GM Loses Another $16 Billion -- Bankrupt?

[Wezil]

To be fair you should include all CEO's salaries to match against "union wages". I presume you are speaking of the entire collective membership and not just a single worker.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil
To be fair you should include all CEO's salaries to match against "union wages". I presume you are speaking of the entire collective membership and not just a single worker.

How many CEOs do you think GM has?

[Wezil]

I happen to agree with your position Asher. I'm just pointing out that there is more than 1 person at the top to compare with the more than one at the bottom. Intellectual honesty.

[Asher]

Originally posted by MrFun
Yep - the principle of not earning your pay applies to both groups.

Who'd thought?

It does, but the problem is one sinks the company and the other is just silly.

GM should pay its white-collar workers less too for gross stupidity. And frankly, the American public deserves a lashing for buying these pieces of **** to begin with.

GM is a company who made ****ty products purchased by stupid people who paid insane wages to workers who didn't deserve them, then asks for taxpayer money when it all comes crashing down.

The answer to GM should be "get ****ed", not "how can we help you?"

The main cause of GM's financial situation is simply the unions and their insane wages and benefits. You can point out the CEO makes too much as well -- and he does -- but that's not why GM is tanking.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil
I happen to agree with your position Asher. I'm just pointing out that there is more than 1 person at the top to compare with the more than one at the bottom. Intellectual honesty.

There's only one CEO. If he meant the executives, that's another issue. But he said CEO...

[Wezil]

He said "CEOs" - plural. Obviously the intent was those at the top.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil
He said "CEOs" - plural. Obviously the intent was those at the top.

He meant CEOs in General, not CEOs at GM.

I think even MrFun knows there's only one CEO at GM.

Intellectual honesty is to read what is written, not what you read into what is written.

[Wezil]

I'll let Mr. Fun speak for his intentions. That was how I read his position.

Btw,

Wagoner - $14.4mil
Henderson - $7.6mil
Lutz - $6.9mil (he took a pay cut since '06)
Cowger - $5.1mil
Stephens - $4.9mil

Pretty good pay for running a company into bankruptcy.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil
I'll let Mr. Fun speak for his intentions. That was how I read his position.

Btw,

Wagoner - $14.4mil
Henderson - $7.6mil
Lutz - $6.9mil (he took a pay cut since '06)
Cowger - $5.1mil
Stephens - $4.9mil

Pretty good pay for running a company into bankruptcy.

Yep, it's way too much.

Now how much have they paid their unions directly? And then indirectly (pensions, health care, etc)?

[Wezil]

Lots.

That said, I'd be willing to bet the average line worker can show better work results over the last few years than the execs can.

[KrazyHorse]

You're acting as though our economic system should be set up to promote "fairness" (defined in some fuzzy way).

Who the **** cares about fairness? If GM pays its executives and workers too much then they'll go out of business. Oh, wait...

[Wezil]

Who are you responding to?

I blame all sides in the cluster**** that is the NA auto industry. The union membesrs managed to extort far more than the work was worth and the execs paid it (while ensuring they continued to produce a product people wouldn't buy). There are no victims here.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher

He meant CEOs in General, not CEOs at GM.

I think even MrFun knows there's only one CEO at GM.

Intellectual honesty is to read what is written, not what you read into what is written.

There are people out there who didn't realize how many GM CEOs there are?

[Vanguard]

Originally posted by Asher

If you pay salaries higher than the market supports, this is what happens.

Paying absurdly high wages then demanding taxpayers subsidize these absurdly high wages does fall into the "how dare they" category.

There is no way to tell what the "market supports".

If you lay off all the auto workers, they won't be able to afford cars, so what will the "market" support then?

Auto workers do not appear to be "absurdly" overpaid. They are paid a lot more than low skill industrial workers and paid somewhat less than high skill industrial workers. That is not absurd.

Could GM pay its auto workers less? Probably. But on the other hand Toyota could probably pay its American auto workers more. So why aren't you mad at Toyota?

GM is a company who made ****ty products purchased by stupid people who paid insane wages to workers who didn't deserve them, then asks for taxpayer money when it all comes crashing down.

GM does not make ****ty products. People like Silverados. My two Caddies were definitely better than my two Lexuses, which are just Toyotas with really soft leather.

GM created its current line of gas guzzlers because that was what people were willing to pay money for. Are we supposed to blame them for making the cars people were willing to buy?

GM does still do too much stupid branding---- insisting that Chevys can't have nice interiors because then people would not buy Buicks is just moronic. A reorganization that eliminates everything but Chevy and Cadillac would be fine with me.

But anyone who is in favor of eliminating US industry just because they hate unions is nothing more or less than an a-hole.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Wezil
Who are you responding to?

I blame all sides in the cluster**** that is the NA auto industry. The union membesrs managed to extort far more than the work was worth and the execs paid it (while ensuring they continued to produce a product people wouldn't buy). There are no victims here.

I'm responding to the entire discussion.

Moral arguments about whether or not people "deserved" their pay are retarded.

Firstly, much of the difference in earnings of individuals through their lifetimes is luck, even starting from an identical point at, say, 20 years old. A choice of a slightly different profession or employer can lead to vastly different outcomes which are basically unpredictable given any individual's knowledge (otherwise economic forecasting and central planning would be easy).

Secondly, to quote Rawls: "talents are arbitrary from a moral point of view".

Thirdly, circumstances of birth are (arguably) the greatest single determinant of lifetime earnings, and one would be hard-pressed to argue that an individual gains moral credit from the wealth of his parents.