/6cq94z

    Parent

    Are mortgage securities and mortgages (none / 0) (#60)
    by sallywally on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:47:08 PM EST
    the same thing? I didn't think the original plan to buy bad mortgage securities was the same as buying and renegotiating mortgages themselves.

    I thought buying the mortgages securities was a way of helping the investment houses with their labyrinthine securities/derivatives setups, not helping homeowners with their actual mortgages....

    Parent

    Krugman on: Schwarzenegger, Fannie & Freddie (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 05:44:50 PM EST
    This is from his blog this afternoon, after all the Sunday talk shows were over:

    So I was listening to Arnold Schwarzenegger before doing the This Weak round table, and he was mostly making sense -- except for one thing. He asserted, as a simple matter of fact, that "government created the housing bubble", because Fannie and Freddie made all these loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them.

    This is utterly false. Fannie/Freddie did some bad things, and did, it turns out, get to some extent into subprime. But thanks to the accounting scandals, they were actually withdrawing from the market during the height of the housing bubble -- the vast majority of the loans now going bad came from the private sector.

    Yet it's now clear that the phony account of the crisis -- that it's all due to Fannie, Freddie, and nasty liberals forcing poor Angelo Mozilo to make loans to Those People -- is setting in as Republican orthodoxy, part of what you have to believe to be a respectable member of the party.

    I though it was bold of Krugman to write This Weak instead of This Week. I wonder if he usually refers to it that way in his blog.

    Parent

    And if that isn't enough to disincent buyers... (none / 0) (#5)
    by easilydistracted on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 10:36:07 AM EST
    then there is the matter of an automobile workforce wholly disgruntled over a bankruptcy court's decision to totally abrogate years of collectively bargained rules governing pay and working conditions.  Productivity and quality tank even further at that point.  Yep, me thinks I'll avoid one of those products, if that happens.  

    Parent
    Yes, bailed out homeowners need to give something (none / 0) (#32)
    by Manuel on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    Just like the auto workers (and management) mentioned elsewhere.  It is right to demand something in return for government assistance be it preferred shares, wage concessions, or home equity.  The only question I would have about this plan is if it makes sense for the equity to be a fixed dollar amount (with a low fixed rate balloon payment when the home sells) or a percentage of the home value.

    Parent
    BPO to reset values..... (none / 0) (#39)
    by jedimom on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 01:38:31 PM EST
    well Bair FDIC plan calls for a brokers price opinion BPO to be used to reset the home value and workout from there

    geographically we cant have a set umber

    CA morts arent even qualified for HOPENOW due to their midline prices being above the FAN FRED cap

    the prices are still much higher than the FAN FRED limits for jumbo morts.....

    Parent

    If something isn't done (none / 0) (#47)
    by themomcat on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:15:22 PM EST
    to stop, or slow, the foreclosures, won't the banks go under anyway? If the banks end up owning all those foreclosed properties that they won't be able to re-sell because there are no buyers, they just defeated their own purpose of begging for the bail  out. Maybe, I see it as a little simplistic but it seems that the bankers are their own worst enemy.


    Parent
    We have some very weak banks (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:26:22 PM EST
    that are going to go under no matter what we do.  They anteed up for every hand of this fast money mortgage scamming though.  They made very risky loans.  Their CEOs are already headed for the door too if they aren't already out the door with their fat feasting paychecks well in hand.  There is no way around some of the bank failures that will come.  They are going to happen.

    Parent
    I did see that CitiCorp (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by themomcat on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:36:57 PM EST
    is reassessing many of its distressed mortgages and trying to work with the homeowner to lower their payments. Some of the things they are considering is reducing the original amount of the mortgage due to devaluation/over valuation of the property, reducing the interest rate and extending the mortgages to 40 years. The woman who spoke (I can't recall her name) said this was less of a loss to the bank then the bank foreclosing and not being able to sell the property. Made sense to me. So why aren't other banks and mortgage institutions dong the same?


    Parent
    I suppose desire to work with (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:56:39 PM EST
    borrowers must come from the top down and some tops don't need to make these types of negotiations because they don't see their bottom line in danger.  This type of renegotiating home loans was done when I lived briefly in Gillette WY and the oil boom went bust.  Within about a year and a half property values were seemingly halved, and some banks began making these types of offers to borrowers because it was in their bottom line best interest to be able to renegotiate a $140,000 loan with no possibility of being repaid into a $70,000 loan that had good possibilities of being repaid back to them.  I didn't notice that beginning to "seriously" happen though until everything had hit real hard rock bottom.  I don't think we are going to conceive of that rock bottom until spring though.  The Xmas wipeout and the end of the year wipeouts along with a weak spring economy will bring us to that point.  Keep hearing rumors though that Obama is a pragmatist.  We shall see.

    Parent
    Bailing out American Auto (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by kenosharick on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 10:13:52 AM EST
    industry is on all the shows. I hate to see them go under but how could the leadership of these corporations (who are paid millions of $s)be so stupid?

    It was pretty simple (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Fabian on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 10:56:25 AM EST
    they made the biggest profits on the biggest, most loaded machines like over sized SUVs.  They successfully kept Congress from raising CAFE standards or closing the "truck" loopholes.  People bought the behemoths instead of more modest vehicles.

    So it was:
    maximizing profits
    lax regulation
    market demand

    The end result was predictable.  An industry devoted to profiting off of fuel hogs, sky rocketing fuel prices and a lack of R&D in smaller, more efficient vehicles.  No flexibility to cope with sudden market changes spells disaster.

    Plus the little problem with the economy...

    Parent

    Additionally (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by cal1942 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 03:55:10 PM EST
    the American obsession with quarterly profits and their relationship to stock prices, etc.

    We've been taken over by finance and that's become the bane of American industry.

    Parent

    let em go under (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Salo on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 10:25:57 AM EST
    and then have other financiers and companies buy up teh various bits of GM. Toyota, Honda, BMW or Mercedes will do it quite happily.

    I've been reading about the pay of autoworkers, (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Angel on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 11:28:40 AM EST
    and their high salaries and healthcare compensation plus retirement benefits seem to be rather high.  That's part of what has hurt the industry.  If there's a bailout these people need to make some concessions.  And the guys at the top need to do the same.  I think if a company gets a bailout (auto industry, mortgage industry, etc.) then the government should be able to have a say in their pay.  

    Parent
    Autoworkers salaries and (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by oldpro on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 11:53:51 AM EST
    benefits are comparable to the other unionized workers in this country...that would be government employees mainly, local, state and national.

    Democrats hold the reins and they are NOT going to go to war with the unions.

    Period.

    Parent

    Nor should they (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:06:58 PM EST
    The unionized are a representation what is supposed to be our nonexistent middle class.  How sad that when we find out what we should be living on and how we all should be existing if we put in an honest day's labor we even think about goring the existing representation of middle class in this country.  We need to strive for more people being middle class, not killing off what's left of them.

    Parent
    Here's Another Example (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by CDN Ctzn on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 07:00:37 PM EST
    of how Universal Healthcare (ie. single payer) would benefit the industry. Ever noice how many auto manufacturers have moved assembly plants NORTH of the border? That's because they save a small fortune on the cost of employee benefits due to the Canadian healthcare system (read Socialized medicine).
    Rather than spending billions on another bailout, maybe we should institute a healthcare plan that would benefit the majority. Then again, we don't want to upset the Insurance Companies.

    Parent
    Workers Paid too High? (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by bslev22 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:03:34 PM EST
    I would be interested in knowing about what you say you have been reading which apparently has caused you to believe that workers' salaries and benefits are too high in the auto industry.  What does that mean?  Do you think that there are autoworkers in this country who are rich?  How about some statistical evidence, respectfully, for your recitation of points that I always thought were part of the script on the Republican and anti-worker side of the aisle.

    I am very concerned about the liberal/progressive coalition turning its back on American workers and their families as we attempt to deal with the curent crisis and beyond.

    Parent

    We were talking about the effect (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:35:18 PM EST
    This is not just about GM. This is about job losses. Not just the auto workers, but the guy who sells GM some of the parts. Tires, radios, seats. All these people lose their jobs too. It has a trickling down effect. Workers are not being overpaid. I heard yesterday that the guy who holds the sign on road work gets paid comparably. Nothing against the sign worker, in fact, my neighbor's son is a NY Sanitation worker. He gets a wonderful salary and benefits. In other words, it depends on the state, city, supply and demand, and cost of living. You are right, auto workers are not living extravagantly and many of them have been laid off the last few years. I don't concede turning over our auto industry to other counties either.In fact, Toyota makes one GM car that sells $5k under what the same car under the Toyota brand sells for.

    Yep, we need to bail out GM but there needs to be some conditions. Executive salaries dropped to $1 a year until profit making again. The bail out is a 10 year loan at 1%. Workers salaries and benefits are frozen until profit making again. And serious cost savings measures that do not effect quality or safety. Work 4 10 hour days a week, etc. Saves gas and electricity. And no OT. In other words, lend the money but have those conditions in place. Even allow a 6 month Chapter 11 for them to get on their feet again. It can't be a free bail out but there needs to be a bail out because GM going under would be sure depression. And for those who think depression is just a deeper recession, I suggest you ask your elders just how bad things were.

    Parent

    The almost universal (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 01:57:13 PM EST
    estimate is that some 3 million jobs are directly dependent on the "big three" U.S. auto makers.

    Another one 'o those "too big to fail" deals, but the start-up costs are so astronomical as to be impossible for a brand-new auto manufacturer to get into the market, so I think we're stuck with what we've got.

    Parent

    you guys are making the assumption (none / 0) (#58)
    by of1000Kings on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:42:26 PM EST
    that no company/investors in America would try and take the market that the big 3 has now?  the market just isn't there then?

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#78)
    by cal1942 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 04:00:19 PM EST
    just what would those investors do with auto manufacturers?  Sell them off piecemeal like junk men as we've seen so often in the past.

    Allowing US auto manufacturers to fail is reckless and irresponsible.

    Parent

    allowing Chrysler to give (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by of1000Kings on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 04:20:40 PM EST
    30M in bonuses while asking for a bailout b/c the line workers get paid too much is just reckless and irresponsible...

    Parent
    And "bailout" (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by cal1942 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 05:09:40 PM EST
    legislation should address those issues.

    Allowing another US industry to fail is reckless and irresponsible.

    Parent

    Chysler is owned by Cirrus (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 05:14:24 PM EST
    Cirrus is one of the largest privately owned investment companies in the USA. Daimler which still owned 19% wrote off as zero dollars in October. Just information. BTW, the GOPs don't like taking the 25 bil from the Wall Street Investments to give to the auto industry. That is a sure sign it is right. Heh.

    Parent
    This isn't a Republican or Democratic issue. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Angel on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:28:02 PM EST
    It's an issue for the entire country.  What I've read through many searches is that the average salary of an autoworker is around $27 per hour, plus insurance benefits and retirement, which some say makes it the equivalent of $50 per hour.  If this is true or anywhere near the truth then those salaries are too high.  Teachers can't/don't make this much money; many healthcare workers can't/don't make this much money.  And teachers and many healthcare workers must have a college degree.  Even Robert Reich, an advisor to Obama, said that if there's a deal for the automotive industry then the workers need to take a cut in pay.  Hey, that's an Obama talking point!  I'm not into the R versus D stuff...I'm into what I think is right and what I think is best. And if these people want to have a job then they need to take a pay cut.  

    Parent
    Teachers make more than that in (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:37:53 PM EST
    many states. What are you talking about?

    Parent
    Not in my state they don't. Not by a long shot. (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Angel on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:48:55 PM EST
    $27 per hour is $56,160 per year.  The average for a teacher who has taught for 20 or more years is only $44,000!  A beginning teacher gets $27,000, and a 10-year teacher gets $37,000.  They work 10 months of the year, so the equivalents are $52,800, $32,400, and $44,400 for a full year's salary.  This is not comparable to the autoworker salary, not by a long shot.  Autoworkers are eligible for overtime, get great healthcare benefits, good retirement; teachers in my state have mediocre healthcare and retirement plans.  And the teachers I know put in more than 8-hour days and are not eligible for overtime.  And they have college educations!  

    Parent
    Angel...it's a mistake to (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by oldpro on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:40:39 PM EST
    judge the whole by one vulnerable part.  If your state's teacher salaries/benefits/retirement are substandard, it's not very useful for a comparison tool.

    In the 'more progressive states,' like mine...Washington...and we're nowhere's near the top of the 50....the average teacher makes over $50,000 and the beginner over $30,000 with the best benefits and best retirement in the state.  In addition, any assignment of 'overtime' outside the classroom is paid for at the going rate, whether it's senior class advisor, voleyball coach or bus monitor.

    In the same way that non-unionized autowrokers (in the south) cannot be compared to unionized autoworkers, so non-unioned teachers cannot be comparted to unionized, salary/benefitswise.

    Wide disparity.

    One thing to know, tho, is that the unionized autoworkers have taken cuts in recent years and their jobs have lost value BECAUSE of the non-union competition, driving down wages in THIS country just as they do when we ship those jobs overseas.

    It'a a good deal more complicated than most of us think...which is why, I suppose, we all avoided advanced classes in econ in college....zzzzzzzz

    Parent

    Yes, in my state (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 04:07:05 PM EST
    teachers with BA or BS degrees are averaging in the mid-70's upon retirement and get hefty pensions and medical coverage ad infinitum.  Not a criticism, just fact.  Further, I wish I had their time off in the summer and other holidays too.  

    Parent
    What State is that? (none / 0) (#109)
    by CDN Ctzn on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 07:11:18 PM EST
    My wife has 25 yrs. teaching, a Masters in Education, and certification in in six fields at both the middle school and high school level. Here in Oregon, she makes a little over 50K / yr. before deductions and insurance.


    Parent
    Massachusetts (none / 0) (#112)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 08:51:58 PM EST
    It varies by city here also.  but the 75K would be more or less the normal rate at retirement age.  Further, many retire with 80% of their top three years for annual retirement.  I am a lawyer and trust me I am nowhere near that for retirement and never will be.

    Parent
    Furthermore, don't blame the workers (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:38:30 PM EST
    for high insurance costs.

    Parent
    Maybe we should be (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 01:17:49 PM EST
    more concerned about the inadequate  wages of teachers than reducing the salaries of other workers, such as those in the auto industry.  However, for the survival of the particular industry, it may be necessary to make some adjustments, as was the case in the airline industry.  But the real issue, for me, is the incompetent and greedy auto industry boards and management.  While changes, of course, have been made over the past century, the auto industry is still working with the basic gas combustion engine with apparent hope against hope that oil is an infinite resource. As for those expensive health benefits, where were these guys when universal health care was being considered with the leadership of Mrs Clinton in 1993?  Another indication of their shortsightedness.  Never-the-less, our teetering economy is unlikely to  take the additional and mega unemployment hit. Another bailout needed, but let's not allocate a penny until the Bush administration if out of there; if the money is not misused, it will otherwise go missing.

    Parent
    I'd be interested in a per/hour wage for teachers. (none / 0) (#61)
    by of1000Kings on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:47:24 PM EST
    I know most teachers make around 30-40,000 a year after they've been teaching for a few years (many schools start our around 28-32 these days)...

    add in their health benefits and their retirement plan...

    and then pro-rate the hours for the 3 months they have off when they can be making supplemental income...

    it would be an interesting number...
    I think it's about 20/hr for a low wage teacher even before considering health benefits and a pretty good retirement package...I'm guessing the health benefits adds at least another 5/hr or so, if not more...

    so I'm guessing that even a low level teacher is making close to 30/hr...not too shabby for what is essentially one of the easier degrees to obtain...

    Parent

    They teach your children..... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 07:04:17 PM EST
    ...don't you want them to be the very best? And you may not realize that a large number of teachers get master's degrees.

    Parent
    Actually the average American autoworker makes (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Elporton on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:46:03 PM EST
    about $73 an hour, including all benefits.  The average Japanese autoworker makes about $48 an hour, again including benefits.

    The issue shouldn't be about the workers.  It should be about management of the auto companies and the unions.  No question that the leadership of the American auto companies has been poor, but so has that of the unions.  Both the car companies and the unions "cut hay while the sun shined", but those days are gone.  Either they jointly realize their futures are on the line or they will all be out of a job one day.

    Parent

    Is the cost of healthcare factored in (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 01:05:28 PM EST
    to that equation? The auto manufacturers in Japan don't have to pay for health insurance, right?

    Parent
    usa (none / 0) (#37)
    by jedimom on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 01:32:41 PM EST
    those stats are for foreign auto makers HERE in the USA

    that is what American workers earn in TN in Toyota plants!

    Parent

    Statistics & mis-information (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by wurman on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:23:46 PM EST
    Chicago Tribune: actual wording.
    The base UAW wage is $28 an hour, but GM says benefits for active and retired workers push the labor cost to $73.26. The Center for Automotive research says Toyota pays its non-union U.S. workers $45 an hour, includingbenefits.

    GM apologists have taken the costs of paying their retirees' benefits & "burdened" them onto the hourly pay of current workers.  It's an accounting trick used to mislead people.

    GM adds all "retirement benfits paid" to their "labor costs" & than divides that huge number by the average total of wage employees currently on the payroll.

    This is nonsense.

    UAW workers make an average of $28 per hour & have the typical benefits package that adds about $14 to $16 per hour depending on location, type of job, & total hours worked per year.

    $73 per hour----what a crock!

    Parent

    You are exactly right. . .It is a disingenuous (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by bslev22 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 03:04:44 PM EST
    fraud to attach legacy costs to the hourly wages of current workers.  And it sells in too many places.  If we do anything as a coalition, we should start with sticking up for working people, not just talking about it in sound bites, and complaining about how some guy making 28 bucks an hour, even assuming he's working 2000 hours a year, is somehow overpaid.  

    Parent
    Exactly but what happens is (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 05:06:16 PM EST
    you have people spun to and because they heard it they believe it.  I know them. And they refuse to accept that they have been lied to.....it is spun to keep the anti union sentiment going in this country.

    Unions were a huge factor in creating the middle class.  The right wing, FDR hating, immigrant hating thugs have been working to destroy unions for decades and they have succeeded in getting the average person to believe their hype.
    Why they are stealing us all blind, they get one set of workers to blame another.

    Who was it who said: Either we hang together or we hang separately.  
    There is a reason why big corporations and this right wing governance love each other.  They want us to blame each other. They fear the power of workers supporting each other. And this thread just reaffirms how easily even some progressives fall for it.

    Parent

    Read my post #14 where I said the average pay (none / 0) (#53)
    by Angel on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:30:31 PM EST
    is $27 per hour.  In post #24 I state that equals $56,160 per year.  

    Parent
    Average autoworker salary is $28 an hour not $73 (none / 0) (#103)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 06:03:32 PM EST
    Wurman, thank you, thank you, thank!

    Someone cited the 73$ an hour figure to me last night and I knew it couldn't possibly be true. That would be $152k per year. Although I wouldn't begrudge an autoworker that salary, I did make note that it is more than twice my salary as a tenured Professor at a major university.

    At the actual average wage of $28 per hour, the average annual salary of an autoworker is a modest $58k. I can't believe we don't all know the truth of this matter.

    Parent

    no offense (none / 0) (#124)
    by boredmpa on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:25:40 AM EST
    but blame it on the unions wanting to avoid risk/media attention.

    they want retiree costs to be subsidized by current and/or new employees and will frequently attach such costs to the benefits/employment side.

    In fact, labor was behind the recent decision in San Fran to take 2% of the salary of new hires and direct it to retiree benefits in San Fran. They did this in conjunction with reforming health benefits to vest at 10 15 and 20 years (instead of 5).  The unions did this because the public sector (just like the private sector) is being forced to consider the  liabilities for upcoming and current retirees.  The unions don't want the benefits to be accounted for or target for cuts or public outrage...so they attach them to current labor costs.

    Of course if the unions had supported universal healthcare as a priority (and other "liberal" issues)...instead of using them as benefits/political bargaining tools...we might not be in such a mess.

    For the record, I think union politics/systems in the US frequently hurt the common citizen in favor of politics and union bureaucracy.

    Parent

    There's also an accounting fraud in this $73 (none / 0) (#128)
    by wurman on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:43:06 PM EST
    GM, like all other employers, is required to set aside a substantial percentage of the legacy retirement obligations & hold them in trust.

    ERISA has some rules on this.  GM is not funding its retirement trust for the hourly wage-earners & I will bet my next month's retirement check that all of the mid-level & executive funds are vested at 101 percent of value.

    Ross Perot had much to say about this when he sold EDC into GM for cash & shares, went on the Board of Directors, & then was kicked off because of his exposure of all the GM bogus prejudices against the hourly workers.

    Take it to your bankrupt bank: GM wants to burden those legacy costs because they've heisted the trust funds.

    Parent

    sounds a lot like (none / 0) (#129)
    by of1000Kings on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:31:46 PM EST
    banks selling 'securities' of bad assets so that they could use the money from the sales to make more bad mortgages and so on and so on...

    while being able to keep the debt off the books so that they could remain under-capitalized for the loans that they had already issued...

    gotta love corporate America's idea of a 'free market'...

    free to do whatever they please is more like it...

    republicans love making omelets with stolen eggs...

    Parent

    See below. The 73 dollar and hour figure (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by bslev22 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 03:06:33 PM EST
    is a fraud.  You include legacy costs as part of the hourly wage of current workers.  As to Toyota et al, in the U.S. their workers are paid comparably to workers in Amercan-owned companies. . .thanks to the unions that represent the workers in those American-owned companies.

    Parent
    I don't think it is a fraud at all (none / 0) (#81)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 04:10:20 PM EST
    Those workers, upon retirement, will still be getting paid and have medical coverage.  So the hourly estimate includes that cost also.  

    For a good discussion of what really happened and how the auto industry is overly burdened see:

    http://tinyurl.com/d9c8w
     

    Parent

    Unions (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by cal1942 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 04:22:19 PM EST
    are and have been cooperating.  Numerous cuts in pay and benefits have been negotiated in the last few years. See the example of GM's Delta parts operations.

    Parent
    So let me (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by cal1942 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 04:08:37 PM EST
    get this straight, you want to cut the pay of American workers. Do you believe that possession of a degree should be an entitlement to higher pay?

    German and Japanese auto workers are paid comparably or more. Some of the difference is in health care costs.

    Get behind single payer health care to put worker expenses on a par with foreign competition.

    Parent

    Nowhere did I say I WANTED to cut the pay of (none / 0) (#84)
    by Angel on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 04:21:16 PM EST
    American workers.  Dont' put words in my mouth.  Read all the posts and you'll see what I believe.  Never did I use the word entitlement, that's your word.  This mess is bigger than you may think, and getting behind single payer health care isn't going to be an automatic fix nor an immediate fix.  The auto industry is on the brink of collapse and people in that industry, if they want to stay in that industry, need to take a pay cut or do whatever it takes to keep their job.  This isn't about how much anyone SHOULD be paid, and it isn't about pitting one group of workers against another, it's not about health care, it's not about having or not having a college education.  It's about getting paid what the market will bear in the current economic situation.  Reality is here and the auto industry needs to respond instead of living in the past.  

    Parent
    You (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by cal1942 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 04:33:31 PM EST
    certainly implied entitlement when you cited wages for teachers, nurses, etc. and then said and those jobs require a college education.

    By the way the pay levels you cited for teachers/nurses were WAY below what teachers and nurses are paid where I live.

    You must live in the south or mountain west or in a rural area.

    And 56K a year isn't very much, especially considering the chronic uncertainty of industrial work even in reasonably good times.

    Parent

    Spoken like a true Republican (4.00 / 3) (#40)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 01:52:45 PM EST
    Only white collar professionals should be paid a decent wage, be able to afford a house and a family-- if both spouses work, that is.  Bravo.

    Parent
    Not a republican. And that isn't what was said. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Angel on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:07:53 PM EST
    The auto industry is failing.  Either the workers take a pay cut or get in the unemployment line.  That is the reality.  And it has nothing to do with the belief that only white collar professionals deserve a decent wage.  It's about more than that.  Sometimes you have to make a contrast to make a point.  A teacher or healthcare worker with a college education, working for 20 years making the same as the average auto worker???  Everyone deserves good pay based on the job they do and it's value to society.  And the current economy can't support autoworkers making $56,000 plus per year.  That is the economic reality.  

    Parent
    Ah. So we just cede (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Fabian on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:39:48 PM EST
    the auto industry to the foreign owned companies?

    That will probably give Toyota and Honda a lot more economic and political clout than they have now.  I do not find this at all reassuring.

    Part of the problem with the economy is the steady loss of manufacturing jobs, even the low wage textile jobs in the South.  Flushing even more manufacturing jobs out of the economy will not be a step forward.

    Parent

    or with the executives of the companies (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by of1000Kings on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:49:38 PM EST
    getting 30M in bonuses while the company fails...just like Chrysler did recently (and one of the executives was the guy who was fired from Home Depot for being a failure there...imagine that)

    but hey, let's cut the pay of the line worker...

    Parent

    Do Honda American workers make less? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Manuel on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:51:14 PM EST
     If so, how much less? I have not researched the wage issue. You and Reich (who I generally trust) my be right that everyone (including labor and management) at GM and other auto firms needs to take a pay cut.  Do you know if the dispariy between CEO and line worker pay is much less in the auto industry than in the rest of the work force?  That widening gap is something we should try to reverse.  It isn't healthy for our society.

    Parent
    Republicans are always wailing about (none / 0) (#90)
    by hairspray on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 04:44:53 PM EST
    the high salaries of the workers as being the cause of the collapse of the auto industry. LOL!
    Workers in that industry were paid in relationship to its profits and it was the management that sunk the industry with its focus on short term high profit cars.  The officials made a decision years ago to let the Asian countries take over the small cars and leave the big profitable vans, suvs and high end passenger cars for Detroit. Look at where that ended up. Our industry captains have been so profit driven they failed to make wise decisions. On the flip side we have union leaders who are hanging on to the old paradigm for dear life and it is a lose-lose situation as well.  A really good book is one written by Andy Stern of the SEIU titled "Changing How America Works" for information about the auto unions.

    Parent
    73 and change an hour /toyota-42 (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jedimom on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:48:18 PM EST
    that right wing conservative we all love Kudlow, had an hourly wages + benefits=compensation chart last week on CNBC that reflected GM workers earning 73 and change an hour all in, with the Toyota workers in TN for example at 42 an hour all in, then goods producers, professionals, the rest of us all below that..

    the continuing healthcare bens are killing them, they already inked a deal to turn over the pensions and HC to UAW directly in 2010, I have HUGE doubts that UAW will be able to handle it, we will IMHO see the PBGC stepping in sooner or later, I think it would be better to do it now...

    another reason for UHC!

    Parent

    Why? (none / 0) (#82)
    by cal1942 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 04:14:31 PM EST
    HUGE doubts that UAW will be able to handle it

    Do you think the UAW is stupid?

    Are you aware that in some industries the unions handle both health care and pensions?

    Do you understand that turning over healthcare to the UAW might just lead to more institutional support for UHC?

    Parent

    Yes, and that can be even worse for (none / 0) (#106)
    by easilydistracted on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 06:54:34 PM EST
    the company who signs on to union sponsored health plans.  Such plans tend to have little or no oversight and no incentive to control costs (after all, the participating companies are locked in to such plans through collectively bargained agreements).  The Machinists (IAM) Organization is a darn good example of union sponsored health care run amok

    Parent
    Disagree (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by cal1942 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 03:51:55 PM EST
    Auto workers are not paid too much.

    It's my understanding that German auto workers make as much or more and that Japanese auto workers are paid similarly.

    I would think that US auto manufacturers and the unions should get some credit for good wages and benefits.

    As a nation that's what we should be all about.

    Parent

    Krugman says no.... (none / 0) (#9)
    by oldpro on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 11:51:20 AM EST
    that in normal times, he'd agree with you...but in this economy, too dangerous and too big a hit.

    Parent
    That's why they need to take a pay cut, everyone (none / 0) (#15)
    by Angel on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:33:20 PM EST
    involved, not just the line workers.  If they don't then they'll fail again even with the government bailout.  I personally think the US automakers are a dinosaur.  They haven't changed enough fast enough and have been left behind.  I feel sorry for the workers but if they want a job then they will have to take a pay cut.  My husband just took one.  And his retirement contribution has been reduced to less than 1/3 of what it was.  And he's not getting a bailout.  And he doesn't have a good health insurance policy either.  The autoworkers have a great retirement plan plus great healthcare benefits.  

    Parent
    When executive compensation is (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:42:45 PM EST
    capped at 10 times the maximum for a regular worker, we can talk. Until then, your suggestion is preposterous.
    In many large corporations, executive compensation for the top few people (under 10) can use a sizeable fraction of profits.
    Furthermore, the workers should not pay for the bad management decisions of those at the top, who wanted to maximize their payouts without ensuring the long-term viability of the company.

    Parent
    Did you read what I wrote, in both my posts? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Angel on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:53:32 PM EST
    The top needs to take a cut too! Nothing preposterous about taking a pay cut versus losing your job forever.  

    Parent
    I don't believe you have shown that (none / 0) (#28)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:55:16 PM EST
    the workers need to take a pay cut.
    You seem to feel that autoworkers make too much. T
    I don't like to base policy on feelings.
    Rather than make auto workers take cuts, first we shoudl have UHC, so that their insurance costs aren't added to the cost of automobiles.
    What to autoworkers in Japan make, btw?

    Parent
    They need to take a pay cut or be without a job. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Angel on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    Pretty simple.  They make too much based on what is going on in their industry right now.  We can say they're worth $60,000 per year but if the market won't support that kind of salary then they aren't worth it.  It's economics, not "feelings."  And by the time universal healthcare arrives on our doorstep the US auto industry could be dead. Do a little research and discover for yourself the great healthcare that auto workers receive as a benefit compared to most.  Then come back and have a fact-based argument about healthcare.  This is an economic issue and saying somebody should or should not have something is irrelevant unless the economics support it.    

    Parent
    Um, you began by saying that (none / 0) (#31)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    autoworkers salaries "seemed" too high.
    Is that a fact? LOL.
    Are you an economist? If you're not, don't lecture me about the subject. If you are, then present an actual argument.

    Parent
    Here's what I said: (none / 0) (#34)
    by Angel on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 01:12:04 PM EST
    I've been reading about the pay of autoworkers, and their high salaries and healthcare compensation plus retirement benefits seem to be rather high."  That's an objective statement based on what I have read and what has been reported.  It's a judgment call based on my education and experience.  I have two degrees, one in Business related to Finance, and one in Liberal Arts with emphasis on the Humanities.  You are the one who needs to make the argument that autoworkers should keep their pay and benefits when their industry is failing and they may soon be out of a job.  Nothing like cutting off your nose to spite your face.  

    Parent
    And let's do the neocon's job for them (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:03:07 PM EST
    pit teachers against auto workers against longshoreman against cops against fireman.

    This is what they have been doing for years and the American public has naively gone along.  I know. I am a teacher. I cannot tell you how many times even on liberal blogs I hear how the "teachers' unions" are hurting kids; how bad teachers can't be fired...and how we make too much.  ALL MYTHS.

    I don't care how much the autoworker makes...until the bzillionaires take HUGE CUTS, no American worker takes any cut. Since Reagan the pay of the CEO has gone from 7X his lowest employee to something like over 400X.  When these jerks think that owning 12 homes, a fleet of cars is the norm for their class, then something is wrong.  Why the hell do Americans want to continue this pitting of American workers against each other when it is the plutocrats who are bleeding us???

    Parent

    Good Lord is this TOO DAMN TRUE (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:20:45 PM EST
    And that "pitting against" FUELED No Child Left Behind which is a huge piece of crap that is actually denying my child artistic expression and much needed socialization.  My kid can pass tests though by God!  Hopefully my kid can pass tests better than your kid in order to get a leg up because God knows they aren't getting any education on community problem solving.........that would require the kids spending some time with each other!  They'll hopefully catch up on each other's lives though at the next benchmark testing!  Just in case nobody heard though, we have to have all this testing because our teacher s*ck so much.

    Parent
    I said in my first post way upstairs that the guys (none / 0) (#52)
    by Angel on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:28:01 PM EST
    at the top need to take a cut.   And I also said that if a company gets a bailout (auto industry, mortgage industry, etc.) then the government should be able to have a say in their pay.  This isn't about how much anyone should be able to make, it's about how much anyone is realistically going to be able to make based on the current condition of their industry.  Survive with less or fail with more.  That's the choice.  Reform is going to take a long time.  The auto industry is a dinosaur and needs to change.  I'm not sure what the correct pay for each job is, but I'm willing to pay more to a 10-year firefighter, teacher or policeman/woman than I am for someone who installs the doors on my Prius.  


    Parent
    Angel (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:42:21 PM EST
    I luv ya, and ya started where you started.  You started with the small guy and the small guy wages.  It was others injecting CEO pay into the conversation that brought the guys upstairs into the dialogue.  It was not you.  You started with the little guy and from your often shared by other small guys not making as much starting point, this conversation blossomed.  It isn't your fault politically that workers have been pitted against workers.  It is happening though and it has worked very well at times to the detriment of our overall society. The only people that that argument currently betters in the end are in George W. Bush's own words HIS BASE.  It isn't your fault that this very human thought processing exists though.  In this thread it has simply been exposed as to how it is used against all of us little guys. And time and time again through a thousand papercuts it bleeds our children dry, it even starves some children to death.

    Parent
    Nope. Read post #8. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Angel on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 03:03:33 PM EST
    Here it is again.  "I've been reading about the pay of autoworkers, and their high salaries and healthcare compensation plus retirement benefits seem to be rather high.  That's part of what has hurt the industry.  If there's a bailout these people need to make some concessions.  And the guys at the top need to do the same.  I think if a company gets a bailout (auto industry, mortgage industry, etc.) then the government should be able to have a say in their pay."  Top, bottom, all need to take a cut in pay.  If the industry is failing they can't continue to earn what they've been earning.  That's a basic economic principle.  Where's the money going to come from?  They want a bailout?  Then they need to sacrifice.  Our pay scales are skewed all the way around, no doubt about it.  But we need to be realistic and understand that the teacher or healthcare worker with a college education should make more per hour than the person taking your order at the fast food joint or the person putting the door on your Prius. This isn't pitting worker against worker.  It's recognizing the value of the job.  Value should equal pay.

    My original post was about the autoworkers (top and bottom) needing to make some sacrifices if they are going to be the benefactor of a government bailout.  If they don't get a bailout then they'll fail.  But if they continue the same practices as before, even with the bailout they'll fail.  It will just not be as soon.  


    Parent

    Recognizing the value of the job? (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 03:30:52 PM EST
    Your earliest posts singled out the pay of the common auto worker.  Let us walk in their shoes for a moment.......didn't you also say something about college degrees as well?  My husband who is an aviator and is usually flying the "lastest" thing the military has to fly is forever in schools that have no accreditation.  Heck, the accreditation process in my opinion couldn't even keep up with the tech leaps.  I never knew what was required to put a new airframe in the air.  And if you want to talk about the differences in the original Apache verses the Longbow I hope you have six months handy because that is over two months in the unaccredited classroom followed by over three months in the unaccredited cockpit.  The auto industry is in the dumpster because when Bush took office the CEOs no longer had any reason to worry about tech gains.  They didn't feel that they had to and they made the WRONG call.  Credit was loose and free wheeling and forgetabout CAFE standards (because the CEO's could.....not because it was prudent, only because they could). We have people on the job though day after day after live long day making the structures you will be driving 70+ mph and attending more different schools than you can shake a stick at.  What they make for you could possibly ram into someone else also driving 70 mph.  The people doing this are hardly hardly hardly uneducated and I hardly hardly hardly want the lowest bidder able to obtain bonding building my 70 mph with or without my crash helmet transportation. If the people doing this work agree to take a cut then fine but I'm in no position to look down upon them or tell them what to do.  We all do what we must and autoworkers aren't stupid or uneducated compared to the rest of us.  Sometimes it is quite the reverse.

    Parent
    The person putting the door on the Prius does (none / 0) (#77)
    by Angel on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 03:58:33 PM EST
    not need an education.  Assembly line workers position things in place, put parts together with bolts, screws, etc., and generally work on items that move past them on a conveyor.  There are much harder jobs than this but this is the job I was referring to.  I made the contrast between a teacher with a college education and an assembly line worker putting the door on a car.  I didn't say they were uneducated so don't put words in my mouth. There are many, many reasons why the auto industry is in trouble and worker pay and benefits is part of the problem.  CEO pay is obviously a problem.  But the unions drove up the pay and benefits beyond what the market can currently accept.  

    Parent
    You are still playing the class game (5.00 / 5) (#93)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 04:55:55 PM EST
    and seriously, that is the right wing's gig. I despise it and I have been a teacher (with two MA's and 180 credits above those MA degrees) for four decades.  Don't play that game. It's no different than people who think a high school teacher should get more than a kindergarten teacher.   It's a statement borne out of ignorance.

    I have never watched worked on an auto assembly line.  But I have watched plumbers work and damn they are smart and intuitive and problem solvers. And I have watched the mechanic figure out where the problem in my car is. I have watched woodworkers create beauty out of raw materials. I am guessing these folks never saw me get one of my students excited about books.

    Let's value each other, work and support each other and become a united force against the people who have been taking from us to give to people at the top for almost four decades.  These people constantly use the "we all have to suffer" meme to make us take pay cuts or freezes while they do what?  Sell off one of their 10 houses.  NO WAY.  

    It's time to end that mentality for good.

    Parent

    Oops! "beneficiary" (none / 0) (#68)
    by Angel on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 03:05:29 PM EST
    Try (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by cal1942 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 04:42:06 PM EST
    working in an auto factory before you make statements like this:

    I'm willing to pay more to a 10-year firefighter, teacher or policeman/woman than I am for someone who installs the doors on my Prius.
     

    Parent
    compensation (none / 0) (#38)
    by jedimom on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 01:35:57 PM EST
    why should American workers in TN who are working for compensation of 42 an hour, have THEIR taxpayer dollars used to pay 73 an hour compensation to MI auto workers?


    Parent
    Why should any American workers, hell any workers (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:04:46 PM EST
    ANYWHERE play the "blame each other" game?  When are people going to get it. THIS is the argument they love to get going...this is the argument that convinces Americans to support right wing plutocrats.....and support THEIR greed by blaming the problems on each other!

    Parent
    Jjc2008 (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by cal1942 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 04:44:16 PM EST
    I wish I could rate you about 100 5s for your comment.

    Outstanding comment.

    Parent

    Thank you (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 04:57:50 PM EST
    I truly am sick and tired of that "class game", a game invented by neocons to make the masses take the pay freezes, cuts and live "cheaper" while they increase their personal profits.

    I am glad this was brought up because for too long, workers have been scapegoated and pitted against each other.  

    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#87)
    by cal1942 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 04:37:37 PM EST
    I personally think the US automakers are a dinosaur.

    You think that disposing of an American industry is a good idea?

    You think that we won't be driving cars for many many years into the future.

    Reckless, irresponsible.

    Parent

    Where did I say they needed to be disposed? (none / 0) (#91)
    by Angel on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 04:47:52 PM EST
    I've said in my posts that they need to change.  They have not changed with the times and the changes they have made were too late.  Read the post about IBM.  They woke up before it was too late.  If they don't change they will fail.  They are failing.  It is not reckless or irresponsible to state the truth:  the US auto industry is a dinosaur and needs to change.  

    Parent
    But the change is about how these (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 04:58:47 PM EST
    overpaid managers function.
    You want to blame the workers.
    Unacceptable.

    Parent
    The entire industry needs to take some blame. (none / 0) (#100)
    by Angel on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 05:42:07 PM EST
    It isn't just the top guys, it's the lower workers as well.  They have out-priced themselves in the market.  This is an economic issue.  They can go the way of the dodo bird or they can correct their mistakes and succeed.  Part of that correction begins with pay, top guys down to the bottom.  

    Parent
    Sorry I don't buy that garbage (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 05:52:33 PM EST
    "out priced themselves"

    Who gets to decide who deserves what?  Just because some workers are settling for lower wages and no benefits, I should do so, the autoworkers should do so?  That's the technique of union busting...and it is hard to believe anyone who calls themselves a progressive supports that notion.  How about we just tell the billonaire doctors, lawyers, athletes, actors, rock stars, and hedge fund managers to lower their rates first.......when people are making $10000 freaking dollars every time they throw a ball, and you want laborers to be the ones to sacrifice?  No thanks!!!

    Parent

    Society sets the value of wages. (none / 0) (#116)
    by Angel on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 10:54:02 PM EST
    I'm not paying $100 per ticket to support some athlete making $50 million a year.  I'm not purchasing every CD that comes out to support some 18-year old that makes $20 million a year.  But other people are.  We are lost as a society when it comes to wages.  All I've said that if the auto industry wants to survive in this screwed up world then they need to change.  And that means paying their employees less until they get back into the groove of making money and being a successful business and industry.  That is the reality of today.  Right, wrong, it's reality.  Quit living in denial.

    I work for free and have for over 10 years.  I give 100 percent of my time to non-profits.  And I work full time plus.  So don't give me any grief about class war and about low wages.  I live the life.  

    Parent

    So, how do youhave $$$ to live? (none / 0) (#122)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:12:47 AM EST
    We struggle. We saved up. I wanted a life of (none / 0) (#125)
    by Angel on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 07:33:06 AM EST
    giving and that's where I'm at.  I love and wouldn't change it.  The feeling is better than money.  But we have enough and I know that we are more fortunate than many.  I don't need a lecture from anyone here about the people who don't have enough.

    Parent
    Kahlil Gibran would be delighted... (none / 0) (#127)
    by of1000Kings on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 06:23:51 PM EST
    "There are those who give little of the much which they have--and they give it for recognition and their hidden desire makes their gifts unwholesome.

    And there are those who have little and give it all.
    These are the believers in life and the bounty of life, and their coffer is never empty.

    There are those who give with joy, and that joy is their reward.
    And their are those who give with pain, and that pain is their baptism.

    And there are those who give and know not pain in giving, nor do they seek joy, nor give with mindfulness of virtue;
    They give as in yonder valley the myrtle breathes its fragrance into space.

    Through the hands of such as these God speaks, and from behind their eyes He smiles upon the earth."

    "You often say, ""I would give, but only to the deserving.""

    The trees in your orchard say not so, nor the flocks in your pasture.

    They give that they may live, for to withhold is to perish.

    Surely he is worthy to receive His days and His nights, is worthy of all else from you.

    See first that you yourself deserve to be a giver, and an instrument of giving.
    For in truth it is life that gives unto life--while you, who deem yourself a giver, are but a witness.

    And you receivers--and you are all receivers--assume no weight of gratitude lest you lay a yoke upon yourself and upon him who gives."

    my preaching for the week....

    Parent

    And I don't either (none / 0) (#126)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:13:12 AM EST
    but I support the right of workers, laborers to make a decent living, have health care and have a retirement, and until and unless our government is willing to ensure all of us have those things, I support the right of WORKERS, not matter what their educational level is, to fight for, demand those.

    My pieces of paper from a college do not make me more worthy of health care, decent wages, decent living than laborers.  If you don't believe in class warfare then perhaps you ought to reread your own words because you sure as heck are coming off as an "eltitist" who now justifies your stance because you work hard to "save" the poor people.  

    Parent

    Car manfacturing revived (none / 0) (#71)
    by Salo on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 03:38:06 PM EST
    in teh UK after the companies were talken over by competent design teams funded by BMW and Honda.

    Parent
    Good to know.. (none / 0) (#72)
    by oldpro on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 03:40:57 PM EST
    What about unions? (none / 0) (#113)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 08:56:41 PM EST
    Let the unions have the opportunity to buy out their auto companies if they can come up with workable plans for restructuring the companies to produce cars that use less gasoline.

    Parent
    You're kidding, right (?)! (none / 0) (#115)
    by easilydistracted on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:09:48 PM EST
    First, these are not "their auto companies...."  I rather doubt the unions sign the paychecks.  Second, the unions want no part of that responsibility.  With all due respect to them, they would rather hang back and "bark" rather than comedown to the campfire where its hot.    

    Parent
    Wes Clark weighs in on auto 'bailout' (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by oldpro on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 03:49:05 PM EST
    re the national security component...

    Wes Clark has an Op-Ed in the New York Times called "What's Good for G.M. Is Good for the Army."

    The following is an excerpt from the Op-Ed:  

    In a little more than a year, the Army has procured and fielded in Iraq more than a thousand so-called mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles. The lives of hundreds of soldiers and marines have been saved, and their tasks made more achievable, by the efforts of the American automotive industry. And unlike in World War II, America didn't have to divert much civilian capacity to meet these military needs. Without a vigorous automotive sector, those needs could not have been quickly met.

    More challenges lie ahead for our military, and to meet them we need a strong industrial base. For years the military has sought better sources of electric power in its vehicles -- necessary to allow troops to monitor their radios with diesel engines off, to support increasingly high-powered communications technology, and eventually to support electric propulsion and innovative armaments like directed-energy weapons. In sum, this greater use of electricity will increase combat power while reducing our footprint. Much research and development spending has gone into these programs over the years, but nothing on the manufacturing scale we really need.

    Now, though, as Detroit moves to plug-in hybrids and electric-drive technology, the scale problem can be remedied. Automakers are developing innovative electric motors, many with permanent magnet technology, that will have immediate military use. And only the auto industry, with its vast purchasing power, is able to establish a domestic advanced battery industry. Likewise, domestic fuel cell production -- which will undoubtedly have many critical military applications -- depends on a vibrant car industry.

    [...]

    This should be no giveaway. Instead, it is a historic opportunity to get it right in Detroit for the good of the country. But Americans must bear in mind that any federal assistance plan would not be just an economic measure. This is, fundamentally, about national security.


    Great comment oldpro (none / 0) (#99)
    by cal1942 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 05:23:33 PM EST
    the American auto industry must be saved.  Allowing any American industry to fail is a deeply serious error.

    Parent
    Provided there are (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 08:59:32 PM EST
    quid pro quos, parameters for uses of funds, real oversight, and limitations on executive compensation, spending and the like.  

    Parent
    Henry Kissinger endorses (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 06:51:29 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State.  Is this the kiss of death?  Oh, and Arnold says it's o.k. w/him too!

    Obama & Lobbying (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by lilburro on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 11:12:29 PM EST
    This is an interesting article about the new Obama lobbying rules.  Apparently Bill Corr was lobbying in September.


    But in an example of how the tough-sounding rules can provide Obama plenty of wiggle room, the campaign explained how the lobbyist's work didn't violate the restrictions.

    Bill Corr, executive director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, unsuccessfully pushed Congress to give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco. But because the legislation granting that authority failed, there is no dovetail between Corr's lobbying and HHS policies, said a transition spokeswoman, who did not wish to be identified.

    The good news, is probably all of the good lobbyists were lobbying failures in the past 8 years.  So they are all welcome aboard.  

    Also

    The team reviewing the Housing and Urban Development Department is former Clinton-era HUD official Roberta Achtenberg, the first openly gay person to be confirmed by the Senate.

    Her nomination was opposed by the late Sen. Jesse Helms (R-S.C.), who voted against her, he said, "because she's a damn lesbian."

    I wish Jesse Helms were still alive now.  But if he were alive, he'd probably drop dead.

    How 'bout them Gators? (none / 0) (#2)
    by kempis on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 10:11:16 AM EST
    As a Crimson Tide fan, they scare the bejeezus outta me.

    The Gator fans are pretty hard (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 11:07:48 AM EST
    to put up with down here in the low eastern corner of Bama. They always were a back talking bunch of hooligans but now they are completely out of control :)

    Parent
    LOL - I bet! (none / 0) (#73)
    by kempis on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 03:44:22 PM EST
    The Gators looked terrible (none / 0) (#29)
    by Pepe on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 01:01:59 PM EST
    against a good defense. In the first half their supposedly killer offense couldn't score a single legitimate touchdown. The one offensive touchdown they had was only made because of offensive interference that was not called but the replays clearly showed a push off on the receiver who was being blanketed by the defense.

    Other than that S. Carolina's quarterbacks gave the game away in the first half with no help needed from Florida's defense. The QB's just plain old made some dumb mistakes which Spurrier was well aware of.

    Only after the S. Carolina offense dug such a big hole for themselves causing the defense to literally quit playing in the second half did Florida begin to score. But again it was only because the defense quit playing hard as they did in the first half.

    As I have thought all along from watching them throughout the season Florida is susceptible to a good defense as S. Carolina showed in the first half holding them scoreless on offense generated touchdowns.

    Florida has an awesome offense when they play against no D. So that makes them not so awesome.

    BTW, Tebow who only knows how to play for the shotgun will never make it in the Pros where you need to take some snaps and throw from under center.

    Parent

    Smack talking Tebow? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:12:14 PM EST
    Are you out of your mind?

    Parent
    Not Smack (none / 0) (#59)
    by Pepe on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:44:41 PM EST
    Just reality. Anyone knows a one dimension shotgunner can't make it in the pros. the guy has never thrown a pass under center. At best he is a 3-4 year project just to learn how to play the Pro game under center, where he will have to take some nasty hits. Shotgunners are typically real physical guys who can stand a pounding. More like ballerinas, lol.

    I don't take away his college skills - but that is college - a completley different game. If you think about it you can name off a bunch of Heisman winners who couldn't make it in the Pro's. And a bunch of shotgunners too.

    Parent

    Now you have called Tebow a ballerina (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 03:03:02 PM EST
    I'm speechless while surrounded by women who apparently want a sperm donation that will require toe shoes.  

    Parent
    SEC championship game (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by cal1942 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 04:52:40 PM EST
    will be fun to watch.

    As a Big Ten guy I'm happy that our regular season ends next week so we can all watch the SEC and Big 12 championship games.

    The Big 12 game might not be so much considering the strength of their southern division but the SEC game should be a treat.

    Parent

    Tebow is a great quarterback (none / 0) (#119)
    by Trickster on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:36:23 AM EST
    He will be a great QB in the pros.  He's deadly accurate, a beast on two legs, and a leader. It's possible there will be an adjustment period, but it should not be very long.

    On the other hand, beating Alabama is not the same thing as beating South Carolina. Alabama has not been running up obscene scores like Florida has, but that is not the Bama way.

    This Crimson Tide team is a Nick Saban version, but it is built in the Bear Bryant mold.  Methodical beat-down offense featuring solid running, first downs, and ball control; stout, physical defense; avoid penalties and turnovers; make more big plays than you give up.  It's not a formula for beating Kentucky by 58 points, it's a formula for winning big games against top teams.

    Watch out for December 6.

    Parent

    In reply (none / 0) (#46)
    by CoralGables on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:15:10 PM EST
    56-6

    Parent
    Meh (none / 0) (#63)
    by Pepe on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:49:50 PM EST
    The score as I already pointed out does not reflect the general lack of quality of game Florida played. Again they didn't do squat in the first half offensively and in the second half they were playing against a defense operating at 50%. And the entire game they played defense against an offense that could hardly be called an offense.

    If you want to hoot and holler about that go ahead but you are just being a homer, but you are not being an objective football fan.

    Parent

    Roll Tide baby (none / 0) (#118)
    by Trickster on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:30:00 AM EST
    December 6th.  Florida will meet a real team. Mark it on your calendars, everybody.

    (p.s. Not intended as trolling. . . .)

    Parent

    I think the Tide (none / 0) (#121)
    by Amiss on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 01:33:38 AM EST
    will be waning on Dec. 6th.

    Just sayin.

    Parent

    Hehehe (none / 0) (#120)
    by Amiss on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 01:22:57 AM EST
    That's a good thing :)  I did notice that Spurrier didnt seem to get as angry yesterday as he used to get with the Gators. Tebow made a remark that if Spurrier had been the coach at Florida he doubted he would have played there.
    I thought that was quite telling, and I have always liked Spurrier.

    Parent
    I posted a link to an article in the TalkLeft (none / 0) (#20)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:42:06 PM EST
    rally thread, but since that topic is from yesterday, I'm going to put another plug in today's open thread:

    Please take a look at this proposed solution and give some feedback.

    How Barack Obama Can Solve the Gay Marriage Issue

    (Article synopsis in this TalkLeft thread)

    It's the management (none / 0) (#36)
    by NYShooter on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 01:22:59 PM EST
    It's always the management.

    Look at I.B.M. Some years back, I.B.M. was going the way of today's U.S. auto companies, fat, complacent, and as all virtual monopolies, lazy. They brought in a guy who knew nothing about computers, but he knew about business. Yes, lopping off 100,000 workers was painful, but it saved the other 400,000 jobs. That, and the other innovations Gerstner installed, propelled I.B.M. back to the top of the heap where I.B.M is once again the premium computer company in the world. They also are the dominant leader in super computers, owning over 50% of that market.

    All other countries send their future engineers, scientists, and business managers to America to get their educations. If we got rid of today's intransient management, I have no doubt our universities would graduate students eager to take up the challenge.

    Off with their heads! There's no other way.


    Employee-owned mfg. (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Amiss on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:14:05 AM EST
    Proctor and Gamble owned a mfg plant in my small town for years, about 20 years ago, they decided they would close up shop and move to Canada, taking only a very few in mgmt positions with them. This plant was the largest employter in that tiny town, so the workers got together and came up with a plan and presented it to P&G to buy the plant. Now that the workers own the plant, things are run more effeciently and workers are making more than ever because of the inner pride that has come with ownership and it is a much more efficient operation. Seems to me the auto-workers could do something similar.

    Just sayin.

    Parent

    That is a great post by Greenwald (none / 0) (#48)
    by lilburro on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:20:13 PM EST
    Digby also posted yesterday a diary that caught Brennan hedging on the use of the Army Field Manual.  
    Check out the Campaign to Ban Torture .  There is no question in my mind that Obama can and should fill important National Security positions with real anti-torture people.  


    Query: if the Gators are so (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 06:52:40 PM EST
    d#mn good, why is Alabama #1 in the BCS rankings?

    Bring it back up... (none / 0) (#110)
    by CoralGables on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 07:25:02 PM EST
    The evening of December 6th and I'll see if I have an answer for you.

    Parent
    BTD has appeared. I think he owes us (none / 0) (#111)
    by Teresa on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 07:40:28 PM EST
    an explanation on why he thinks Obama shouldn't do it, don't you?

    Parent
    Yes, ma'am. (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:55:58 PM EST