re: The auto bailout [Potentially NSFW]

[MFAWG]

But, they really are not a significant portion of the problem pie here.

I call bull*feces*.

We're not talking golden parachutes. In the case of GM's Waggoner, we're talking a 33 pct INCREASE in salary for a company that lost over 25 pct of it's value in the last year, and now trades at the lowest level since BEFORE World War II. In Mulally's case, we're talking about a SERIAL CEO epic fail (he came from Boeing).

In other words, if they left with golden parachutes, they'd probably be doing everybody a favor.

Instead, they're being rewarded 100's of millions of dollars worth. That's REAL scratch, even in postmodern Bailout 'Merka where trillion is the new billion.

You can point the finger at the UAW all you want, but the UAW didn't drive these companies into bankruptcy by flat out refusing to do RandD for the better part of a decade, and continuing to recycle the same old dated crap because it made the short term bottom line look really good.

How many 72 dollar an hour jobs does 20 million dollars buy? Do the math.

The problem isn't just the AMOUNT of CEO compensation, either. It's the MANNER in which they are compensated. Investor's (which is what CEO's are) do not necessarily have the long term interest of the company they are invested in at heart.

[gleek]

$20M will pay for the annual labor expenses (salary + benefits) for roughly 139 employees.

[hobbit]

But, they really are not a significant portion of the problem pie here.

I call bull*feces*.

Of course you do.  But again, don't be distracted by shiny objects.

So I don't get accused of fuzzy math - using gleek's math - giving up a $20M golden parachute pays for 139 employees.  And as callous as belittling that number makes me seem..... auto industry layoffs are in the tens of thousands.  So, if GM (for instance) lays off 24,800 people instead of 25,000 people - that would solve the problem?

I said its not a significant portion of the problem pie - that remains true.  Toss your BS somewhere else.

[gleek]

I think the shareholders of GM got a raw deal. I would have been willing to run the company into ground for 1/20th of Waggoner's salary.

[MFAWG]

But, they really are not a significant portion of the problem pie here.

I call bull*feces*.

Of course you do.  But again, don't be distracted by shiny objects.

So I don't get accused of fuzzy math - using gleek's math - giving up a $20M golden parachute pays for 139 employees.  And as callous as belittling that number makes me seem..... auto industry layoffs are in the tens of thousands.  So, if GM (for instance) lays off 24,800 people instead of 25,000 people - that would solve the problem?

I said its not a significant portion of the problem pie - that remains true.  Toss your BS somewhere else.

LOL, the last industry layoffs of any size were at Ford, and they were white collar workers ie, non union employees.

Is it accurate to say that you think that a 33 pct raise to decrease the stock value to pre WWII levels is OK?

[birdymaker]

$20M will pay for the annual labor expenses (salary + benefits) for roughly 139 employees.

apparently so.

[hobbit]

But, they really are not a significant portion of the problem pie here.

I call bull*feces*.

Of course you do.  But again, don't be distracted by shiny objects.

So I don't get accused of fuzzy math - using gleek's math - giving up a $20M golden parachute pays for 139 employees.  And as callous as belittling that number makes me seem..... auto industry layoffs are in the tens of thousands.  So, if GM (for instance) lays off 24,800 people instead of 25,000 people - that would solve the problem?

I said its not a significant portion of the problem pie - that remains true.  Toss your BS somewhere else.

LOL, the last industry layoffs of any size were at Ford, and they were white collar workers ie, non union employees.

Is it accurate to say that you think that a 33 pct raise to decrease the stock value to pre WWII levels is OK?

It was a generic example, not referencing a particular layoff - and it matters if job losses are union vs non-union?


Hmmmm, looking back I referenced the bonuses as "ludicrous" and "crazy" - yet somehow you now take it as I approve of them??

[Spanky]

As long as my warranty is honored.....

[stroh]

As long as my warranty is honored.....

Atta boy!  All a man needs to worry about is getting serviced.

[MFAWG]

But, they really are not a significant portion of the problem pie here.

I call bull*feces*.

Of course you do.  But again, don't be distracted by shiny objects.

So I don't get accused of fuzzy math - using gleek's math - giving up a $20M golden parachute pays for 139 employees.  And as callous as belittling that number makes me seem..... auto industry layoffs are in the tens of thousands.  So, if GM (for instance) lays off 24,800 people instead of 25,000 people - that would solve the problem?

I said its not a significant portion of the problem pie - that remains true.  Toss your BS somewhere else.

LOL, the last industry layoffs of any size were at Ford, and they were white collar workers ie, non union employees.

Is it accurate to say that you think that a 33 pct raise to decrease the stock value to pre WWII levels is OK?

It was a generic example, not referencing a particular layoff - and it matters if job losses are union vs non-union?


Hmmmm, looking back I referenced the bonuses as "ludicrous" and "crazy" - yet somehow you now take it as I approve of them??

So why the willingness to throw the UAW, who renogotiated midcontract last year to get more in line with Toyota, et al, under the bus?

What this is is union busting, pure and simple. Now, that wouldn't be a bad thing necessarily if I hadn't listened to Newt Gingrich explain that the modern model for successful capitalist states are China and India respectively.

So, modern Conservatism sees totalitarian and caste states as the path to  success in a postmodern, globalized society.

Successful for who, exactly?

I call big BS.

The economy isn't there to be serviced by the untouchables or the proles for the benefit of the elites, whoever they may be.

That's doing it backwards, and it's time to take a stand.

Eat the rich, pal. They taste like salty coins...

[gleek]

As long as my warranty is honored.....

Atta boy!  All a man needs to worry about is getting serviced.

Did your wife give you a warranty?

[stroh]

As long as my warranty is honored.....

Atta boy!  All a man needs to worry about is getting serviced.

Did your wife give you a warranty?

Limited. 

[birdymaker]

As long as my warranty is honored.....

Atta boy!  All a man needs to worry about is getting serviced.

Did your wife give you a warranty?

Limited. 

you too?