Delphi Proposal to Cut Wages in Half!

Page 5 of 8  


I wouldn't worry much about that. A Bankruptcy court has total and complete authority over all company operations, and can legally void any contract it wants to. And that includes the golden parachute contracts that self-serving execs vote for themselves.
Once a company goes banko all the investors know they will not get even their principal investment back, and that anything they can convince the bankruptcy court to cut will result in less of a loss for them. And execs that mismange a company into bankruptcy aren't easily going to find another job. There's plenty more execs out there available who can raid the company coffers just as well.
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You can blame the American manufactures all you want but the problems in this county are caused by the consumer. The problem is domestics manufacture have to compete with foreign manufactures who can build their vehicles in other countries that have far lower wages and far less costly government regulations on how they must run their business. In addition they need to compete with those foreign manufactures, like Toyota, who merely assemble their vehicle in the US, using lower paid workers who receive fewer benefit, of mostly lower cost imported parts. The greed of the American consumer had led them to buy more and more lower cost imported products yet expect to continue to garner higher American wages and benefits. Something has to give. Unlike Japanese consumers, who support their own economy, the American consumers in their greed are not likely to support American manufactures by paying higher prices to maintain their own economy. American manufacture more and more are being forced to do what the consumer is doing by going to those same sources to lower their cost of making their products. If American consumers are willing to buy foreign goods over American made goods they are going to be forced to accept lower wages from their employers, or worse, they will see their employer go out of business or move their production to lower priced countries, as well.. If American corporations start building their products off shore, as well, at least we will still have American corporations paying federal cooperate income taxes on the profits made in the US. That is far better than some foreign company taking all of their profits out of the county along with the American jobs, as is currently the case. Middle class Americans better soon wake up or the only thing your grandchildren will need to know to get a job is how to say 'Do you want fries with that?' or 'Welcome to Wal-Mart.'
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I blame the absolute greed of the uaw worker, they put themselves in this predicament. Does someone putting a nut on a bolt deserve $27/hr plus enough O.T to make 6 figures a year? F no. I feel for the real skilled workers in this country struggling to survive, not the overpaid uaw worker. When you have janitors making $100K a year something is going to give.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:55:10 -0400, "tony kujawa"

Then who would have the money to purchase the goods and services supplied by a good portion of the country? Who will eat out 4 times a week when they make $10.00 per hour? Who will buy new cars? Who will buy more that the barest necessities? Put GM out of business and the effects will be felt everywhere.
When everything is outsourced, who will have the money to buy anything?
Look at it this way. Who is the largest employer where you live? If they went out of business, what would be the effect in your area?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography
Web Site: www.destarr.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Good healthy thread.
Health Insurance, Canada, Unions and the UAW.
As much as I'd like to blame this current President, he's got *nothing* to do with it.
But, cannot say greed and the consumer are really what's at play. That's a malapropism.
Mr. Curious

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Get real, who told you that unions are the problem, you boss at Wal-Mart? Toyotas sell for more on average then competitive cars made by GM and Ford and their nonunion employees are paid less and receive less desirable benefits and pensions. The fact is less than 14% of all the workers in the US belong to a union and more than half that do, work for the various governments who are outside the competitive marketplace. Our problems start and end with our own buying habits.
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Follow the reply trail and think about what it really means... we're in a global economy and if we want to SELL our goods we have to play through the WTO.
It IS NOT the union wages, however that is sinking the old-line ship, it the union productivity in large part. it's the generous HS diploma to grave benefits on the other hand.
Where ELSE but in the heyday sixties could a kid graduate HS, get a job, then get married, buy a house car and boat all in the next five years... sounds too good to be true and it was.
Part of our great standard of living is that we DO get cheap goods. There's a price to pay on either end.
Those that carp about the foreign content in American assembled vehicles will seem to never be happy. Look at the parts production Honda moved here.
Look, my family is GREATLY affected by this, but trotting out all the old buzz doesnt help a damn thing.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Backyard Mechanic wrote:

Gov't debt is higher now than in the 60's.
Medical care that can be given to people today is more specific, more effective, and MORE EXPENSIVE than what was available 50 years ago (even if people aren't living a whole lot longer now than 50 years ago, their senior years are certainly more expensive).
And there are simply more people now vs 50 years ago.
We are telling ourselves that the more people there are, the more our cities grow, the better life will be.
It's a fiction. Taxes go up even when forests are mowed down and thousands of homes go up.
Life (in north america at least) does not get better with more people. Infrastructure costs grow disproportionately. More people need more jobs, more schools, more food, more ENERGY.
It will always take more taxpayers to support the social infracture of the current population. It's a spiral that is out of control.
Hundreds of thousands of immigrants are needed in North America each year to create the tax-base needed to support the current infrasturcture.
And in future years those immigrants will need even more immigrants.
There is no concept of trying to achieve a stable population level. It's always got to be more. More and more. There must always be growth. That concept is even embraced by religion. It's certainly embraced by policitians at all levels of gov't.
The promise that life gets better when there are more taxpayers, when there are more people, is false. It is proven every year, with every strike, with every increase in property taxes, in sales taxes. We go to war to make sure we have the oil to support ourselves, and we delude ourselves that it was for another reason.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

By what measure? % of GDP is the one that counts.. but you may be right.

But they ARE living a LOT longer and yes it is more expensive to let them live longer... so euthansia?

More people producing more and buying.more.. a wash..

Uh yeah... because folks demand more services, and environmental needs are far more complicated, sewer rates being excellent example

see above

We could limit birth to one child/family

Are you sure?

That does not necessarily follow... it MAY be in growing expectatioons of lifestyle.

Social services and environemtnal and personal protection

Utter CRAP.
If you look at the costs... even at 1/5 the actual money US actually spent, it would have been FAR better deal to do what Chirac did... make an under the table deal for Iraqi oil. - in fact, there were rumors and innuendo that the US TRIED that... if the charges could have been proven there would have been hell to pay!
But then Cheney et al would be facing charges for that instead of the French and Russian guys.
You really need to read between the lines of the news instead of swallowing kool-aid wholesale.
The REAL news is right here on Pravda...
http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/368/16256_dollar.html
Note that the Euro's keep saying their economy problems are due to population stagnation... yet they are running 12 % unemployment.
What's our unemployment?
What's the difference? Yep... social services and govt red tape.
the Delphi news isnt good, but we've been through that sort of thing before.
Go peddle your sky-is-falling crap somewhere else!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It ain't sky is falling crap. The resources of the Earth are finite. Raw materials are finite. This is what Entropy is all about.
Every time we manufacture another car we lose a bit of the steel that goes into it, due to corrosion over the life of the car. So even if we have 100% and perfect reclamation of all cars, we still need tons of new steel every year to keep the cycle going. That steel comes from a mine, and each year that mine is dug deeper, until the vein is played out. Then the process repeats with another mine.
One day far in the future all those mines will be played out. We will still have all the steel we ever dug up - but now it will be in the form of itty-bitty bits of rust scattered all over the face of the Earth.
Well, we could reclaim that, probably by distilling large quantities of seawater. But the process is ten times more expensive than just digging up the ore.
And this problem affects -every single- mineral on the Earth that we use as raw material. Every time we suck an oil well dry, or dig out a vein of ore in a mine, or whatever else, we make it more and more expensive to get the same thing again.
Thus it is a given that it is impossible to support a continually increasing human population. It may also be impossible to forever support a technological population.
Remember the Earth supported a hunter-gatherer population of humans for something like 12 million years. It's quite obvious that that model of living is sustainable. However the Earth has supported a technological population of humans for something like 200 years. It's nowhere near obvious that this living model is at all sustainable.
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which has been said, relying on best data and methods available, for over one hundred years...
1. The higher the standard of living, the lower the birth rate - thus population increase slows
2. Assuming we NEED all that steel... not at all evident, MEANTIME..
3. Check the amount of shale oil, check oil reserves untouched, check use of oil vs synthetic from other sources - most renewable.
The fallacy is that most doomsayers choose to decry the techno-society for depletion of resources yet in that techo-society lies the hope, not to mention the proven benefit to quality of life.
Yes, EVERYONE has a part in that... even the tree huggers. Raising the issues, however false their conclusion spurs innovation. Going overboard, however, in artificial restraint of use or development certainly isnt the answer.
As to your hunter-gatherer population being 'sustainable'... that part isnt even well thought out. It is the LEAST sustainable of all the models!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

Which is a blink of an eye in historical terms.

Birthrate may have dropped in the US but population increase has not.

I used steel as an example as that is easily understood. You apparently missed the point about entropy.
It isn't that the steel has been depeleted, it is that it's in a far less easy to extract form. There are other resources that are much scarcer that are much more esoteric that will run out long before iron does.

That's why it worked for 12 million years. What did you think humans were doing before the emergence of tool-use. Or are you one of the Adam and Eve people?
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

It didnt 'work' for 12 million years! It HUNG ON for 12 million years!
Until man EVOLVED, if you want to look at it that way.
Your point is either escaping me or wraps back on itself.
I cant figger out whether you advocate a return to primitivism or what!
MY POINT is that man has learned to overcome the obstacles put before him; which the 'hunter-gatherer could not.. Thus the extinctions of whole 'communities' to use the modern term for Neanderthals et al.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

I am not advocating a return to primitivism. With the current human population that would be impossible anyway since the Earth has long since passed the point at which primitivism could support the total human population.
What I am explaining that you seem to be missing is that the human specie has a problem when the systems that are setup which sustain it are not self-regenerating. These can be technical systems or even political systems.
Look at political systems for a second. A dictatorship is unsustainable as a political system because it depends on one man, and gains legitimacy through force - which means that any one of the population it is governing can morally kill the dictator and take his place. That makes for constant violent power struggles which spawn civil wars. Sustained technological growth, or civilization as we know it cannot exist in this environment since there's no possible way to do any kind of long term investment projects or anything large like that. China for example is constructing the world's largest dam on the Yangtee river - well in a country in which civil war is a constant that could not happen because that dam would be a military target, and if war broke out it would be destroyed and kill millions through flooding.
So another way of looking at it is that a dictatorship political system is not self-healing and self-regenerating.
Gettiing back to technology, quite obviously basing energy systems on oil is not self-regenerating. Basing them on nuclear is not self-regenerating unless you are only building breeder reactors (and in that case your going to have a hell of an arms problem with plutonium diversion) Basing them on something like wind or tides is self-regenerating because no matter how much energy we take out of wind, the sun is constantly fueling more wind movement.
Today we have an incredible number of systems, technological systems that is, which are not self-regenerating, and in fact quite a number of these are going to run out within a few centuries.
Our first priority should be to adjust these systems to extend their expiration date, as you will, and right after that our next priority should be to replace them with systems that are self-regenerating. This can be done with innovation, but it also can be done by reducing consumption. Population reduction is the quickest way to reduce consumption, that is why China does not allow more than 2 births per couple.

But you see, man really hasn't learned to overcome obstacles put before him. One of these obstacles is man has not learned to wean himself off things like oil as an energy source, which we know is finite.
If you could tomorrow put together an inexhaustable energy system, or an inexhaustable food production system, or an inexhaustable whatever production system, then you could be perfectly fine arguing for unlimited population growth.
But we don't have that now, and as such, an excellent first step would be to do what is necessary to make world population growth flatten out. An excellent second step would be to adjust global systems so that all of the people we DO have on the planet get a decent education, so that they can be working on building the self-regenerating systems that we need.
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just for the record steel does not come out of the ground. Steel is an amalgam and is the mostly recycled man made product. At the current rate of consumption the world has enough iron ore deposits to last a thousand years. ;)
mike hunt
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <of the car. >> >
Every time we manufacture another car we lose a bit of the steel

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Comparing US and Euro unemployment figures is totally meaningless. The Euro numbers reflect the number of people actually unemployed, while the US numbers only count those still actively seeking employment. Those who have given up are not counted, so the actual US vs. Euro unemployment is much closer than the official number indicate.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Delphi supplies General Maintenance (GM). GM was/is Delphi's parent. Wouldn't bother me one bit if both went out of business. They should be shut down.
Larry Behold Beware Believe
| Golden parachutes? A general strike will bring corporate America to its | senses. Executives should be pink slipped on Friday for Monday's | uncompensated layoff. | | If you think Mexican or Chinese auto parts will cost you less, you're sadly | mistaken. You'll pay the same price for them as if American workers made | those parts. Labor costs have nothing to do with your price. Profits have | everything to do with your price. As labor costs go down, profits go | up...the price remains the same! |
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:52:32 -0600, "Larry Crites"

taxpayers who will probably end up supporting them until (if and when) they find something else....
Back in the early 70s (when dinosaurs ruled the earth : 0 ) Boeing lost the SST contract to build the plane which was to compete with the Concorde. All those people were laid off. A large number went on the public rolls, but many also went to work doing anything to bring home the bacon. Among the aerospace engineers were many who felt that it was beneath their dignity to have a PhD hanging on the wall, and work at McDucks supporting their families. So, you had college students, welfare mothers (it was the 70s), and PHs all standing in line at the grocery with food stamps in hand. And who pays for it?

Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.
http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/davescar_7_11_05_002.jpg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You are kidding right? Be careful what you wish for, as they say, you might get your wish. Currently it is a buyers market for vehicles, keeping new vehicle prices in check, because there is more capacity to build more vehicles then there are buyers in the US. GM sells over 30% of all the vehicles in the US, nearly a third more than Ford and three times as many as the number three manufacture, Toyota. If GM went under the demand would far exceed the available production effecting economies of scale and the price of vehicles would skyrocket at least 25% or more. Those hurt the most would be those that buy econoboxes, vehicles that are currently subsidized by larger cars and trucks far more profitable vehicle sales. In addition the corporate and personal income taxes lost, federal and state taxpayers would have to absorb most of the cost of pensions, unemployment and bankruptcies etc for those hundreds of thousands of employees that work for GM, it suppliers and it dealers that would be out of a job..
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Hunter wrote:

Theres is sufficient excess capacity in the world auto market to replace GM's output in short order. If GM actually shut down, it's plants, designs and such would also be cherry picked by remaining companies and it's best bits would stay in production.
I don't expect GM to shut down, but I do expect them to go through a massive Chapter 11 reorganization sometime in the next 1-10 years.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.