Teardrops n Tiny Travel Trailers

starleen2 wrote:Instead of taking their profits and reinvesting it in the company to make product that are what people can afford or want, they gave it to the shareholders instead – that is why they are failing – or part of the reason. Ever since the American economy changed to an investment economy – this time had to happen. When share prices dictate the viability of a company – then they (the company) begin to inflate their worth beyond what is sustainable to attract more shareholders and inflating the share price – And when you hit a correction in the market – then this is what you have. Remember when companies used to invest in themselves to gain a profit that was shared among the workers, not the investors! When GM goes under is my Jeep now Free? (there now I feel better)

Excellent points.

American companies are so focused on Quarterly Income Reports these days, that long term strategies get put on the back burner, IMO. In the 80s, corporations started basing executive compensation on performance of the company's stocks. That sounded like a good idea, but before long, corporate executives became very focused on this quarter's results, instead of balancing today's profits with tomorrow's planning.

To make matters worse, executive pay evolved even more, to the point now, where the executives make big money if the company loses money, and enormous money if the company does well -- for one quarter. And the company doesn't have to really do all the well, as long as you can fudge the numbers to look like the company's income is growing.

On top of that, a whole lot of new investors entered the stock market, and things like "day trading" got popular. So, looking for a wave to ride became the object of investing, instead of investing in companies with sound financials and good long-term outlooks.

Short-term profits have become the central goal of American free enterprise. Corporations and investors have become obsessed with making lots of money right now. That is not sustainable, IMO.

Let's see, a lot of the big airlines have run out of money and gone bankrupt in the past few years.
They are still flying without government help.
Can't the automakers do the same?

BTW, I am trying to find out where this $78 per hour autoworker pay number came from.

My own Google searching is coming up with UAW pay topping out in the $29 to $35 per hour range. Is the $78 number including all pay and benefits?

I also found that, according the Associated Press, GM chairman and chief executive officer Rick Wagoner received compensation valued at $15.7 million for 2007, up 64 percent from the previous year.

Even if the $78 number is accurate, were are talking $162, 240 a year. The CEO is making 96 times that much.

If $30 per hour is accurate, we are talking $62,000. The CEO is making 252 times that much.

One of the reasons Unions don't want to "cooperate" by taking pay and benefit cuts is because they look at the annual report and see the CEO making millions. He's asking them to suck it up, while he rakes it in.

Maybe the unions need to accept some cuts in pay and benefits, but if a guy making 15-million tells a guy making 62 thousand he's making too much, it isn't likely to set well.

Shareholders are FINALLY starting to rebel against these executive pay packages, but they are not gone, yet.

I still firmly believe that if the taxpayers bail out the automakers, a whole lot of that bailout money will end up in the pockets of executives, and the companies will fail, anyway. It will be like giving money to the captain of the Titanic.

Casey, I believe the $78.00 per hour is pay, bennys and paying for those already retired. There are now more people collecting retirement money than there are working. Thats how they did it back in the day,rather than divest it in 401ks, so it now sits solely on the Auto manufacturer. back in the 50s the American Auto Industry had 98% of the market. they never thought it would end.

Walt M wrote:Casey, I believe the $78.00 per hour is pay, bennys and paying for those already retired. There are now more people collecting retirement money than there are working. Thats how they did it back in the day,rather than divest it in 401ks, so it now sits solely on the Auto manufacturer. back in the 50s the American Auto Industry had 98% of the market. they never thought it would end.

Ah, okay. I know these companies have huge retirement obligations. People retire, and live a long time, these days.

Those retirement obligations are hard to get out of, without screwing a lot of old folks, or dumping them on the government.

CD

That's what I was saying earlier, is the bailout cheaper than the consequences of the taxpayer's obligation to the pension fund if they go bankrupt?

Mark

Check this out: The CEOs of the Big 3 flew their private jets to Washington so that they could beg for money.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/WallStreet/Story?id=6285739&page=1

asianflava wrote:Check this out: The CEOs of the Big 3 flew their private jets to Washington so that they could beg for money.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/WallStreet/Story?id=6285739&page=1

Saw that on the news earlier, and they wonder why people are so pissed.

I think those Big CEO's need to be in touch with reality, the way the real world lives. They've obviously either forgotten or don't have a clue.

S. Heisley wrote:I think those Big CEO's need to be in touch with reality, the way the real world lives. They've obviously either forgotten or don't have a clue.

or don't care

Well I did offer to do the job for a mere Million dollars but not one Congressional rep. called me. I could have taken public transport.

btw---if they get money they need to give up their jobs in exchange.

btw---if they get money they need to give up their jobs in exchange.

For Sharon's interest, when the Soviet Union ended and Russia started privatising their state-owned companies, they introduced a law that the highest paid employee (usually, 'The Director') could not earn more than 10 times the lowest paid full-time employee - maybe it was 12 times, but it was somewhere around there. Rather an enlightened law, I thought at the time. Whether it was a socialist or a capitalist law, I'm uncertain.

And on bailing out the auto companies, doesn't the fine example of Britain when it bailed out British Leyland around 1970 suggest to you that this isn't destined to come out well?

I have huge sympathy for the people of Detroit as they have a bleak future, but I suspect they would be better off by having all the bad things happen in the next 12 months and then trying to overcome it, rather than having a drip feed of bad things continuing over the next 10 years.

Andrew

S. Heisley wrote:I think those Big CEO's need to be in touch with reality, the way the real world lives. They've obviously either forgotten or don't have a clue.

I think "out of touch" is probably right. They probably didn't think twice about firing up the Gulfstreams to go to Washington, where they probably stayed at the best hotels and ate at the best restaurants.

They have no idea what its like to be middle class, and do a week's work for a week's pay.

They don't buy there cars, either. So, how would they know what people want or need.

Off with their heads!

I have huge sympathy for the people of Detroit as they have a bleak future, but I suspect they would be better off by having all the bad things happen in the next 12 months and then trying to overcome it, rather than having a drip feed of bad things continuing over the next 10 years.

Good point Andrew, Better to cut off the head fast (per Caseydog!), rather than slow bleed them to death