Top corporate executives continue to receive perks and bonuses for unremarkable structuring of its production plants and rather remarkable for their eye on the bottom line to please stockholders while having little concern for their employees’ well-being

the auto parts manufacturing industry is--according to abc news--the largest manufacturing sector in the us. delphi corp is one of the largest parts manufacturers, employing 50,000 workers. it's also one of 36 such manufacturers to file bankruptcy during 2005.

earlier this year, delphi announced it was gonna cut production employee salaries by two-thirds. altho they've since backed off, it seems pretty clear something similar is in the works.

a number of current employees work at the same plants where their fathers or grandfathers were once employed; in some cases, there are 2 or 3 generations all currently working for delphi.

while production workers are takin the big hit here (the company claims it's paying 3 times what it could be paying overseas), 600 'key' executives have been gifted with millions of dollars of bonuses.

imagine how much more they woulda got if the company was run further into the ground.

ceo robert miller's response to angry workers?

"Philosophers can speculate about fairness," said Miller. "I have to deal with reality."

i guess that's the english translation of apres moi, le deluge

Link

That a company like Wal-Mart, which produces nothing and a major distributor of imported goods, yet becomes the biggest employer in the country, is indicative of a nation losing its will to industrialize and modernize its infrastructure. That powerhouses like GM and Ford are on the decline owing to the government’s irresponsibility in not providing universal health care in which foreign makers luxuriate is another sign that the nation is unwilling to come to grips with reality. And why the poor will always be slighted because of the nation’s expertise in muddling through as substitute for vision.

No one "made" Wal Mart what it is.  We demanded it.  No one "made" industry go over seas, we became too smart for it.  No one is killing Ford and GM, sloth and waste are.

Social Darwinism cannot be denied.  Nor would retrograding the advancement of the US society benefit the poor.  making people stupid never furthered welfare or human rights.  It only plays into the hands of tyrants and dictators.

"Raising the standard of living of the poor cannot be done without reducing the ridiculously high standards of the very wealthy to make room for a wider middle class."

Has that ever been done, in the history of the world, in such a way that those who are in charge of making the situation equitable didn't become tyrants themselves? For someone who doesn't like governmental excess and absolute power, you present a situation in which such power is a necessity.

We are a consumer society. Every time you buy toilet paper, you contribute to this situation. You have two choices. Stop buying toilet paper, or put someone in office above you that has complete control of what is sold and how. Given history's lesson, the latter would lead to a society much, MUCH more heinously abusive to the poor...

That powerhouses like GM and Ford are on the decline owing to the government’s irresponsibility in not providing universal health care in which foreign makers luxuriate is another sign that the nation is unwilling to come to grips with reality.

That powerhouses like GM and Ford are on the decline is through no fault of the government. The government has helped to provide retirement benefits for the workers in this country -- that social security net that liberals are so proud of. Because of it, companies like GM, Ford, and many others have abandoned all sense of social responsibility because the government can do it for them.

You want to know what is killing GM and Ford -- blame unions, the bastions of liberalism that they are. They refuse to give back benefits, and refuse to recognize economic reality when it hits them in the face. They worry about the short term, and near term, and ignore the long term. In doing so, they kill the host that they parasite on and then cry because it's gone and someone should have saved it.

That's where your misplaced values are.

Raising the standard of living of the poor cannot be done without reducing the ridiculously high standards of the very wealthy to make room for a wider middle class.

During the 90s, the rich got richer, the middle class got richer, and the poor got richer. We were entering the "global economy" and with agreements such as NAFTA, many manufacturing jobs went outside our contry, but there were other opportunities for those who wanted to better themselves. Hi-tech jobs were being created at a rate far greater than than they could be filled. Because of the economic laws of supply and demand, salaries skyrocketed for tech jobs.

Then, in 2001, the economy fizzled. There were signs that it was weakening in 2000, but the job market collapsed in mid-2001. Bush was "talking down" our economy, and that led to drop in confidence and may have contributed to the extent that it collapsed. The outsourcing of high paying jobs overseas made things worse and Bush has done nothing to try to stop it. He has actually done things to encourage it. Corporate profits are all that matter to the Bush administration.

When manufacturing jobs were being outsourced to other countries during the 90s, there were more and better opportunities in hi-tech jobs. Now that many of those jobs have gone overseas, for many, there aren't better opportunities. Middle class wages have dropped during the Bush administration. The republicans lavish themselves in praise over creating new jobs, but many of those jobs are in the service industry or in health care. While the Bush administration is generous with it's subsidies and tax breaks to oil companies at a time when they're reporting record profits, nothing is being done to reward companies that create jobs here. Companies actually get a tax break for sending jobs overseas.

U.S. auto makers are saying they must move their operations overseas in an effort to reduce costs, namely wages, health care and retirement benefits, in order to be able to compete in the global economy.

The reason people aren't buying American autos is quality. American auto manufacturers are concerned more with pleasing the shareholders than producing cars that can go longer than six months without requiring a trip to the repair shop. That business strategy may have worked in the short term years ago, but people have gotten fed up with the garbage that rolls out of Detroit (figuratively speaking). They've realized that although the initial purchase price of a Ford or Chevy is less than a Honda or Toyota, repair costs, lower resale value, and aggravation make them more expensive in the long run.

To the U.S. auto maker, all that really matters is profit, and that is why demand is down, as are profits. To Japanese companies such as Honda, they've built their reputation on quality and they continue to maintain their reputation by producing high quality products, year after year. And it's not just their top of the line. Even their entry level vehicles such as the Civic consistently receive top marks when it comes to reliability, and that is why people buy them.

While it's true that if what they are striving for is to be able to produce garbage cheaper, U.S. auto manufacturers may very well be able to achieve that goal by moving their operations overseas, and they might be able to compete with Hyundai or Kia, but it's pretty sad that U.S. manufactures aren't interested in competing at a higher level.

The loss of good manufacturing jobs and hi-tech jobs makes it difficult for the poor to break out of poverty. The middle class is filling the decent jobs that are available. Student financial aid has been cut under the Bush administration and with the higher cost of living, it is much more difficult for the poor to get a college education now than it was in the 90s.

So what should be done to help people better themselves? The government should increase financial aid for low income students, reward companies that create jobs here, and penalize companies that send jobs overseas. Of course, the Bush administration doesn't want to do things that are actually good for the poor and middle class, so that will never happen while he is still president or we have a republican dominated congress.

During the 90s, the rich got richer, the middle class got richer, and the poor got richer. We were entering the "global economy" and with agreements such as NAFTA, many manufacturing jobs went outside our country, but there were other opportunities for those who wanted to better themselves. Hi-tech jobs were being created at a rate far greater than than they could be filled. Because of the economic laws of supply and demand, salaries skyrocketed for tech jobs. Then, in 2001, the economy fizzled. There were signs that it was weakening in 2000, but the job market collapsed in mid-2001. Bush was "talking down" our economy, and that led to drop in confidence and may have contributed to the extent that it collapsed. The outsourcing of high paying jobs overseas made things worse and Bush has done nothing to try to stop it. He has actually done things to encourage it. Corporate profits are all that matter to the Bush administration.

Lets straighten this out right now. Tech salaries and associated jobs went sky-high because of the dot com bubble (any true computer tech could tell you that just ask Draginol). GW took down nothing. The dot com bubble burst and took the really large tech salaries and the better tech jobs with it. I defy you to show me how GW affected that.

The reason people aren't buying American autos is quality. American auto manufacturers are concerned more with pleasing the shareholders than producing cars that can go longer than six months without requiring a trip to the repair shop. That business strategy may have worked in the short term years ago, but people have gotten fed up with the garbage that rolls out of Detroit (figuratively speaking). They've realized that although the initial purchase price of a Ford or Chevy is less than a Honda or Toyota, repair costs, lower resale value, and aggravation make them more expensive in the long run.

More hyperbolic nonsense. "IF" this were true and I do stress "if". Then "why" are they putting 3 year warranties on new cars? That would be kind of self-defeating wouldn't it?

Ford, General Motors, Honda, Toyota, Daimler Chrysler, Mitsubishi, Nissan 3 years or 36,000 miles

Steven,
I just typed up some discombobulation for the hell of it. I don`t mean or belive anything I say concerning this blog. You are a very smart guy and I enjoy reading your comments. I just like pushing peoples buttons. No harm intended.

During the 90s, the rich got richer, the middle class got richer, and the poor got richer

Prove it.

That would be kind of self-defeating wouldn't it?

no more so than offering rebates and no/low interest financing to keep artificially churning the market.

like the administration, american automakers seem to believe you can keep pushing off tomorrow til the next day.

blame unions,

you musta missed my comment #1. far as i know there is no 'key executive' union requiring delphi to pay millions in bonuses to 600 of its members for running the corporation into bankruptcy.

you musta missed my comment #1. far as i know there is no 'key executive' union requiring delphi to pay millions in bonuses to 600 of its members for running the corporation into bankruptcy.

To be fair, both sides deserve blame, but then again it's not where you are thinking either.

Blame the unions (as I said above) for they continue to behave like monolithic dinosaurs and continue to hamper the management at the companies whose workers they represent. They continue to hold onto past benefits that are incredibly costly to their employers, even when the economic reality of the situation is that the host company can't continue to feed the parasites.


Blame the CEOs also -- not so fast. The CEOs are being rewarded based upon compensation commitees and other stockholder related commitees. While the CEOs in many places have made themselves well insulated and harder for stockholders to exercise direct control over, the stockholders can demand more responsibility from CEOs, and/or demand more laws and oversight from the government that can deliver that power to them. Most stockholders are like most voters -- apathetic, and not interested in getting involved in the details of managing their investments. If they would become more involved, then perhaps CEOs wouldn't be making multiples of 100x or more the average salary of the workers they manage, and perhaps those CEOs would be more creative in how they manage companies (while still remaining within the bounds of the law).

I read an article a while back on why Bush getting re-elected is good for Canada. One of the reasons was universal healthcare, making it cheaper to make cars in Oshawa than in Detroit. And the odds of Dubya being America's Tommy Douglas are pretty slim.

Has that ever been done, in the history of the world, in such a way that those who are in charge of making the situation equitable didn't become tyrants themselves? For someone who doesn't like governmental excess and absolute power, you present a situation in which such power is a necessity.

Yes, in Chile in the early 70s (and to a lesser extent in the 60s), and in Guatemala before around 1954.

We are a consumer society. Every time you buy toilet paper, you contribute to this situation. You have two choices. Stop buying toilet paper, or put someone in office above you that has complete control of what is sold and how. Given history's lesson, the latter would lead to a society much, MUCH more heinously abusive to the poor...

We don't really have much of a choice, though. What are we going to wipe our asses with when we stop buying toilet paper? What are we going to eat when we stop buying food? Since we are also an industrialized, urbanized society, we can't really be too self sufficient. I just don't have enough cows in my backyard to last me forever.

You want to know what is killing GM and Ford -- blame unions, the bastions of liberalism that they are. They refuse to give back benefits, and refuse to recognize economic reality when it hits them in the face. They worry about the short term, and near term, and ignore the long term. In doing so, they kill the host that they parasite on and then cry because it's gone and someone should have saved it.

Blame the unions (as I said above) for they continue to behave like monolithic dinosaurs and continue to hamper the management at the companies whose workers they represent. They continue to hold onto past benefits that are incredibly costly to their employers, even when the economic reality of the situation is that the host company can't continue to feed the parasites.

As opposed to the CEOs, who try to take benefits, and worry about the short term as opposed to the long term. In doing so, they kill the company, but they are already gone and took their millions in absurd salaries and benefits with them. And when a company thinks of its workers as parasites when the CEO is obscenely rich, there is some sort of major problem here.

More hyperbolic nonsense. "IF" this were true and I do stress "if". Then "why" are they putting 3 year warranties on new cars? That would be kind of self-defeating wouldn't it?

If I bought a brand new car and it had to be replaced in four years, I would be pissed off. The car I drive now is 17 years old, and ran fairly well until we had to put a new motor in a few months ago partly becasue one cylinder wasn't firing annd partly because when we were trying to fix it, we dropped a little ball bearing down the intake manifold. With proper care, and some work along the way, cars should last 10, 15, or 20 years.

we dropped a little ball bearing down the intake manifold

yikes.

The CEOs are being rewarded based upon compensation commitees and other stockholder related commitees

there's usually only one ceo per corporation (yeah i know there's prolly a cfo and maybe another c-somethin-o but..).

giving millions in bonuses to 600 key executives and then cutting wages by 2/3 is a whole other story. especially when a company is going into bankruptcy. it's not solely the stockholders who are gonna be payin for that...it's gonna be all of us.

Yawn!!!

So what you are saying is, unless our laws are set up to pity poor and show contempt for the rich, we will never have equality?

If you are going to broadbrush groups of people based on your own preconceived notions, just admit that you are a bigot and get it over with.

The only responsibility "the rich" or "the poor" or anyone else has to society is to obey the law and work towards changing the laws we don't agree with. Saying that "the rich" don't care about anyone but themselves is the same as saying "the poor" are all a bunch of lazy criminals.

I have a better idea, why don't we all quit worrying about "equality" since it doesn't exist anyway. No one is "entitled" to other people's time, talents, goods or services. If I choose to give of mine freely, that is up to me. If you choose to charge whatever price you can, that is up to you.

Equality is NEVER equal and Fairness is NEVER fair.