For openers, I am not a Michael Moore fan. In fact, I can't stand the
opportunistic self-promoter.
BUT.. fair is fair and he does make a point here that kinda makes sense.
The topic is close to me as I have contact with a lot of people from the
automotive industry. Small tool & die guys and one big upholstery shop.
When the big 3 go down, the shit-storm will roll across the border into
Canuckistan as there really is no border because AutoPact and NAFTA.
A big part of me thinks they should just collapse just like any other
piss-poorly managed company. In this case the consequences would be just
too ginormous to even contemplate.
The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,
but so does the UAW. Let the blames begin!
No free lunch.
r
"Highland Pairos" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Hd92l.4225$c%[email protected]...
>
> I also agree that the current hybrid technology is not perfect. There is
> the economic payoff issue that prevents them from being a greater sell to
> many consumers. There are also ecological concerns involved with them.
> The mining and processing of the cadmium used in the batteries is an
> ecological problem, not to mention the disposal problem. I would like to
> hear about the viability of Lithium- Ion batteries as an alternative. I
> have heard some compelling arguments for it. That being said, I do not
> believe that our backs should simply be turned on the concept of hybrid
> vehicles. They need to continue to be developed and made more viable. I
> have heard them referred to as being a bridge technology toward hydrogen
> fuel cell technology and that is one reason why some are not investing in
> hybrid development. My understanding is that hydrogen fuel cell is 10
> years out. That means that hybrid technology would be with us for at least
> 15-20 years. That is the 10 years before hydrogen fuel cell hits the
> street and then a potential 5 - 10 year transition among the car buying
> public. Making an investment in a technology that most likely has a 15-20
> year life does not seem foolhardy to me.
>
>
> SteveP.
Not to mention the electric eco cars cost more to build, operate, and
dispose of during their whole life span than a Hummer does through out its
whole life span.
"Leon" suggests a horrendous picture!
>
> "cm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>I have always felt Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell would make a great
>>couple. But I have heard two wrongs don't make a right!
>
>
> I wonder which one would be on top!
Stop that Leon! I just ate.
<Trying hard to keep it down.>
My wife, who is usually pretty level headed, just hates Rosie. She gets very
irate if she appears on the TV screen.
"Leon" wrote
>
> Not to mention the electric eco cars cost more to build, operate, and
> dispose of during their whole life span than a Hummer does through out its
> whole life span.
>
But, but Leon....., electic cars are just SOOOOOOO...., trendy and in!!!!
And Hummers are just so icky masculine and retro.
On Dec 18, 6:06=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
snipped a whole bunch of old, tired rhetoric.
>
> Even more broadly, someone's need for something - no matter how real,
> important, legitimate, or urgent - does not grant them the moral
> permission to loot someone else's treasure - no matter how much that
> other person has.
> A starving man does not have moral authority to
> steal from the wealthy man.
>The starving mad has moral permission to
That HAS to be Freudian.
> ask for help, offer to work when and if able, but there is no moral
> get-out-of-jail-free card just because he needs something.
>
Tim... how angry and disgusted you must be with life and those around
you. You have slammed all the doors to any and all input from those
who /are/ offering up some new ideas. Yet you are so sunk in your
quicksand, that it is now obvious you are terribly lost. You need a
hug. Let me guide out of your rage, and enjoy some humour.
The whole world is NOT trying to steal all your pennies.
Private schools are run by elitist bigots. ( I was educated in one.)
(pssst.. have fun with that line.)
I know of no-one as bitter as you are, Tim.
Take a breath of fresh air and repeat after me:
Robatoy is the light.
Robatoy knows everything.
Robatoy will cure you.
Morris Dovey wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>> The state does not knowingly kill anyone, it executes them. There
>>>> is a difference.
>>> Except for the exceptions, of course. Of the more notable instances
>>> have been Kent State, Ruby Ridge, and Waco.
>>>
>>> I guess you /could/ call those executions if you really wanted to...
>>
>> Kent State was a screwup. The thing I can't understand is why they
>> continued to allow the BATF to have weapons after Ruby Ridge and Waco.
>
> So we could all learn an important lesson from seeing a guy in a black
> helmet and body armor pointing a sawed-off shotgun at a 7 year old
> child's head in Florida?
>
As seen on a T-Shirt:
"Alcohol, Tobacco, And Firearms should be a
convenience store, not a Federal agency."
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I await your apology for calling me a liar.
>
> Then you have my apology and congratulations for offering up something of
> yourself as support for your words.
>
>> No civil person considers stealing from their fellow citizens a "right".
>
> And I want your apology for accusing me of stealing. When you criticise me
> for having received Canadian health care, then you've criticised my entire
> country and all of it's citizens.
I tire of your strawmen. I do not criticize you for participating
in that system - it is a requirement of residence in your country.
You *have* to pay and thus you should absorb any consequent benefit.
What I criticize is your *defense* of such a system. That is,
defending a system of forced wealth redistribution. As I have said
(over and over and over and over ...), the State extracting taxes
to defend the liberty of its citizens - that is, to do the business
of the State - is entirely legitimate. But the State extracting
taxes from one person to give it to another one causes an imbalance
of liberty - it's immoral and so is defending any such act.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I think I now understand why you're not married...
>
> Honestly, I don't think I've ever sworn in front of a woman, not in person
> anyway.My swearing is a vice that seldom pokes it's head out. In this case
> it's trotted out solely for Tim's sake because he refers to it so often.
>
>
"Great minds discuss ideas, mediocre minds discuss events and small
minds discuss personalities.
(Attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt but more likely it's Socrates)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> The that added expense would be short lived.
>
> I don't understand. What is short lived about spending large amounts of
> money.
>
>>If you know you are going to die, you would be more likely to not break
>>the law. Right now the system is absolutely going in the wrong
>>dirrection.
>
> The old execution question.
>
> Does it or does it not prevent crime?
>
> Some known facts.
>
> Murder is by and large a crime of passion between people who know each
> other so a legal deterrent doesn't apply in those situations.
>
> People who are sentenced to death are usually poor and not able to afford
> adequate representation to avoid the death penalty.
>
> Blacks and others of color are by and large, most likely to receive the
> death penalty.
>
> There is nothing "bleeding heart" about the above, they are just facts.
>
> Ohio and Michigan are very similar in many respects.
>
> Both Midwestern, similar size, similar size population, similar ethnic mix
> of people, similar industrial and/or agricultural mix of business.
>
> They do have a basic difference.
>
> Ohio has the death penalty, Michigan does not.
>
> These states have been studied for years.
>
> What sticks out is that the capital murder rate, as a percentage of
> population, in Michigan is about equal to that in Ohio, year after year.
>
> The death penalty in Ohio does not reduce the capital murder rate below
> that of Michigan.
>
> Texas, Georgia, and Florida have the highest execution rates in the
> country, but it doesn't seem to affect their capital murder rates.
>
> There is conclusive evidence that execution doesn't serve as a deterrent.
>
> OTOH, there is the "feel good" factor, "By god, that's one SOB we don't
> have to worry about anymore."
>
> In this day and age, there has to be a better way of dealing with man's
> inhumanity to man other than state sanctioned murder.
>
> Lew
A quick Lobotomy and back on the street!
On Dec 15, 2:08=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> <http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081215/bs_nm/
> us_generalmotors_loan_bankofamerica>
Munged. Goin' back to tinyurl.
If you are suspicious of the link, don't click it.
http://tinyurl.com/6q6rka
Robert
Leon wrote:
>
> "cm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>I have always felt Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell would make a great
>>couple. But I have heard two wrongs don't make a right!
>
>
> I wonder which one would be on top!
You are a sick man.
/me applies brain scrub
--
Froz...
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I tire of your strawmen. I do not criticize you for participating
Get as tired as you want flake.
> of the State - is entirely legitimate. But the State extracting
> taxes from one person to give it to another one causes an imbalance
> of liberty - it's immoral and so is defending any such act.
Obviously, you don't have the smallest idea of what you're talking about. I
can see you're quite happy to continue playing the asshole. Hey, it's your
life, go for it, however it's beyond me how the people around you continue
to let you exist
How about the state extracting money from it's citizens to go to war in
Iraq? Have to root out all those WMD's eh? The state taking money and using
it for it's own selfish means. I guess that doesn't count he? I guess we can
add self delusion to your greedy, selfish nature.
You're so full of crap it's stagnating beyond imagination.
On Dec 15, 3:52=A0pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <Damn, damn! ... I can't believe I did that!! =A0I replied to a thread wi=
th
> the words "Michael Moore" in the header ... now I'm going to go take a sh=
it
> just to get the stink off ...>
Monofilament, my friend.
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Dec 16, 9:08=A0am, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Leon wrote:
> > The state does not knowingly kill anyone, it executes them. =A0There is=
a
> > difference.
>
> Except for the exceptions, of course. Of the more notable instances have
> been Kent State, Ruby Ridge, and Waco.
>
> I guess you /could/ call those executions if you really wanted to...
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Kent State had a bigger impact on me than any other event in my life.
At the time when it happened, nobody really knew where/when it would
stop.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,
Absolutely. Included in that lesson should be a sizable contingent of CEO's
and every other person in the companies with golden parachutes and ludicrous
$$$ plus salaries.
> but so does the UAW. Let the blames begin!
Yeah, I've got a problem with unions too. I was reading a number of comments
by the general public, many of them university grads making less than these
auto workers. The vast majority commented on how auto workers with basically
minimal education and essentially qualified to do one job only were making
$30 an hour and were not willing to take any part of a pay cut to save their
jobs. That's greed. There's been times in my life where I'd have happily
given up 10% of my wages to save my job. Not these people.
The only downside to letting the auto makers take a big hit is what it will
cost all the other small businesses and people down the road who thrive on
the money that the auto workers spend.
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> I think I now understand why you're not married...
> Well, it's good that no "wimmin" will ever see your thoughts on usenet.
<g> That's ok. I'm not going to marry any women on usenet.
On Dec 15, 3:45=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> You've obviously never actually run a company of any size. =A0
Have you? Fuckface?
Rusty wrote:
> Tim where do you get 80$ an hour out your ass like FUX news get real with
> the facts.
In the management world, that's a "loaded" rate.
It includes cash pay, benefits (insurances, vacations, pension
contribution, 401(k) matching funds, product discounts), taxes (SSI,
Worker's Comp, etc...), supervision percentage, tools, your parking
space...
The reason why it includes supervision is that if you eliminated one
supervisor's worth of worker's, you eliminate the supervisor. Say your
company averages a 15-1 worker to supervisor ratio... Each worker
position gets 1/15th of a supervisor's LOADED rated charged to the
position. It dominoes up the line.
The loaded rate is the number it costs the company to employ you. This
is the number that you have to add more value to the company, in order
for you to make a positive contribution to the bottom line. If you
don't you're a liability.
Many companies do a terrible job of explaining total compensation to
rank and file employees.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:01:45 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:
>
>> As with software, there's always more than one way to skin a cat. If you
>> don't like the way the system runs, it's nearly always possible to
>> re-design for improvements - and that improvements almost always come
>> from disaffected users who /haven't/ given up. The old name for
>> disaffected users who /have/ given up (or never made a real effort) was
>> "lusers". I encourage you to not join that community.
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>> Change is the only constant, and predictions are only predictions. :)
>
> Back when I was designing/writing SCADA software, I always tried to think
> about possible future requirements due to external changes. I've had
> customers comment years later that they went to modify something and found
> the hooks for the modification were already there. Nothing like a delayed
> pat on the back :-).
>
> I'm so obsolete now I'd have trouble programming "Hello, world" :-).
>
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HelloWorldInManyProgrammingLanguages
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Compre the adjustment period of people learning that they "WILL" be
exicuted
> if found guilty of murder to the on going period of every convict
convivted
> of murder living free on our dollar fir the rest of his life. More
liberal
> laws in recent decades seem to not deter crime.
There is a downside though. Anybody who has committed murder and knows that
they will be executed for it, will have absolutely no reason not to commit
murder again, taking as many as they can with them. They know they can only
be executed once. In some warped sense, it might cause more deaths than
might normally be the case.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I await your apology for calling me a liar.
Then you have my apology and congratulations for offering up something of
yourself as support for your words.
> No civil person considers stealing from their fellow citizens a "right".
And I want your apology for accusing me of stealing. When you criticise me
for having received Canadian health care, then you've criticised my entire
country and all of it's citizens. All 30+ million of us from the lowest
street person to the richest individual has used that universal health care
from a simple physical to a flu shot and all the way up the ladder. We all
contribute, it's our country, and as a group, we're all entitled to benefit
from it. That's not stealing, it's working together and benefiting as a
community, something you apparently fail to understand.
I could criticise the US for a dozen different things based solely on my
opinion, but I'm not going to because I happen to have great respect for the
US. Having said that, I've been wrong with my comments about US gun laws.
It's part and parcel of what makes your country great and because I don't
actually live there, I've been unable to fully understand. That's my only
excuse.
Dave Moore
On Dec 16, 8:07=A0pm, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> > People flocked to Audis and Subarus for all-wheel drive in a good
> > looking comfortable safe car with good economy for decades. The big 3
> > sat on their hands.
>
> Actually, they bought part of Subie and Saab, and sold Subarus and
> Trailblazers as Saabs. =A0The Saab 9-7... =A0Appalling...
>
> There is some evidence that Ford got some value from Volvo, as Ford has
> done well in recent crash tests. =A0Ford does make some good cars, like
> the Mondeo, they just need to bring more of them to the US. =A0Europe
> always got the Cosworth Escort, we got the other one. =A0Last year, I
> drove a Fusion and really liked the car.
>
> I don't think GM learned very much from Subaru.
>
> I think Chrysler should be allowed to die. =A0My Jeeps have been absolute
> garbage. =A0My wife likes them, but the only saving grace for us once the
> warranty ends is that I'm mechanically inclined.
>
> I'm a big Toyota / Honda / Subaru fan, but back in October, I rented a
> Pontiac G6. =A0I thought it drove rather nicely. =A0This car had 28k RENT=
AL
> MILES on the clock, a LOT for a rental, but didn't have a single rattle!
> =A0 It accelerated nicely with no torque steer, and handled much better
> than I would have expected. =A0It did have a low rent interior, but the
> car definitely showed a far better build quality than past GM cars I've
> driven.
If we let them die, will all their patents suddenly become available?
A friend of ours has a G6 and she is tickled pink. 4 of us went to
dinner in it a while back and we had plenty room, it all looked pretty
well finished for an American car. It ain't no Audi. nor is it trying
to be one. Quality is relative, I guess.
I drove a Ford 500 a while back (now called the Taurus again) and it
is a nice car. Handled well, solid.
Upscale wrote:
> There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
> my wages to save my job.
On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the
person sitting /next/ to them...
...and Iowa wages are already sub-par.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Ed Edelenbos wrote:
> "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Upscale wrote:
>>
>>> There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
>>> my wages to save my job.
>>
>> On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
>> they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the
>> person sitting /next/ to them...
>
> That's my problem with the (modern) unions. It's no longer about
> supporting the workers, it's about maintaining the union... sometimes
> at the expense of the workers!
Too often true. One possible remedy in this case might be to also
require reorganization of the UAW chapters into independent
(unaffiliated) plant unions, so that workers could retain the
protections and benefits of collective bargaining without a single union
having a strangle hold on such a large portion of the economy...
...just a thought.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
mac davis wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:04:33 -0600, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Upscale wrote:
>>
>>> There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
>>> my wages to save my job.
>> On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
>> they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the
>> person sitting /next/ to them...
>>
>> ...and Iowa wages are already sub-par.
>
> Morris.. Hate to bring a rain cloud over your sunny thought, but in my
> experience, saying you'll take a pay cut and actually doing it are 2 different
> things..
Very true - but who's to say how many actually meant what they said?
> Sort of like saying that you'd die for someone and then rethinking it if the
> choice is presented...
Same deal - and of the people I knew who said they'd put their life on
the line, many did - and died honoring that commitment.
I don't think you make a convincing argument.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
[email protected] wrote:
> I remember reading many serious dissertations concerning the demise
> of the Big Three as early as the 80s.
It wasn't news even then. In the early 70's the UAW managed a 30%
across-the-board increase for its members and the auto-makers made the
decision to just pass the cost increase on to purchasers.
[ Hmm - anyone else remember how GM tried to offset part of the
increased costs by using cheaper steel? And how a few years later it was
hard to find a Chevy pickup without rusted-out fenders?
And I can remember that earlier Ford had been proud of how the unibody
construction of the Falcon allowed selling sedans for less than $2000,
and I rember hearing how the UAW hadn't liked the unibody approach
because it reduced labor content of the vehicle... ]
Briefly, the auto workers benefited - but by the time everyone else's
income had adjusted to the inflated cost of living (and purchase of
automobiles was a significant component of that inflation), the auto
workers were right back where they'd started.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Rusty wrote:
>> Destroy the unions so we can all do worse. The only thing wrong
>> with union jobs is I don't have one.
Why not? Surely all you have to do is apply for a job for which you're
qualified, pay the fee to join the union, then do the work and make your
dues payments on time - right? Seems perfectly straight-forward to me. :)
That's the way it played for me when I got out of the army and went to
work for the C&EI Railroad as an accountant (except that I didn't know
anything about either railroads or accounting) - I just wanted a job and
told 'em that I'd learn whatever I needed and whatever job they put me
on, I'd do it well until school started in the fall. I bought the
mandatory union card and paid my dues - and ended up with a big pile of
cardboard boxes full of paperwork on TOFC (later called "piggyback")
shipments that had (variously) never been billed or billed but never
paid. The problem was that TOFC was new and attempts to process the
billings had run into the "Not My Job" wall. It became /my/ job. The
best guess was that there was about $10,000,000 in receivables lurking
in the boxes, and that I would probably do well to collect half of that.
A month later, I had the process down fairly well, and made my second
monthly dues payment. I'd managed to recover just under $2,000,000 and
felt pretty good about myself, the job I had, and life in general. In
true cornball fashion, I even found myself singing "I been workin' on
the railroad" on the way home one payday. :)
It was about halfway through the second month that the shop steward
stopped by my desk and invited me to join the group for the 10am coffee
break in the cafeteria - and I told him "No thanks, I've some work I'm
trying to get finished up before lunch."
Big mistake - but I had no way of knowing just how big it was, or even
that it was a mistake. He left to go drink coffee and I went back to work.
About a week later I was called into the VP Operation's office and asked
to close the door. He told me that the union had presented two choices -
either Dovey is in the cafeteria for both morning and afternoon coffee
breaks or the /entire/ railroad would cease functioning. Period. I
apologized for causing a problem and assured him that I'd be in the
cafeteria for all future coffee breaks.
And so I was - but I took whatever I was working on and a yellow pad
with me. Sometimes I even drank a cup of coffee as I made notes.
I don't think that was actually the end of the matter because at the end
of that second month there was a posting on the bulletin board for a
"TOFC Accounting Manager" job opening. Apparently the union contract
specified that no one could be hired for any job unless it was first
posted so that existing employees could ask to be considered - and a
couple of the gals in accounting told me that I should write a letter
asking for the job. I did - and became a department manager. As a
management person, I didn't need to continue my union membership (and
didn't) and could take coffee breaks whenever I wanted (and didn't). It
didn't particularly bother me that I was the only person in my
department. It wasn't difficult to tell that the shop steward felt
differently.
In September I asked for an exit interview with the VP I'd talked to
earlier, and was able to tell him (as if he hadn't already known) that
I'd gotten through the original pile and recovered more than $12 million
of the estimated 10, that all TOFC accounts were current, and that I'd
put together a manual containing all the contact information for all of
the customers with notes about what approaches worked best with which
customers.
When I suggested that he make everyone managers of one-person
departments, he just smiled and wished me well in school.
> Right, because unions are a magic potion that create wealth out of
> thin air. The laws of economics are superseded by the demands of the
> unions. As long as the union is there, there will always be lots of
> wealth and productivity. Right.
In spite of my experiences, a union /can/ be a positive influence in a
workplace to ensure (or at least advocate for) fairness and justice. My
experience is limited, but I think plant unions are better suited to
work /with/ management than are trade unions.
I would suggest to Rusty that a close look at both employer /and/ union
is advisable...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Sounds to me like it's time to fire up old Sparky.
>
> Having been in an execution chamber, standing within 5 ft of the
> electric chair used by the State of Ohio, listening to a description
> of the process being given by a penitentiary employee, had a profound
> effect on me as a 13 year old.
>
> To this day, I could not vote for the death penalty.
This may surprise you ... me either, but for different
reasons. Giving the state the power to kill its own citizens
does not have a pleasant history.
>
> Having said that, I am convinced that life in prison without the
> possibility of parole, is not only less expensive, but extracts a
> greater penalty than execution.
That, while being forced to listen to Rosie O'Donnell, watch
Michael Moore videos, and have nothing but pinups of Hillary
Clinton in their cell.
>
> Given the choice of living the rest of your life in solitary
> confinement or perhaps sharing a jail cell having less that 70 sq ft
> with another human being or being executed, which would you choose?
>
> Think about it.
Kind of like being in the Democratic party.
>
> Lew
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> For the record, I watched a large ($6 billion) company I once worked for -
> and that I really loved as an employer and place to work - get completely
> sabotaged by their unions. These unions then took the company over
> themselves and howled like stuck pigs when they ran the company into
> the ground and the pensions they'd pledged to buy the company were
> then worthless. I think this is not atypical of very large company
> union behavior.
I haven't paid attention enough to generalize - but I watched RCA
self-destruct with considerable union help...
It wasn't that the union set out to destroy the company (which had a
truly putrid low- and mid-level management culture), but that the
significantly more competent rank and file employees (mostly electrical
engineers) who had been carrying the burden of not only their own work,
but that of less competent (and sometimes more highly-paid) peers,
slipped into the "Not My Job" attitude.
Strictly speaking, they were right - but from a practical viewpoint, the
effect was that teamwork went out the window - and it didn't take long
before the primary concern became keeping one's backside covered.
My last project with the company (for a government client whose name we
were told never to even speak aloud) came about because RCA was so
paralyzed that they'd felt the need to replace all RCA employees,
including the project managers, with consultants. The RCA folks were
sent to work on the smaller, less critical, and less sensitive Aegis
project (where they built the gee-whiz command and control system that
later erroneously targeted and killed an Iranian airliner).
Every time I've heard one of these tales of corporate demise and been
able to ask questions, I've learned of an unhealthy management culture
/and/ a worker attitude sickness that seemed traceable to a
union-encouraged breakdown in teamwork and an alienation of management
and worker people - and in every such instance I've seen no way to lay
all of the responsibility on just one of the parties.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Leon wrote:
> The state does not knowingly kill anyone, it executes them. There is a
> difference.
Except for the exceptions, of course. Of the more notable instances have
been Kent State, Ruby Ridge, and Waco.
I guess you /could/ call those executions if you really wanted to...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 16, 9:08 am, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>> The state does not knowingly kill anyone, it executes them. There is a
>>> difference.
>> Except for the exceptions, of course. Of the more notable instances have
>> been Kent State, Ruby Ridge, and Waco.
>>
>> I guess you /could/ call those executions if you really wanted to...
>
> Kent State had a bigger impact on me than any other event in my life.
> At the time when it happened, nobody really knew where/when it would
> stop.
Where I was, the unanimous decision was: It ends *NOW* - and I suspect
that a perusal of Winchester and Peters sales records might be a real
eye-opener.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
J. Clarke wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>
>>> The state does not knowingly kill anyone, it executes them. There
>>> is a difference.
>> Except for the exceptions, of course. Of the more notable instances
>> have been Kent State, Ruby Ridge, and Waco.
>>
>> I guess you /could/ call those executions if you really wanted to...
>
> Kent State was a screwup. The thing I can't understand is why they
> continued to allow the BATF to have weapons after Ruby Ridge and Waco.
So we could all learn an important lesson from seeing a guy in a black
helmet and body armor pointing a sawed-off shotgun at a 7 year old
child's head in Florida?
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
PHT wrote:
> If you stop and think about the reason unions was created in the first
> place, to protect the workers, there was a need at that time. Now there is
> enough laws on the books that protect the workers, there is really no need
> for union protection.
On the surface, it would seem so - but I worry that there are too many
enterprises would pay only the mandated minimum wage. I'm not
hypothesizing here - and historically single-enterprise communities were
virtually enslaved before the advent of the American labor movement.
You might find it an interesting exercise to extend that minimum wage to
an annual gross income (multiply by 40 hours/week and again by 52
weeks/year) and divide by 12 for a monthly gross income. Then consider
the quality of life afforded by the resulting /net/ (after deductions)
income. To make it real, would you choose that for yourself/your
kids/your grandchildren?
> Unions now only serve themselves and create high
> wages and benefits that most companies cannot afford, but what choice does
> the company have in today's society. Union's still project the image that
> they are their to protect the worker, when it is now no longer necessary
> because of the current laws.
Almost. I'm not a fan of trade unions, but there are situations in which
there is no way an individual can negotiate a just solution to a problem.
I think the best we can do is try to achieve some reasonable measure of
balance - and it would seem that unions may be one of the tools for
doing that.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> PHT wrote:
>>
>>> If you stop and think about the reason unions was created in the first
>>> place, to protect the workers, there was a need at that time. Now
>>> there is
>>> enough laws on the books that protect the workers, there is really no
>>> need
>>> for union protection.
>> On the surface, it would seem so - but I worry that there are too many
>> enterprises would pay only the mandated minimum wage. I'm not
>> hypothesizing here - and historically single-enterprise communities were
>> virtually enslaved before the advent of the American labor movement.
>>
>> You might find it an interesting exercise to extend that minimum wage to
>> an annual gross income (multiply by 40 hours/week and again by 52
>> weeks/year) and divide by 12 for a monthly gross income. Then consider
>> the quality of life afforded by the resulting /net/ (after deductions)
>> income. To make it real, would you choose that for yourself/your
>> kids/your grandchildren?
>
> No. That's why I took the time to become educated and develop skills
> that could command higher wages.
Good for you. I'd pat you on the back except that you're already doing
it. I can't help wondering how well you'd do starting from scratch
/today/ with only minimum wages available...
...and I wonder how you'll respond when (not if!) everything you have to
offer your employers is available for one-fifth the cost from
Abd'AlShugal via internet from Islamabad.
> The essential fraud of the union
> movement is that people are somehow innately "worth" whatever the
> union says. Ordinarily, I don't care - let the unions and employers
> work things out and let the marketplace dictate an employee's economic
> value.
In a marketplace where employers compete for the best employees and
where prospective employees compete for the best jobs, I agree with you
completely.
Unfortunately, that description does not apply to all marketplaces - or
even uniformly through /most/ marketplaces. To insist that it does is to
deny reality. In an ideal world, all forces would be in balance - but in
the real world, people struggle to achieve imbalances that benefit them
more than their peers.
My perception is that even as you say: "Let the system achieve
equilibrium," you're advocating a particular definition of the system
that would be of benefit to (especially) yourself.
> But government has shown a repeated willingness to step in and
> distort this process.
It has - because it is also driven by market forces. :)
> One example is government intrusion in the form
> of binding arbitration - surely not an enumerated power of the
> government. Most recently, we see the "UAW Bailout Of 2008" begged for
> before Congress. Both of these kinds of things distort the
> price/feedback mechanism that should be setting the salary points for
> union employees (and everyone else, for that matter). A similar
> example is the insistence of the unions that they need a law
> that forces votes to unionize to be public - a complete breach
> of personal privacy and trust that the Obama bunch has already
> said they will *support*.
No argument with what you've said. Examples abound. What you haven't
addressed are the market forces that produced these examples. Until
you've done that, you have no basis (other than wishful thinking) for
dealing with them.
>> Almost. I'm not a fan of trade unions, but there are situations in which
>> there is no way an individual can negotiate a just solution to a problem.
>>
>> I think the best we can do is try to achieve some reasonable measure of
>> balance - and it would seem that unions may be one of the tools for
>> doing that.
>
> I don't think "achieving balance" is even necessary. Let all the parties
> to this discussion (the unions, the employers) alone. Pass no laws that
> particularly favor either party. Require civil and legal behavior
> on both parts and make them *negotiate*. If there is a shortage of
> labor, the unions will get better terms. If there are plenty of
> candidates for the work, then the contract will favor the employer.
> Markets work when we let them. Employment markets are no different.
Let's agree to disagree. I value "fairness" and "justice" in my dealings
with others and between others and I'm convinced that neither is
possible without balance. All of my life experience informs me that both
are necessary.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 17, 11:55 am, "Lee Michaels"
> <leemichaels*[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Leon" wrote
>>
>>> Not to mention the electric eco cars cost more to build, operate, and
>>> dispose of during their whole life span than a Hummer does through out its
>>> whole life span.
>> But, but Leon....., electic cars are just SOOOOOOO...., trendy and in!!!!
>>
>> And Hummers are just so icky masculine and retro.
>
> Hummer owners have an identity problem. An off-road vehicle it is not.
> (With the exception of the original HumVee). Many Hummer owners also
> are said to have a small penis.
Not to mention that many have none at all. :)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> Good for you. I'd pat you on the back except that you're already doing
>> it. I can't help wondering how well you'd do starting from scratch
>
> That was not my point - I was merely commenting that minimum wage is
> not an inevitable endgame for people.
Nor was I arguing that it /is/ inevitable - only pointing out that it's
a possible outcome. There hasn't always /been/ a minimum wage, and it
didn't come into being because of any love for socialism - but to ensure
that the folks at the low end of the scale didn't starve.
>> /today/ with only minimum wages available...
>
> I started with far, far less that today's situation. Single parent
> poor family, etc. Went to two private universities (under- and grad
> school) w/o a dime of debt or govt grant money and NO debt at the
> end ... by working, sometimes multiple cruddy jobs.
>
>> ...and I wonder how you'll respond when (not if!) everything you have to
>> offer your employers is available for one-fifth the cost from
>> Abd'AlShugal via internet from Islamabad.
>
> Then I'll have to do something different for a living. I've already
> switched career gears multiple times in my life, and am prepared to
> do so again as needed.
Good. I suspect there probably won't be another round of H1B visas - and
that next time around, the projects will do the traveling.
>>> The essential fraud of the union
>>> movement is that people are somehow innately "worth" whatever the
>>> union says. Ordinarily, I don't care - let the unions and employers
>>> work things out and let the marketplace dictate an employee's economic
>>> value.
>>
>> In a marketplace where employers compete for the best employees and
>> where prospective employees compete for the best jobs, I agree with you
>> completely.
>>
>> Unfortunately, that description does not apply to all marketplaces - or
>> even uniformly through /most/ marketplaces. To insist that it does is to
>> deny reality. In an ideal world, all forces would be in balance - but in
>> the real world, people struggle to achieve imbalances that benefit them
>> more than their peers.
>>
>> My perception is that even as you say: "Let the system achieve
>> equilibrium," you're advocating a particular definition of the system
>> that would be of benefit to (especially) yourself.
>
> No, I advocate that government stay out of the way other than to
> ensure there is no fraud, force, or threat by any of the players.
> Buying and selling labor resources should be no different than
> buying and selling TVs - you find the best price, best vendor,
> etc. and do business with them. Labor is absolutely the same thing.
Exactly how does what you said differ from my perception? At present,
government is (for all practical purposes) inextricably enmeshed with
"the way things work".
>>> But government has shown a repeated willingness to step in and
>>> distort this process.
>>
>> It has - because it is also driven by market forces. :)
>
> But ... it has the legitimate legal use of force at its disposal
> and THAT makes it very dangerous and THAT is why its scope must
> be consciously very narrow.
I think you use up too much of your energy worrying about being coerced
and compelled. Force need not be legal to be dangerous - but it is
/most/ dangerous when one lives in fear of it. Courage, mon ami -
/toujours/ courage.
>>> One example is government intrusion in the form
>>> of binding arbitration - surely not an enumerated power of the
>>> government. Most recently, we see the "UAW Bailout Of 2008" begged for
>>> before Congress. Both of these kinds of things distort the
>>> price/feedback mechanism that should be setting the salary points for
>>> union employees (and everyone else, for that matter). A similar
>>> example is the insistence of the unions that they need a law
>>> that forces votes to unionize to be public - a complete breach
>>> of personal privacy and trust that the Obama bunch has already
>>> said they will *support*.
>>
>> No argument with what you've said. Examples abound. What you haven't
>> addressed are the market forces that produced these examples. Until
>> you've done that, you have no basis (other than wishful thinking) for
>> dealing with them.
>
> The "market forces" that produced them are an ignorant public and
> pandering politicians. They have created an environment deadly to
> liberty but apparently in both their self-interest. In the short
> term it may well be so, but not in the long term. Given the current
> trajectory, the US is headed for 3rd rate economic and geopolitical
> status in probably only a couple generations.
Aha! You got a "tufer" - a remedy for the first should, in consequence,
provide remedy for the second. My personal question for you is: "Are you
(can you be) patient enough to educate the peoples' discretion?"
And the greater question is: "How do we go about (re)bootstrapping an
apparently failing education system?"
>> Let's agree to disagree. I value "fairness" and "justice" in my dealings
>> with others and between others and I'm convinced that neither is
>> possible without balance. All of my life experience informs me that both
>> are necessary.
>
> I do too. So does anyone whose been successful at what they do.
> You cannot durably succeed by lying, cheating, and stealing - it is
> a self-limiting set of behaviors. But being fair and just does not
> mean overpaying for underskilled or unskilled labor. It does not
> mean extending benefits beyond that which is earned, and so on.
Ok - then I misunderstood what you said and we're in fundamental
agreement on some of the key principles.
Got a plan?
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> I work in the IT world. First it was outsourcing, then it was insourcing,
> and you know what ... some stuff can be done offshore, some cannot.
> As the world moves to global markets we are seeing a slow but inevitable
> transition to currency-adjusted wage equilibrium. Them furrin' workers
> just don't worry me all that much. The world will divide, specialize,
> and pay more-or-less equivalent wages over time.
We have the IT in work common. Over time, yes - but work which does not
require a security clearance will always chase the low price. The
question is, of course, how much time?
> My courage is exhausted. I don't worry about theoretical coercion.
> I worry about the real coercion I've experienced as a business person,
> as an individual, and as a citizen. The objective level of freedom
> today in the US at least, if diminishing substantially compared to even
> a decade ago. Witness the many cameras that watch our every move.
I dislike the intrusive nature of surveilance cameras as well but, of
themselves, they don't present any more danger than a traffic signal. My
take is that any nut case who wants to watch /my/ every move is going to
suffer cruel and inhuman punishment in the form of extreme boredom.
> There is insufficient time in my lifetime to remediate the knuckleheaded
> thinking in the larger society. I am largely reduced to complaining, hiding,
> and just living my life in obstinate contradiction to the status quo.
Of course there's insufficient time. By it's very nature democracy can
never be a fait accompli - and while it survives it'll be a work in
progress with a high maintenance requirement. It's not the length of a
person's life, it's what they do with the time they have that makes all
the difference - and it makes a difference what they pass on to those
who follow.
>> And the greater question is: "How do we go about (re)bootstrapping an
>> apparently failing education system?"
>
> Privatize it. Make the teachers earn the respect and compensation of the
> parents. Make parents accountable for the education of their children
> under threat of felony charges. None of this will actually happen.
Do I actually hear Tim Daneliuk advocating /for/ force and coersion? You
can't have it both ways.
You're right - it won't happen because coersion isn't a viable solution.
>> Got a plan?
>
> No. I've mostly given up. The larger society has decided that a
> "right" is anything they wish for: education, healthcare, safety,
> peace of mind, a "living" wage, and all of the rest of the drool that
> spews forth on a regular basis. We live - in the US and most of the
> rest of the West - in societies driven by the moochers and the
> looters. The few producers are worn out, overworked, overtaxed, and
> underappreciated.
I had to go drink a cup of coffee and pause to unload the emotional
baggage. Back at the keyboard, I see all of the things you've listed as
/desirable/ - and from what you've told about yourself, I infer that you
don't consider them /undesirable/.
Within the context of a democracy, each of those things can be
considered goals worth pursuing, and AFAICT your reservations have more
to do with /how/ to best attain those benefits for the greatest number
of participants.
As with software, there's always more than one way to skin a cat. If you
don't like the way the system runs, it's nearly always possible to
re-design for improvements - and that improvements almost always come
from disaffected users who /haven't/ given up. The old name for
disaffected users who /have/ given up (or never made a real effort) was
"lusers". I encourage you to not join that community.
> When 5% of the working population pay the
> overwhelming proportion of Federal taxes in the US, but some 40% pay
> little- or no taxes but can vote (and thus appoint the next President)
> there is no resolution.
So? How about making a serious proposal for tax reform you consider more
reasonable? Personally, I'd prefer a flat rate without exemptions
coupled with hard limits on government spending, structured so that
after a period of a century or two, government could be fully endowed
and further taxation prohibited. :)
> The next great superpower will be China, with
> India as an arguable close second. They will not be liberal
> democracies as we understand the term. The virtues of Western
> civilization - a civilization that did more to free mankind in less
> time than any other institution in recorded human history - are nearly
> dead or on their deathbed. These are not just the rambling of someone
> of "a certain age". They are the observations of someone who has lived
> in 3 countries and traveled to many more over 5 decades and has seen
> the difference. The US - once a light for freedom and opportunity -
> has become a ghetto for political correctness, government overreach,
> and whining demands for imaginary "rights." The US is not dying from
> external attack. It has committed suicide...
I've only lived in two countries, although I've traveled to a reasonable
number of others over /six/ decades. Interestingly, I've always found
much to admire wherever I traveled. Americans do indeed have much to be
proud of, but we're not done learning from others - and it's been said
that our greatest strengths are our ability and willingness to re-invent
ourselves.
Change is the only constant, and predictions are only predictions. :)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> Back when I was designing/writing SCADA software, I always tried to think
> about possible future requirements due to external changes. I've had
> customers comment years later that they went to modify something and found
> the hooks for the modification were already there. Nothing like a delayed
> pat on the back :-).
<grin>
> I'm so obsolete now I'd have trouble programming "Hello, world" :-).
Probably not...
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{ puts("Hello, world");
return 0;
}
The rust comes off fairly quickly. :)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
>> Do I actually hear Tim Daneliuk advocating /for/ force and coersion? You
>> can't have it both ways.
>
> Uh, yes I can. *Initiating* force is always wrong. Fraud is always
> wrong. In the case of minor children, parents are by default presumed
> to be the proper caretakers. When they fail to see to their children's
> education, this is an initiation of at least fraud, and arguably
> force, because they are condemning their children to fail. The
> children - as minors - are legally presumed to be incapable of caring
> for themselves and thus the state does have the right to interdict on
> their behalf, no different than a policeman arresting someone trying
> to break into your house.
>
> As far as "making" teacher earn the respect of parents, I mean this
> in a noncoerive way - there should be a marketplace for schools
> and teachers as there is anything else. Parents would choose from
> that pool based on their perception of the fitness of the school/teacher,
> the amount they were willing to pay for it, and how that school
> environment mapped to their personal values and ambitions for their
> child.
I don't think you'll achieve much traction pushing this issue - not
because I have anything against private education, but because I don't
see any practical means of implementation due to cost.
In a most fortunate twist of fate (I lived in a country with /no/ high
schools, and my stepfather's employer paid for dependents' education at
any accredited boarding school), I got to make my own choice of private
schools (subject to parental veto for cause) high school. My first two
choices (ACS in Beirut and a boarding school in England) were vetoed for
what seemed good reasons, and my third choice was where I went.
I dug around to find a web page with some cost info and came up with:
http://www.boardingschoolreview.com/school_ov/school_id/201
and if you scroll down to "Finances" you'll get the same reality check I
just did. Education at retail is bloody awful expensive!
[ I think it's worth every penny for kids whose parents can afford it -
and if you watch the video (at the top of the page) you can see a bit of
why I hold that opinion - what they present is real and true. ]
>> I had to go drink a cup of coffee and pause to unload the emotional
>> baggage. Back at the keyboard, I see all of the things you've listed as
>> /desirable/ - and from what you've told about yourself, I infer that you
>> don't consider them /undesirable/.
>
> They are desireable. They are not political rights. They are things
> each individual and/or family ought to achieve or earn in their own
> right. The sole exception is safety. The state has some role to
> play in defending the borders, interdicting in matters of fraud, force,
> and threat, and generally maintaining the *framework* of a civil
> society. This does not, however, include using the coercion of the state
> to inflict its versions of healthcare, education, et al.
Yabbut - in a democracy "rights" are what the people decide they are,
whether they make sense or seem appropriate to you or not. By choosing
to live in a democracy we accept a social contract to live by the rules
chosen by the majority. One of the good things about our democracy is
that we've incorporated mechanisms to change those rules whenever a
majority so elects.
You /can/ effect the changes you want, but first you'll need to build
the necessary consensus...
>> Within the context of a democracy, each of those things can be
>> considered goals worth pursuing, and AFAICT your reservations have more
>> to do with /how/ to best attain those benefits for the greatest number
>> of participants.
>
> My reservation has to do with the fact that the unwashed masses are
> willing to give away their liberty and freedom merely upon the promise
> of some politician that what they want will be given them by government.
>
> "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
> Franklin
>
> These goals - very much worth pursuing - belong in private life, not
> as chits to buy votes.
Since you've referenced one of my favorite Ben Franklin quotes, let's
also quote from the document under discussion when he said those words:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,..."
I welcome you to the land of the unwashed masses (est. July 4, 1776)
>> As with software, there's always more than one way to skin a cat. If you
>> don't like the way the system runs, it's nearly always possible to
>> re-design for improvements - and that improvements almost always come
>> from disaffected users who /haven't/ given up. The old name for
>> disaffected users who /have/ given up (or never made a real effort) was
>> "lusers". I encourage you to not join that community.
>
> You or I or anyone else that still values freedom are in a declining
> minority. The demographics here are overwhelming. The last election
> alone demonstrates that people will buy almost anything at face value
> from a politician promising them "free" stuff, "change", and all the
> rest of goo that came from our soon-to-be communist-in-chief. The
> system cannot be redesigned when a majority of the participants
> are happy to watch it fail - fiddling on the deck of the Titanic
> as it were.
As you already know, our opinions differ on all of the above except that
I can agree that "free stuff" always carries a price tag.
>>> When 5% of the working population pay the
>>> overwhelming proportion of Federal taxes in the US, but some 40% pay
>>> little- or no taxes but can vote (and thus appoint the next President)
>>> there is no resolution.
>>
>> So? How about making a serious proposal for tax reform you consider more
>> reasonable? Personally, I'd prefer a flat rate without exemptions
>> coupled with hard limits on government spending, structured so that
>> after a period of a century or two, government could be fully endowed
>> and further taxation prohibited. :)
>
> Me too. It will never happen.
Never is a /very/ long time... :)
>>> The next great superpower will be China, with
>>> India as an arguable close second. They will not be liberal
>>> democracies as we understand the term. The virtues of Western
>>> civilization - a civilization that did more to free mankind in less
>>> time than any other institution in recorded human history - are nearly
>>> dead or on their deathbed. These are not just the rambling of someone
>>> of "a certain age". They are the observations of someone who has lived
>>> in 3 countries and traveled to many more over 5 decades and has seen
>>> the difference. The US - once a light for freedom and opportunity -
>>> has become a ghetto for political correctness, government overreach,
>>> and whining demands for imaginary "rights." The US is not dying from
>>> external attack. It has committed suicide...
>>
>> I've only lived in two countries, although I've traveled to a reasonable
>> number of others over /six/ decades. Interestingly, I've always found
>> much to admire wherever I traveled. Americans do indeed have much to be
>> proud of, but we're not done learning from others - and it's been said
>> that our greatest strengths are our ability and willingness to re-invent
>> ourselves.
>
> But that latter thing is exactly what is missing. The citizenry
> hardly wants to "re-invent" the culture or the nation. It is too
> busy abdicating itself to the leviathan of the state.
Methinks it's too early to tell - let's see how it plays out. One or the
other of us (or possibly both) may be surprised.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
> Hang on a second here. Yes, education is expensive. Just how is
> it cheaper if it is public? I'd argue that public education - if the
> real and complete costs are tallied - is *more* expensive than
> private because there is no market feedback to make it efficient.
> By some estimates, the US now spends more per student, inflation
> adjusted, than at any time since education went public, and the results
> are declining on average. This is not a money problem.
'Scuse me but /you/ were the person who made it a tax->money issue. If
you'd like me to agree that we should be seeing a better result for the
money spent, I can go along with that...
But first, let's decide on what problem we'd like to solve.
>> Yabbut - in a democracy "rights" are what the people decide they are,
>> whether they make sense or seem appropriate to you or not. By choosing
>> to live in a democracy we accept a social contract to live by the rules
>> chosen by the majority. One of the good things about our democracy is
>> that we've incorporated mechanisms to change those rules whenever a
>> majority so elects.
>
> Well again, hang on:
>
> 1) The "rights" everyone is trying to vote themselves are not
> under the purview of the Federal government because it has
> no enumerated power to grant such gifts. To legally elect
> themselves these freebies, the Sheeple ought to change the
> Constitution. They won't, moochers are never that honest.
There's no need for a specific constitutional authority, any more than
there is for, say, sanitation. It's sufficient that duly elected
legislators passed legislation authorizing expenditures.
> 2) Some rights - the ones explicated in our Constitution - are
> innate and freely distributed to all. My right to free speech
> does not diminish your similar right. But the "rights" people
> are inventing for themselves are not equally distributed.
> They are "rights" granted to some citizens at the expense
> of others. This is not a honest theory of rights, its just
> stealing under mob rule masquerading as a "right".
The last time I looked around, public education was available to all -
and I didn't see any provision for exclusions. Are you aware of someone
who was denied access to that? If so, I'd be very interested in hearing
the story...
>> You /can/ effect the changes you want, but first you'll need to build
>> the necessary consensus...
>
> Today's consensus is mooching. This is why I say we are in an
> inexorable slide to the loss of liberty and preeminence in the world.
Two statements of opinion - noted as differing from my own opinions.
(Thank you for sharing.)
>>>> Within the context of a democracy, each of those things can be
>>>> considered goals worth pursuing, and AFAICT your reservations have more
>>>> to do with /how/ to best attain those benefits for the greatest number
>>>> of participants.
>>> My reservation has to do with the fact that the unwashed masses are
>>> willing to give away their liberty and freedom merely upon the promise
>>> of some politician that what they want will be given them by government.
>>>
>>> "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
>>> Franklin
>>>
>>> These goals - very much worth pursuing - belong in private life, not
>>> as chits to buy votes.
>> Since you've referenced one of my favorite Ben Franklin quotes, let's
>> also quote from the document under discussion when he said those words:
>>
>> "We hold these truths to be self-evident,
>> that all men are created equal,..."
>>
>> I welcome you to the land of the unwashed masses (est. July 4, 1776)
>
> All men are *created* equal, but none of the Framers held that they
> actually *were* equal. They merely articulated a baseline set of
> inherent rights all citizens ought to enjoy and wrote a legal framework
> so that all citizens would be "equal" before the law, under the law,
> and from the law. The "equality" in question was not about the
> citizen, it was that the government ought to be "equal" in its
> behavior.
Yes, that too - and nowhere could I find a distinction between unwashed
masses and any other (privileged) group or person.
>> Never is a /very/ long time... :)
>
> Never in time to make a difference to you or me, or likely our children.
> Our grandchildren will probably have to learn Mandarin.
Probably a worthwhile endeavor in any case - that's a lot of people not
to be able to share opinions with...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> and if you scroll down to "Finances" you'll get the same reality check I
>> just did. Education at retail is bloody awful expensive!
>>
>
> It all depends upon the school. Our Lutheran elementary school charges on
> the order of $4200 per year, our area Lutheran High School in Phoenix is
> approximately $6500 per year. The quality of education is high, the
> teacher student ratio is low and the environment much more conducive to
> learning.
That sounds good. I think I've heard around $8K for a (not Lutheran)
church high school a few blocks from where I live.
Out of curiosity, are the schools completely funded from tuition fees or
is there additional funding from other sources?
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> Out of curiosity, are the schools completely funded from tuition fees or
>> is there additional funding from other sources?
>
> In the case of the elementary school, we try to set the tuition to equal
> the cost of education. As is the case for all non-profits, other donations
> also help to keep the tuition cost affordable. The high school is also
> funded by tuition fees and other donations. In both instances, there is no
> external funding from a higher-level entity if that is what you were
> asking.
I wasn't - I was curious as to whether the tuition represented actual
costs as a result of discussion up-thread.
Your input makes me a bit less resistant to Tim's position that
education should be privatized (but not enough so that I'm willing to
adopt his view without a /lot/ more information).
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
On Dec 15, 1:09=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The fools showed their hand right off the bat. =A0You know if the leader =
of a
> company is wasteful and ignorant the rest of the company is probably in t=
he
> same shape.
Well said.
And on another note, <<FINALLY>> someone put p3en to paper to figure
out the real cost of the bailout of GM alone. The other two were left
out.
Our "throw money at it" Congress didn't come up the numbers. GM
didn't come up with the numbers. But one of GM's biggest creditor
did, and it is twice the number asked for by all the BT combined. And
most of it is simply for debt service.
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081215/bs_nm/
us_generalmotors_loan_bankofamerica>
So if Congress gives them all just 14 B, how will that fix anything?
BOA actually stepped in only as a means to protect their own interest
or we would never really know the real cost for GM.
I am wondering what it will cost to bail out all of them... I don't
believe there is a bottom to this this, especially if we wind up with
all three on deck with their hands out.
And now that the additional (on top of the TARP 700 B) stimulus/
bailout money is approaching an additional TRILLION before stewardship
of the country has even changed hands, I am wondering myself when all
of this will stop.
Robert
Robert
On Dec 18, 8:01=A0am, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I dislike the intrusive nature of surveilance =A0cameras as well but, of
> themselves, they don't present any more danger than a traffic signal. My
> take is that any nut case who wants to watch /my/ every move is going to
> suffer cruel and inhuman punishment in the form of extreme boredom.
>
Let us hope that surveillance as a theft deterrent works /just this
one time/ at the Postal Service.
If you catch my drift.
=3D0)
r
Highland Pairos wrote:
> Tim and Leon,
>
> I think that you two have been having a very worthwhile and interesting
> discussion and I would like to compliment you both on the ease with which it
> can be read and the civil manner in which you have conducted yourselves.
>
> I firmly believe that the true nature of the problem before us, is either an
> amalgam of the issues that you both raise, or somewhere in between. From
> all that I have read, heard and observed, I think that you both are right
> while seeming to be on opposite sides of a fence.
>
> However, one issue that I must chime in on, is the issue of the products
> that you have been discussing. You seem to agree that the Big 3 make trucks
> that range somewhere from good to superior, but that their cars are
> completely lacking. Well in addition to labor issues, and management
> issues, I would say that your assessment of their products is #1. correct
> and #2. the third and equal part of the problem. The Big 3 have centered
> their product strategy around trucks and SUVs and failed the car market. A
> common sense discussion about the needs of the motoring public makes it very
> clear that most people do not NEED trucks or SUVs, and recent gas pricing
I disagree. I regularly engage in activities that require a large
storage area. I do not *always* need it, but when I do, no car would
serve the purpose as well as an SUV.
> has forced people to reevaluate their purchasing decisions. It seems to me
I bought my SUV when gas was $4/gal - it was a great buying opportunity.
> that smart product strategy would be to develop a bread and butter, reliable
> straight forward automobile that will satisfy the wants and needs of the
> greatest number of people. That main product line can then be coupled with
> additional vehicle types that fill the needs of the smaller market segments,
> (i.e. contractors, boat owners, those that really do need to get through a
> major snow, sports car enthusiasts.)
This is what they should have done. Then again, the money was all being
made in light trucks and SUVs, not cars. So .. they went where the money
was. They failed to read the changes in the industry effectively and
got caught with the pants down.
>
> I simply do not understand the product strategies of the Big 3. If you
> tally the TV ads from Ford and Chrysler these days, you mostly see ads for
> trucks. Vehicles that most people do not need or want anymore. GM has
> finally brought to market a hybrid drive system. I know very little about
> it technically, but why release it only in a $60k SUV rather then in a
> mid-size sedan that would appeal to a greater market. Why is Chrysler
> returning to the days of big motored rear-wheel drive cars, (i.e. the
> Charger, Magnum, etc.) when the mainline, practical concept is that of
> front-wheel drive small displacement 4 and 6 cylinder cars?
Because these really are the cars people like ... or at least that's
what they did like. The eco-weenies want everyone to drive a
shoebox that is vegan and ugly, but that's not what the buying public
really wants. They want comfort, safety, reliability, AND some
level of fuel economy.
>
> If you look at the relatively recent history of the Big 3 and their
> products, you have to notice the successes. What was the product that saved
> Chrysler once before? The Aries K platform, midsized, front wheel drive,
> practical and flexible. That platform was used for so many different
> vehicles, its amazing. What saved Ford in the late 80's? The Taurus,
> midsized, front wheel drive, straight forward automobile. What have the
Especially the SHO with that big honking Yamaha power plant in it.
> Japanese been selling by the boatload (or trainload)? Small to midsized,
> front wheel drive, 4 and 6 cylinder sedans.
>
> The companies definitely have labor issues, and management issues, but they
> also have equally debilitating product strategy issues, (which BTW is
> technically a management issue but one of such import that I believe it
> deserves its own examination.)
The market changed faster than they could react. I'd argue this was
both because of a lack of vision in leadership, AND an inflexible,
archaic labor rewards system.
>
> SteveP.
>
>
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>>> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> You've obviously never actually run a company of any size. You cannot
>>>> "run a business like a business" when every do-gooder, union wart,
>>>> anti-Capitalist, earth hugger, and various other societal bottom feeders
>>>> are demanding you do things their way even if it is irrational or,
>>>> possibly
>>>> even (in the case of the UAW), insane. The Big Three are not free to
>>>> run
>>>> their business to the satisfaction of their shareholders. They have
>>>> a culture full of science dropouts and closet Marxists in their face
>>>> on a regular basis telling them what to do.
>>> You obviousely are out of the loop. I have only run 2 companies. Both
>>> made/make a very nice return on investment, bottom line. I mave managed
>>> numerous departments in several companies.
>> Noted ... with my apologies. Did you ever have any of the following
>> pleasures while running your companies:
>>
>> 1) Having the government tell you how to run it and then tax you
>> on money you never actually made.
>>
>> 2) Having a union undermine its competitiveness with outrageous
>> demands.
>>
>> 3) Working your <Biblican beast of burden> off for years, and then
>> have someone tell you that "you guys in mangement make too much
>> money."
>>
>> It's very special when any of these things happen.
>>
>>>>> It also has very little to do with the
>>>>>> quality of their cars or whether people like their products.
>>>>> And that is BS also. Having made my living selling GM products and
>>>>> retired
>>>>> at 40 I can assure you that the quality of the competition blows away
>>>>> the
>>>>> Big 3 quality.
>>>> And I can tell your from immediate and recent experience that you're
>>>> dead wrong - at least for trucks. We have owned many Japanese products
>>>> in my household as well as a number of GM, I am in pretty good
>>>> position to have seen the span of quality. What you say was true 20
>>>> years ago, it's not any more. My 2008 Chev Tahoe is easily the better
>>>> of my previously owned Nissan Pathfinder. This Tahoe replaces a 1995
>>>> model that gave me 138000 miles of happy trails with only two major
>>>> mechanical malfunctions.
>>> I drove a 97 Chev PU for 10 years, traded last year. I had great
>>> incentive
>>> to purchase GMC or Chevrolet. My son worked for the Chevrolet dealer
>>> until
>>> the dealership folded 2 months ago. Not a problem, he has 2 other jobs.
>>> I
>>> had deep employee priceing incentives + hundreds of dollare crdits
>>> through
>>> the GM CCard program. I test drove a GMC and Checy PU last summer. They
>>> really were no more comfortable or felt any better while driving than amy
>>> older truck. The GMC dealer even offered to sell me a GMC PU with power
>>> doore windows. etc, V8, take my 97 Chev in trade, "sight unseen" for a
>>> drive
>>> out price of $18K, inc TTL. We test drove 6 different GMC trucks moving
>>> up
>>> in trim levels each time trying to find one that was comfortable to sit
>>> in
>>> and to find one that did not have a back door that moved while on the
>>> freeway. You could literally see the door rack inside the opening while
>>> the
>>> vehicle was going down the freeway. I walked away discusted and decided
>>> not
>>> to buy a new truck.
>>> Then we honored our appointment with the Toyota dealer and drove the
>>> Tundra.
>>> At the time I did not like the looks of the new Tundra but all it took
>>> was 1
>>> test drive. I gladly paid $6k more for the New Tundra over the
>>> similarily
>>> equipped GMC. Since I have had it, 18 months, it has been in for
>>> warranty
>>> work 1 time for a break light switch. No other warranty work needed.
>>> My neighbor has a 3 year old Yukon, a totally different animal. Its
>>> drive
>>> quality is totally different from that of a Pickup.
>> I drove a Tundra with the TRD engine for about a week last year.
>> I hated nearly everything about it. This was not because of its lack
>> of quality - it was very well made. I just never got comfortable with
>> its ergonomics and control layout. This is purely a comment about
>> taste not quality, however. As I say, it was very well screwed
>> together.
>>
>>
>>>> Cars are another matter. No one in Detroit seems to know how to
>>>> build a car worth a crap until you get into the luxury segment, and
>>>> even there, they're not incredible. Honda consistently builds
>>>> outstanding cars and if I wanted a car, that's what I'd buy.
>>> Yeah, I own an Accord too.
>>>
>>>> Toyota is overrated and is starting to look like GM 20 years ago
>>>> with their maintenance problems and poor customer service.
>>>
>>> That is a dealer problem, Have worked as a manager at all the positions
>>> in
>>> an Oldsmobile dealership, I know what to look out for. My Toyota dealer
>>> is
>>> better than most any dealership I have purchased from. Service is great
>>> and
>>> that is not only focusing on the repair work. I am treated like I own
>>> the
>>> place.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nissan
>>>> has been fine, if a little disconnected in their customer support.
>>>> (The new 2008 Tahoe would have been a 2008 Pathfinder if the dealer
>>>> had ever called me back as he promised.)
>>> Nissan is getting ready to have Dodge build their Titan, the Titan is
>>> plagued with problems.
>>>
>>>> But again, I don't think this is the major problem with the Big Three
>>>> money issues. They just can't afford to be competitive, invest in
>>>> new technology, reengineer their cars regularly, and so on when
>>>> they're paying layed off workers full salary and benefits for
>>>> life (not an exaggeration).
>>> Totally agree however it has been management that got them in this
>>> situation. They operate like our government does. It's the what's in
>>> it
>>> form me right now attitude.
>> There's no question that the buck should stop with the executives that
>> led them into this mess. This is why I favor exec compensation in the
>> form of long-vesting stock options with no fast forward vest if they
>> are terminated. It would be good for all concerned if large corp
>> execs owned more of the companies they run, instead of being well paid
>> gardeners whose pay does not vary even if every flower wilts and dies.
>> I also favor the unions being forced (via negotiation, not the government)
>> to take a large portion of their pensions and benefits in the form of
>> long-vesting company stock while also being given a vote on the board.
>> It has to be in everyone's interest for the company to succeed it will
>> not.
>>>>> In actual
>>>>>> fact, Detroit has never built better, more reliable cars that today
>>>>>> are easily on par with the best of Japan or Europe.
>>>>> Partially true, they have never built better, a few of their vehicles
>>>>> are
>>>>> on
>>>>> par but as a whole, still way behind.
>>>> As I said, they build the best trucks in the world, and most of their
>>>> cars
>>>> are uninspiring. How they can manage to get the fit and finish right on
>>>> a light truck, but not a Malibu is just beyond me.
>>> I wuld say they probably did build good trucks but the Tundra has been
>>> gaining momentum for several years now and for the first time I did not
>>> buy
>>> a GM truck.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>
>>> Good for you. I'd pat you on the back except that you're already doing
>>> it. I can't help wondering how well you'd do starting from scratch
>>
>> That was not my point - I was merely commenting that minimum wage is
>> not an inevitable endgame for people.
>
> Nor was I arguing that it /is/ inevitable - only pointing out that it's
> a possible outcome. There hasn't always /been/ a minimum wage, and it
> didn't come into being because of any love for socialism - but to ensure
> that the folks at the low end of the scale didn't starve.
They didn't starve prior to a minimum wage - they worked hard.
I come from several generations of no-minimum wage folk, and
believe me, they did not starve (you should see the family album).
>
>>> /today/ with only minimum wages available...
>>
>> I started with far, far less that today's situation. Single parent
>> poor family, etc. Went to two private universities (under- and grad
>> school) w/o a dime of debt or govt grant money and NO debt at the
>> end ... by working, sometimes multiple cruddy jobs.
>>
>>> ...and I wonder how you'll respond when (not if!) everything you have to
>>> offer your employers is available for one-fifth the cost from
>>> Abd'AlShugal via internet from Islamabad.
>>
>> Then I'll have to do something different for a living. I've already
>> switched career gears multiple times in my life, and am prepared to
>> do so again as needed.
>
> Good. I suspect there probably won't be another round of H1B visas - and
> that next time around, the projects will do the traveling.
I work in the IT world. First it was outsourcing, then it was insourcing,
and you know what ... some stuff can be done offshore, some cannot.
As the world moves to global markets we are seeing a slow but inevitable
transition to currency-adjusted wage equilibrium. Them furrin' workers
just don't worry me all that much. The world will divide, specialize,
and pay more-or-less equivalent wages over time.
>
>>>> The essential fraud of the union
>>>> movement is that people are somehow innately "worth" whatever the
>>>> union says. Ordinarily, I don't care - let the unions and employers
>>>> work things out and let the marketplace dictate an employee's economic
>>>> value.
>>>
>>> In a marketplace where employers compete for the best employees and
>>> where prospective employees compete for the best jobs, I agree with you
>>> completely.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, that description does not apply to all marketplaces - or
>>> even uniformly through /most/ marketplaces. To insist that it does is to
>>> deny reality. In an ideal world, all forces would be in balance - but in
>>> the real world, people struggle to achieve imbalances that benefit them
>>> more than their peers.
>>>
>>> My perception is that even as you say: "Let the system achieve
>>> equilibrium," you're advocating a particular definition of the system
>>> that would be of benefit to (especially) yourself.
>>
>> No, I advocate that government stay out of the way other than to
>> ensure there is no fraud, force, or threat by any of the players.
>> Buying and selling labor resources should be no different than
>> buying and selling TVs - you find the best price, best vendor,
>> etc. and do business with them. Labor is absolutely the same thing.
>
> Exactly how does what you said differ from my perception? At present,
> government is (for all practical purposes) inextricably enmeshed with
> "the way things work".
You are sadly correct.
>
>>>> But government has shown a repeated willingness to step in and
>>>> distort this process.
>>>
>>> It has - because it is also driven by market forces. :)
>>
>> But ... it has the legitimate legal use of force at its disposal
>> and THAT makes it very dangerous and THAT is why its scope must
>> be consciously very narrow.
>
> I think you use up too much of your energy worrying about being coerced
> and compelled. Force need not be legal to be dangerous - but it is
> /most/ dangerous when one lives in fear of it. Courage, mon ami -
> /toujours/ courage.
My courage is exhausted. I don't worry about theoretical coercion.
I worry about the real coercion I've experienced as a business person,
as an individual, and as a citizen. The objective level of freedom
today in the US at least, if diminishing substantially compared to even
a decade ago. Witness the many cameras that watch our every move.
>
>>>> One example is government intrusion in the form
>>>> of binding arbitration - surely not an enumerated power of the
>>>> government. Most recently, we see the "UAW Bailout Of 2008" begged for
>>>> before Congress. Both of these kinds of things distort the
>>>> price/feedback mechanism that should be setting the salary points for
>>>> union employees (and everyone else, for that matter). A similar
>>>> example is the insistence of the unions that they need a law
>>>> that forces votes to unionize to be public - a complete breach
>>>> of personal privacy and trust that the Obama bunch has already
>>>> said they will *support*.
>>>
>>> No argument with what you've said. Examples abound. What you haven't
>>> addressed are the market forces that produced these examples. Until
>>> you've done that, you have no basis (other than wishful thinking) for
>>> dealing with them.
>>
>> The "market forces" that produced them are an ignorant public and
>> pandering politicians. They have created an environment deadly to
>> liberty but apparently in both their self-interest. In the short
>> term it may well be so, but not in the long term. Given the current
>> trajectory, the US is headed for 3rd rate economic and geopolitical
>> status in probably only a couple generations.
>
> Aha! You got a "tufer" - a remedy for the first should, in consequence,
> provide remedy for the second. My personal question for you is: "Are you
> (can you be) patient enough to educate the peoples' discretion?"
No. There is insufficient time in my lifetime to remediate the knuckleheaded
thinking in the larger society. I am largely reduced to complaining, hiding,
and just living my life in obstinate contradiction to the status quo.
You cannot fix in a couple of years what the quasi-Marxists like FDR,
Johnson, Carter, and now, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have or want to install
as the norm.
>
> And the greater question is: "How do we go about (re)bootstrapping an
> apparently failing education system?"
Privatize it. Make the teachers earn the respect and compensation of the
parents. Make parents accountable for the education of their children
under threat of felony charges. None of this will actually happen.
>
>>> Let's agree to disagree. I value "fairness" and "justice" in my dealings
>>> with others and between others and I'm convinced that neither is
>>> possible without balance. All of my life experience informs me that both
>>> are necessary.
>>
>> I do too. So does anyone whose been successful at what they do.
>> You cannot durably succeed by lying, cheating, and stealing - it is
>> a self-limiting set of behaviors. But being fair and just does not
>> mean overpaying for underskilled or unskilled labor. It does not
>> mean extending benefits beyond that which is earned, and so on.
>
> Ok - then I misunderstood what you said and we're in fundamental
> agreement on some of the key principles.
>
> Got a plan?
>
No. I've mostly given up. The larger society has decided that a
"right" is anything they wish for: education, healthcare, safety,
peace of mind, a "living" wage, and all of the rest of the drool that
spews forth on a regular basis. We live - in the US and most of the
rest of the West - in societies driven by the moochers and the
looters. The few producers are worn out, overworked, overtaxed, and
underappreciated. When 5% of the working population pay the
overwhelming proportion of Federal taxes in the US, but some 40% pay
little- or no taxes but can vote (and thus appoint the next President)
there is no resolution. The next great superpower will be China, with
India as an arguable close second. They will not be liberal
democracies as we understand the term. The virtues of Western
civilization - a civilization that did more to free mankind in less
time than any other institution in recorded human history - are nearly
dead or on their deathbed. These are not just the rambling of someone
of "a certain age". They are the observations of someone who has lived
in 3 countries and traveled to many more over 5 decades and has seen
the difference. The US - once a light for freedom and opportunity -
has become a ghetto for political correctness, government overreach,
and whining demands for imaginary "rights." The US is not dying from
external attack. It has committed suicide...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Personally, I love GM truck products and hope they stay in business,
>> just not by stealing my- and my fellow citizens' money.
>
> Par for the course, it all comes down to you, the greedy, delusional weasel
> you are.
>
>
Let's see if we have this right. Let's dissect yet another
ad hominem attack of yours. I am "greedy, delisional ..." etc.
because:
1) I like, and buy GM products
2) I want them to stay in business profitably
3) I do not want them to use the power of government to
make my fellow citizens pay for GM's failings and/or
to serve my interests under duress.
Which of these three positions of mine do you find most offensive?
My loyalty to the company? My desire to see them prosper? My
unwillingness to support theft to get what I want? (Based on your
history here of loudly defending stealing as a moral good, I'd
guess #3, but maybe you just hate GM, I dunno.)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Dec 15, 10:45=A0am, "cm" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have always felt Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell would make a great
> couple. But I have heard two wrongs don't make a right!
>
WHOA, dude.... can you even imagine what their kids would be like?
*shudder*
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>
>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>>> and if you scroll down to "Finances" you'll get the same reality check I
>>>> just did. Education at retail is bloody awful expensive!
>>>>
>>> It all depends upon the school. Our Lutheran elementary school charges
>>> on
>>> the order of $4200 per year, our area Lutheran High School in Phoenix is
>>> approximately $6500 per year. The quality of education is high, the
>>> teacher student ratio is low and the environment much more conducive to
>>> learning.
>> That sounds good. I think I've heard around $8K for a (not Lutheran)
>> church high school a few blocks from where I live.
>>
>> Out of curiosity, are the schools completely funded from tuition fees or
>> is there additional funding from other sources?
>>
>
> In the case of the elementary school, we try to set the tuition to equal
> the cost of education. As is the case for all non-profits, other donations
> also help to keep the tuition cost affordable. The high school is also
> funded by tuition fees and other donations. In both instances, there is no
> external funding from a higher-level entity if that is what you were
> asking.
>
As a Lutheran institution, I would expect your funding is controlled
by the very *highest* level entity ;)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> Highland Pairos wrote:
>>> The market changed faster than they could react. I'd argue this was
>>> both because of a lack of vision in leadership, AND an inflexible,
>>> archaic labor rewards system.
>>
>> I definatley agree with the lack of vision AND leadership, and am curious
>> how the labor agreement impacts product strategy.
>>
>> SteveP.
>>
>>
>
> Because the ability to change market direction quickly requires a
> flexible workforce. Many of the the past UAW contracts were completely
> inflexible with draconian workrules and terms. It's hard to turn
> the company on a dime when labor is dragging its feed.
>
> As you say, there's lot's of blame to go around here from senior
> mangement,
> to the Board, to the UAW leadership, to the worker bees themselves.
> Personally, I love GM truck products and hope they stay in business,
> just not by stealing my- and my fellow citizens' money.
I am not debating your position here, I am just curious. I know that many
of the work rules are ridiculous and inflexible. Are there really rules
that prevent the company from designing new and different products and then
shifting its production over to that new product?
As far as the use of taxpayer money is concerned, I have great reservations
about our money being used for all of these bailouts. I definitely agree
with the principles against bailouts, bad companies that cannot compete
should go out of business. However, there are two facts that sway me
towards going along with bailouts. #1. The track record of government loans
and 'bailouts' to private industry is one of success in terms of the loan
itself. I recently heard a list of the 5 major bailouts in the past 50
years(?) (I think that was the time frame). The two that I can remember off
the top of my head are the Chrysler loan and the S&L debacle. All 5 have
been paid back, with interest and on time or early. (The fact that Chrysler
is back on the hill, hat in hand, however, causes me to question the long
term wisdom of bailouts.) #2. The failure of all three companies in quick
succession would be disastrous for this country for quite a while. I
believe that there would be a great deal of hardship for many people for a
long time. That being said, for one of them to go away I think might be a
healthy thinning of the herd. If there is going to be a bailout, I firmly,
unwaveringly believe that it needs to be handled as a business matter, not
as corporate welfare. The American taxpayers need to view this and conduct
themselves as one very large investor. To that end, it is unconscionable
that the Big 3 even asked for help with out having a plan prepared to right
their ships and convince the potential investors that their money would be
well spent. There is no way I will ever support money turned over without a
significant address of the problems that a bunch of simple wood butchers
like us can identify.
SteveP.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Robatoy" wrote:
>
>>To house, guard and feed some schmuck is less expensive than a shot of
> sodium barbitulate (if that's what they use) or a few KV's worth of
> lektricity?
>
> You are forgetting the legal costs involved in executing some one,
> sometimes approaching $2-$3 million on each side.
>
> Assume $1K/week, 52 weeks/yr and it is maybe $60K/yr max.
>
> Even if the legal costs are only $1.5 million, that covers 25 years of
> incarceration without factoring in the time cost of money which would
> extend the time covered.
>
> Bottom line.............................
>
> Only the lawyers make out in a capital case.
Yeah but the over all expense of execution would be short lived. The quick
bullet in the head would probably have a positive effect on crime in
general and might be a wake up call to those that think prison is free room
and board with hot meals and cable TV.
On Dec 17, 12:29=A0pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 11:55 am, "Lee Michaels"
> > <leemichaels*[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Leon" =A0wrote
>
> >>> Not to mention the electric eco cars cost more to build, operate, and
> >>> dispose of during their whole life span than a Hummer does through ou=
t its
> >>> whole life span.
> >> But, but Leon....., electic cars are just SOOOOOOO...., trendy and in!=
!!!
>
> >> And Hummers are just so icky masculine and retro.
>
> > Hummer owners have an identity problem. An off-road vehicle it is not.
> > (With the exception of the original HumVee). Many Hummer owners also
> > are said to have a small penis.
>
> Not to mention that many have none at all. :)
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
I have a lady friend/client who has a pink one. Hummer that is.
On Dec 15, 11:10 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> They all talk like there will be a
> huge problem if they go down. Suppliers will simply have to find new
> customers as they probably already have or should have. The writing has
> been on the wall for several now.
As a kid, I used to study and read about American businesses and how
they were formed starting with the late 1890s.
Shakespeare couldn't write better stories of greed, deception,
generosity, back stabbing, immense wealth, altruism, and outright
immoral activities. Many things that were done in business 100+ years
weren't illegal here simply because no one thought they needed a law
for people to behave.
Set aside outright thievery (mostly by management!!), business has
been running its course in a very steady way here in the USA. But
due to its age, there are some old business practices that have hung
around as traditions, probably because of the age of the company. Two
of these traditions carried over with the Big Three today are arrogant
management, and immutable labor demands.
As you say Leon, the writing has been on the wall for many years now,
probably about 25 or so. I remember reading many serious
dissertations concerning the demise of the Big Three as early as the
80s. Poor quality cars, silly labor costs, bad management, etc.,
etc., created a monster cancer that has slowly killed the industry.
Even protectionist taxes couldn't kill the foreign cars or their
makers. They invested billions here in our own country to build
better cars here with our own labor forces at a better price. They
beat us at our own game with quality, design, pricing, reliability,
and most importantly a long term business model.
Compare that the first meeting of the Big Three with the Senators to
beg for money a month or so ago (when they flew up to meet in their
private jets to be greeted by private limos) revealed they literally
had no written, no verbal, or even an objective for a plan that would
save them. They simply wanted the money to pay bills, base on "or
else the public would all pay for this".
I remember sitting in my office reading The WSM in the late 80s when
the housing market was crashing, as well as the commercial
construction market. My friends were going out of business because
the economy had slowed so much and they had built companies they
couldn't sustain. Some lost everything. I kept this in mind while I
was reading that the UAW wouldn't budge on the issue of "cross
training".
GM wanted the bumper guy to be able to put on fenders, for which he
would be trained. The fender guy would be cross trained as well. The
cross training gave an automatic raise to each. At no time were the
cross trained folks to be working cross platforms on the same day. If
you started with bumpers, you stayed with bumpers for your shift.
The union said "no". If we need more workers, you must hire more
workers. They would not budge. GM caved. It resulted in double
digit growth of the unionized labor force.
The biggest sticking point in this last round of negotiations seems to
be something that is incredulous to me. The union will not come off
their wage plan, nor will they accept layoffs. The union rep said
that if either of those happen, they will strike. No matter how much
money we throw at the car makers, without reduction of costs, they
won't make it. And if they strike.... game over.
How could you give any of them money that has management that has no
hard, written plan to reverse their current woes, and a labor force
that feels like they shouldn't put anything in the pot for the company
to survive?
Remember, they are begging for money FROM US. Would anyone here let
your city government bail out a construction company that used archaic
equipment, had no cash reserves (just enough for management bonuses,
though) an overpaid labor force for the market and no guaranteed
projects on the books? Worse, no plan for recovery?
Together with management the unions are just as guilty in having bled
the domestic care industry dry.
The recent conduct of all sides, management, union and the Congress
show they have learned nothing.
In each case, they deserve nothing. Certainly none of my tax money.
I would rather see the money spent on ALL the people, not just car
industry people.
Let 'em all sink. They won't go away. Some of the business
economists are settling on the number of 30%. That number represents
the percentage of the cost to do business if they go through
bankruptcy reorganization.
Sounds good to me!
Robert
Leon wrote:
> "Rusty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:7vR1l.5791$%[email protected]...
>> Tim where do you get 80$ an hour out your ass like FUX news get real with
>> the facts.We are all losing our jobs to China or other 3rd world
I don't know the exact dollar amount, but it's in that range. UAW
unskilled labor is arount $28/hr or so. Skilled labor is up to $40/hr
or so from what I've been able to find. Now, add to that another 20%
or so for the employer's portion of the taxes (medicare, unemployment
premiums, and so forth). BUT, that does not include their *benefits*.
Things like healthcare drive this number way, way up - *especially*
for a UAW shop because they are funding the "legacy" benefits for the
unrighteous deals the union cut in the past - like paying people full
salary and benefits who are not working at all. Is the real number
$80/hr? I don't know, maybe it's only $70/hr all in. But $70/hr full
burdened cost for an employee works out to be about $140K/yr per
employee - that's more than a lot of experienced engineers,
scientists, and even some doctors make - people who have years
invested in acquiring rare and specialized skills. It is insane that
an essentially unskilled labor pool (for the most part - there are
skilled trades in the UAW as well) should command this kind of money
in the face of their company failing. They now want us - the taxpayers
- to bail *them* out. I do not feel like subsidizing Joe The Bolt
Turner. His family is not more important than mine. Joe needs to
get real about just what salary his job realistically can command.
>> countries.The only reason auto works jobs have lasted this long is the
>> unions and I see these jobs as gone now to. Instead of bitching about the
And that's the same reason these jobs are about to disappear - they
are priced irrationally.
>> guy with the good job why don't you fight for good jobs and wages.Nah you
>> want cheap china goods .Maybe we will meet on day fighting for that
>> greeter job at Wal-Mart.
I fight for good jobs and wages by fighting to keep the government small,
taxes smaller, and everyone accountable for their own actions.
>
>
> Rusty, Rusty, Rusty. The presence of unions have make it possible for
> foreign car manufacturers to be able to afford to come "here" and build cars
> more profitably. And yes a majority of that money stays here and helps to
Exactly.
> fuel our economy. If the Big 3 could be more competitive they would not be
> in the situation that they are in. Because of the unions, foreign car
> manufacturers have come here, built manufacturing plants, and are kicking
> the Big 3's butts.
>
> The reason that some are loosing jobs to China is because the cost to
> manufacture here is too high. The expense does not justify the quality
> being produced.
That, and there are not Cheap Plastic Dog Vomit factories left in
the US ;)
>
> Instead of bitching about loosing your job, accept what your work is really
> worth or do something to better your self with out relying on the government
> or union to make up for your inability to compete.
I agree, but accountability for one's self is doomed - the last election
proved this. The mooching masses elected someone to give them "free"
stuff that other people have to pay for.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Leon wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Upscale wrote:
>>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,
>>> Absolutely. Included in that lesson should be a sizable contingent of
>>> CEO's
>>> and every other person in the companies with golden parachutes and
>>> ludicrous
>>> $$$ plus salaries.
>> If those executives worked for absolutely nothing - no base, no bonus,
>> no stock options - it would make NO difference in the earnings of the
>> companies in question. The P&L of manufacturing companies is
>> dominated by the cost of labor. But it's fun to hate people with
>> more money than you, eh?
>
>
> You can look at that way but the fact that most CEO's have a golden
> parachute there is no incentive to make a company perform better.
>
>
I am not "looking at it" in any particular way. Businesses exist
solely to make money for their owners. When they fail to make money,
we who own a piece of them (as most of us with retirement funds and/or
multual funds and/or ETF postions ... i.e., Most of the working
class), should be asking *why* they are not profitable, not flogging
the anti-Capitalist Marxism so popular with the new administration,
not to mention many of th the voices here on the Wreck.
The reason the Big 3 are in trouble financially has *nothing* to do
with executive compensation. It also has very little to do with the
quality of their cars or whether people like their products. In actual
fact, Detroit has never built better, more reliable cars that today
are easily on par with the best of Japan or Europe. (Despite what the
half wits in the media and those who believe them on their face say to
the contrary.) No, Detroit is in trouble because their labor costs are
out of control, and the structure of their bargaining unit labor deals
is flatly insane. If you want to blame the executives for something,
blame them for not standing down the sleazy, greedy union leadership
and membership and forcing them to live in the real world.
Your or my lack of wealth is not caused by someone else having wealth.
This is a lie to its foundations, but it is subtly peddled as fact
by misbegotten threads like this. I do not begrudge anyone any amount
of wealth so long as they did not steal or defraud to get it. The
reason the corporate CEOs get these big exit packages isn't that
hard to figure out:
1) There are few people in the world with the experience and brains
to run a $100+ Billion company. Constrained supply creates high
salaries and packages.
2) It used to be that execs made most of their money on stock options.
Then the 1990s came along and people saw these options vault into
the stratosphere in value - mostly in the IT sector. The usual
class warrior crybabies started whining about "execessive CEO pay"
and many companies stopped handing out options and paid higher
salaries instead. This is tragic, as stock options and grants
are the best way I know to incent a leader to make the company grow.
3) It is the Board Of Directors that sets executive compensation. The
BOD answers to the stockholders. Guess what? Most of the stockholders
are actually fine with the current executive comp. If they were not,
they'd stage a stockholder revolt and throw out the incumbent board
and executives. The stockholders, BTW, are mostly folks like us -
individuals who own a piece of these big companies via some kind
of fund or aggregate investment vehicle. If everyone is so upset
about executive comp, why do they not rise up and do something
about it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:37:43 -0500, "Highland Pairos"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I am not debating your position here, I am just curious. I know that
>>> many
>>> of the work rules are ridiculous and inflexible. Are there really rules
>>> that prevent the company from designing new and different products and
>>> then
>>> shifting its production over to that new product?
>>
>> I'd guess not. But the issue isn't the design phase. The issue is
>> just how fast can you train and deploy the workforce to actually
>> *build* the new model. Can you use your workforce in multiple roles,
>> or do the union contracts insist on very stratified work assignments?
>> Can you move work from plant to plant easily to get efficiencies of
>> scale? Can you install automation to replace manual labor for
>> improved productivity and quality without also having to payoff the
>> union for years afterwards?
>
>You are correct in that there is a need to be flexible, and I have not doubt
>that the labor contracts do nothing to help with flexibility. I would also
>agree with you that labor agreements (or portions thereof) that prevent
>that needed flexibility do need to be tossed and better agreements drawn up.
>
>>
>> I don't know the answers to these questions, and I'm sure not excusing
>> the leadership of the Big Three. But, we're going to hold the CEOs
>> accountable here, then let's hold the UAW accountable in equal parts.
>
>100%, absolutley correct. Now if Leon will agree that the Union must share
>in the blame, (which he may have already, I would need to go back and read),
>I would (if I ran the world) turn the two of you loose on Detroit to work
>through the solutions to this problem. Only I would put you with the
>management to solve their issues and I would put Leon on the Unions.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> As far as the use of taxpayer money is concerned, I have great
>>> reservations
>>> about our money being used for all of these bailouts. I definitely agree
>>> with the principles against bailouts, bad companies that cannot compete
>>> should go out of business. However, there are two facts that sway me
>>> towards going along with bailouts. #1. The track record of government
>>> loans
>>> and 'bailouts' to private industry is one of success in terms of the loan
>>> itself. I recently heard a list of the 5 major bailouts in the past 50
>>> years(?) (I think that was the time frame). The two that I can remember
>>> off
>>> the top of my head are the Chrysler loan and the S&L debacle. All 5 have
>>> been paid back, with interest and on time or early. (The fact that
>>> Chrysler
>>> is back on the hill, hat in hand, however, causes me to question the long
>>> term wisdom of bailouts.) #2. The failure of all three companies in
>>> quick
>>> succession would be disastrous for this country for quite a while. I
>>> believe that there would be a great deal of hardship for many people for
>>> a
>>> long time. That being said, for one of them to go away I think might be
>>> a
>>> healthy thinning of the herd. If there is going to be a bailout, I
>>> firmly,
>>> unwaveringly believe that it needs to be handled as a business matter,
>>> not
>>> as corporate welfare. The American taxpayers need to view this and
>>> conduct
>>> themselves as one very large investor. To that end, it is unconscionable
>>> that the Big 3 even asked for help with out having a plan prepared to
>>> right
>>> their ships and convince the potential investors that their money would
>>> be
>>> well spent. There is no way I will ever support money turned over
>>> without a
>>> significant address of the problems that a bunch of simple wood butchers
>>> like us can identify.
>>
>> All that is well and good, but here's my fear: The government -
>> especially these days - is like an infestation of termites. Once they
>> get in, they never go away. A government "managed" car industry will
>> be rife with corruption, ridiculous regulation, politically correct
>> policy decisions, and so forth. This isn't like Chrysler's loan
>> guarantees of the past. This is a full on trade of Capitalism for
>> Socialism - many of the politicians are just drooling at that
>> opportunity. The truth of this bailout is that it is not a bailout of
>> the auto companies. It is a bailout of the unions because bailing
>> out the unions buys votes, and votes are all that the political
>> types care about.
>
>I also have those concerns that once the government is in the door, they
>never leave. I also agree that the major problem in even asking the Big 3
>for a business plan is deciding who will evaluate it. There is no one in
>Washington in whom I have the confidence in their qualifications, nor the
>faith in their integrity to make that evaluation. The issue of further
>management and representation of the investors is even harder. One thing
>that I firmly believe about 'bailouts' in general is, that if the American
>people are going to be investors, they should then be owners, and as such
>they should have a seat on the boards of whatever companies are invested in.
>I do believe that there are individuals in our society, that if they were
>called to serve, and they were to accept, they would have the competency and
>the integrity to represent the American investors on the boards of these
>companies. The obviously difficult step is to identify those individuals,
>and to keep the selection process as non-political as possible.
>
>> The right answer here is to let the car companies go bankrupt. Then,
>> under the supervision of a court they could retool their abusive union
>> contracts, set rational compensation models for their management team,
>> and - most importantly - make everyone involved from the floor
>> sweepers to the CEO, stock participants in the company with an
>> incentive to grow it and make it better. This would work better and
>> faster than having the professional politicians - most of whom have
>> never run anything other than their mouths - "manage" a huge, high
>> complexity industry.
>
>I am open to the idea of a managed bankruptcy. The only issue in that which
>gives me pause is the concern that consumers may not be willing to purchase
>automobiles from a company that is in bankruptcy. The consumer may have
>profound concerns that the company may go under and be unable to support
>their product. The end result being that bankruptcy would only be a path to
>failure. I am not convinced that this would be the case but it is a concern
>that cannot be dismissed out of hand.
>
>Steve P.
...this is an interesting point: what of the customers who already own
vehicles under warranty? SOL, baby...
cg
>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Upscale wrote:
>
>> There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
>> my wages to save my job.
>
> On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
> they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the person
> sitting /next/ to them...
>
That's my problem with the (modern) unions. It's no longer about supporting
the workers, it's about maintaining the union... sometimes at the expense
of the workers!
Ed
On Dec 19, 8:18=A0pm, "David G. Nagel" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>
> NO matter the numbers in foreign countries, they still come to the USA
> to fine quality living.
For how long?
You are still living in the past, my friend. You seem to think that
what the mighty USA once stood for cannot be superceded from either
the outside or from within.
I do hope that you will get it together and find yourselves again, but
for now, you're getting walked on by the competition.
That kind of onslaught has momentum. It will take years to stave off
the waves before your efforts will once gain (and I hope) make you
leaders of the free world.
You really have no idea the damage that last administration has done
to your once great country.
No idea at all.
And then to think that Obama will somehow rescue you, is folly.
Either one of two things will happen:
The Obama camp will motivate the American public to do with less and
start a recovery
or
You've been had by an imposter who is really no different than any
other blood-sucking overlord.
On Dec 16, 8:01=A0am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Well where the money was being made was kinda short sighted by the Big 3
> wasn't it. =A0The import builders are not suffering as much because they
> understood what would sell when sales are week, and those that can contin=
ue
> to make sales during hard times are those that will survive. =A0
What keeps the foreign brands out front is either a lot of perceived
value, innovation and the biggie: sexy designs.
European cars scream 'cool'! Innovation and design is leading the
pack. The big 3 haven't had an original thought since putting tail-
fins on a car.
Take that 'droop-nose' that Audi came up with a few years back, where
the grille was drooped below the front bumper. Now look at the Chevy
Malibu...heck, even the Ford trucks now have that 'look'.
People flocked to Audis and Subarus for all-wheel drive in a good
looking comfortable safe car with good economy for decades. The big 3
sat on their hands.
Bad labour deals, complacency in innovation, and the knowledge that
the government will want to keep them around in case there is a BIG
war, is what keeps those Big 3 around.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 15, 6:46 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Dec 15, 3:45 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> You've obviously never actually run a company of any size.
>>> Have you?
>> I have been on the leadership staff of 3 companies, in all cases
>> reporting to the CEO (with one brief exception). I have run a couple
>> very small companies of my own.
>>
>>> Fuckface?
>> This no doubt, is you being nice.
>> --
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
> Come on, bro'! A bit of friendly banter *slaps Timbo's shoulder in a
> gesture of friendship*
> I'm sorry, was that a little too forceful? <G>
>
> I'm just really sorry that I don't have the same opinion of you that
> you have of yourself. My bad.
I didn't think we were discussing me. I thought the conversation
was about the Big Three auto companies. I'm confused.
>
> Soooo. tell us all about it.. you ran some companies of your own? What
> happened to them?
Some did better than others. The ones that failed did so due to
poor leadership. The buck always needs to stop with the people
in charge. Unfortunately, it often does not. I lost a long term
friendship with one CEO when I told him that *we* the leaders
were responsible for a noteworthy failure and owed the worker
bees an apology. He ... um ... didn't see it that way.
(He owns a coffee shop now.)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Personally, I love GM truck products and hope they stay in business,
> just not by stealing my- and my fellow citizens' money.
Par for the course, it all comes down to you, the greedy, delusional weasel
you are.
On Dec 15, 9:56=A0am, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ed Edelenbos wrote:
> > "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Upscale wrote:
>
> >>> There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
> >>> my wages to save my job.
>
> >> On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
> >> they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the
> >> person sitting /next/ to them...
>
> > That's my problem with the (modern) unions. =A0It's no longer about
> > supporting the workers, it's about maintaining the union... =A0sometime=
s
> > at the expense of the workers!
>
> Too often true. One possible remedy in this case might be to also
> require reorganization of the UAW chapters into independent
> (unaffiliated) plant unions, so that workers could retain the
> protections and benefits of collective bargaining without a single union
> having a strangle hold on such a large portion of the economy...
>
> ...just a thought.
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Morris, etal,
Don't get me started on unions, but: Time: late '60s-early '70s,
Jamestown, NY. Anyone remember an outfit called Art Metal? They were a
good sized, well known manufacturer of metal office furniture(desks,
filing cab's, etc) Sunk everything they could beg or borrow into a new
plant to replace the outmoded brick factory dating back to very early
1900's. New plant all on one floor, designed for better work flow,
etc. etc. When the plant was built and ready for them to move in, the
"union" decided that if the company had the money to build this new
facility, they should share it with the union. So, they went on
strike, and the company didn't have the cash flow to survive the
almost year long strike, they folded. I don't know how many jobs went
down the tubes, or how long the building sat empty before the Chamber
of Commerce, etc. finally enticed Cummins Engine to make it a new
production facility. Dam fools couldn't see past the end of their
noses far enough to realize they could be in a new higher production
facility that could return more profits that the union could then
profit from.
Nahmie
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> A bullet in the
> head is cheap, quick, humane, and rids us of the problem.
Maybe, but what does it currently cost to get to that point? With all the
automatic appeals made when someone is sentenced to death, it's no wonder
that the death penalty costs the tax payers so much more. Shoot all the
lawyers first then then do your quick, humane criminal executions.
> I would choose to live.
As would most. You can get used to almost every situation if it goes on long
enough. If not used to it, then at least able to put up with it.
Of course, I'm not sure that applies to being married to a nagging,
harassing wife. You're probably right Doug, I'm sure I have myself to blame
for not being married. But, I like it that way. :)
Tim where do you get 80$ an hour out your ass like FUX news get real with
the facts.We are all losing our jobs to China or other 3rd world
countries.The only reason auto works jobs have lasted this long is the
unions and I see these jobs as gone now to. Instead of bitching about the
guy with the good job why don't you fight for good jobs and wages.Nah you
want cheap china goods .Maybe we will meet on day fighting for that greeter
job at Wal-Mart.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rusty wrote:
>> How are unions the problem? Gm I believe has some of the best
>> productivity
>> levels in the auto industry.It's about a liveable wage ,you can always
>> find
>> someone to do it cheaper. If that ceo that ran GM into the ground is
>> worth
>> 15 million a year. I'm sure you or I could run GM into the bankruptcy for
>> allot less.
>
>
> You are conveniently ignoring the elephant in the room. GM
> productivity is high because of very high levels of automation,
> not because the union 'workers' are working harder. Moreover,
> GM is stuck paying ridiculous benefits that no other working
> group in America enjoys. Among these are - for some classes
> of UAW members - being paid full salary and benefits forever
> after being laid off. This is not a living wage, it is
> insanity. More to the point, some bolt tightener in a factory
> isn't worth something in the area of $80/hr (depending whose
> numbers are accurate) when you take into account base and
> benefits.
>
> I've seen more than one company ruined by union greed.
> Fortunately, this time, the UAW has their fellow Communists
> running the congress and will likely get a "UAW Bailout" bill
> passed in some form with minimal concessions on their part.
> Instead of just running the companies into the ground, the UAW
> will simply waddle up to the public trough like all the other
> pigs and demand the rest of us maintain their quality of life.
> The problem is, with all the swine at the trough, just who is
> going to be left to actually produce new wealth so the old, lazy
> pigs (the execs, the unions, the financial companies, the
> individuals in excessive debt ...) can continue to eat for
> "free"?????
>
> P.S. The CEO didn't run GM into the ground, the UAW did. The
> CEO just didn't do his job and the tell the union to go
> scratch. The best part of all this may be that these
> jobs will be lost forever and end up in China or
> Indonesia. I'd love to see the UAW idiots take on the
> Chinese government...
>
>>
>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "Rusty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> If unions go down you can count on 10$ an hour as a high wage for the
>>>> middle class as the greedy 5% scoop up all the easy cash.
>>> I would sure like to see if that turns out to be ture or not.
>>>
>>> If it turns out to be true, the unions will be back but for now the
>>> unions
>>> are a big part of the problem. I't probably not a bad thing to get paid
>>> for your actual worth.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Dec 17, 11:55=A0am, "Lee Michaels"
<leemichaels*[email protected]> wrote:
> "Leon" =A0wrote
>
> > Not to mention the electric eco cars cost more to build, operate, and
> > dispose of during their whole life span than a Hummer does through out =
its
> > whole life span.
>
> But, but Leon....., electic cars are just SOOOOOOO...., trendy and in!!!!
>
> And Hummers are just so icky masculine and retro.
Hummer owners have an identity problem. An off-road vehicle it is not.
(With the exception of the original HumVee). Many Hummer owners also
are said to have a small penis.
On Dec 15, 11:16=A0am, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> mac davis wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:04:33 -0600, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wro=
te:
>
> >> Upscale wrote:
>
> >>> There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
> >>> my wages to save my job.
> >> On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
> >> they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the
> >> person sitting /next/ to them...
>
> >> ...and Iowa wages are already sub-par.
>
> > Morris.. Hate to bring a rain cloud over your sunny thought, but in my
> > experience, saying you'll take a pay cut and actually doing it are 2 di=
fferent
> > things..
>
> Very true - but who's to say how many actually meant what they said?
>
> > Sort of like saying that you'd die for someone and then rethinking it i=
f the
> > choice is presented...
>
> Same deal - and of the people I knew who said they'd put their life on
> the line, many did - and died honoring that commitment.
>
> I don't think you make a convincing argument.
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Many have died for people not even knowing who they were/are.
Those kind of people fit my definition of the word hero. Then again,
in my world there are no sports 'heroes'.
Even astronauts and people like them don't really fit the hero bill.
Mind you, standing beside a Mercury Redstone (a bit bigger than a
telephone pole) and trying to imagine what that must have been like.
To sit in a can, on top of a controlled explosion...and telling the
boys on the ground to go ahead and light the wick... that takes balls,
faith and a bit of crazy. I will have to think about that some more.
On Dec 15, 11:34=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Sounds to me like it's time to fire up old Sparky.
>
> Having been in an execution chamber, standing within 5 ft of the
> electric chair used by the State of Ohio, listening to a description
> of the process being given by a penitentiary employee, had a profound
> effect on me as a 13 year old.
>
> To this day, I could not vote for the death penalty.
>
> Having said that, I am convinced that life in prison without the
> possibility of parole, is not only less expensive, but extracts a
> greater penalty than execution.
>
> Given the choice of living the rest of your life in solitary
> confinement or perhaps sharing a jail cell having less that 70 sq ft
> with another human being or being executed, which would you choose?
>
> Think about it.
>
> Lew
To house, guard and feed some schmuck is less expensive than a shot of
sodium barbitulate (if that's what they use) or a few KV's worth of
lektricity?
I do think you're right that it might be more punishment to keep him
alive...better yet, make him read Timbo's posts and make him listen to
Celine Dion...or Nickelback!!! The horror...the horror..
.
..
*smirk*
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:8cde0b94-fa64-4484-a9dc-48d20aab5b31@s37g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 15, 11:16 am, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> mac davis wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:04:33 -0600, Morris Dovey <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Upscale wrote:
>
> >>> There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10%
> >>> of
> >>> my wages to save my job.
> >> On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed
> >> said
> >> they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the
> >> person sitting /next/ to them...
>
> >> ...and Iowa wages are already sub-par.
>
> > Morris.. Hate to bring a rain cloud over your sunny thought, but in
> > my
> > experience, saying you'll take a pay cut and actually doing it are 2
> > different
> > things..
>
> Very true - but who's to say how many actually meant what they said?
>
> > Sort of like saying that you'd die for someone and then rethinking
> > it if the
> > choice is presented...
>
> Same deal - and of the people I knew who said they'd put their life on
> the line, many did - and died honoring that commitment.
>
> I don't think you make a convincing argument.
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Many have died for people not even knowing who they were/are.
Those kind of people fit my definition of the word hero. Then again,
in my world there are no sports 'heroes'.
Even astronauts and people like them don't really fit the hero bill.
Mind you, standing beside a Mercury Redstone (a bit bigger than a
telephone pole) and trying to imagine what that must have been like.
To sit in a can, on top of a controlled explosion...and telling the
boys on the ground to go ahead and light the wick... that takes balls,
faith and a bit of crazy. I will have to think about that some more.
And, as one them once replied when asked what he was thinking as the
final seconds to lift-off ticked down, "I was thinking about how this
thing was built by the lowest bidder." Or words to that effect.
Dave in Houston
On Dec 15, 2:05=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Upscale wrote:
> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson=
,
>
> > Absolutely. Included in that lesson should be a sizable contingent of C=
EO's
> > and every other person in the companies with golden parachutes and ludi=
crous
> > $$$ plus salaries.
>
> If those executives worked for absolutely nothing - no base, no bonus,
> no stock options - it would make NO difference in the earnings of the
> companies in question. =A0The P&L of manufacturing companies is
> dominated by the cost of labor. =A0But it's fun to hate people with
> more money than you, eh?
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Are you EVER going to say something constructive without shitting on
somebody?
Will you EVER stop hiding behind those well-practised and well-honed
insults of yours?
You can't be nice, can you...?!
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
Tim... how angry and disgusted you must be with life and those around
you. You have slammed all the doors to any and all input from those
who /are/ offering up some new ideas. Yet you are so sunk in your
quicksand, that it is now obvious you are terribly lost. You need a
hug.
What he needs is several slaps in the face. (this is where Tim claims to
have a 6th degree black belt in seventeen forms of martial arts). Or ever
better, a debilitating illness that eats away any savings he's squirreled
away and then let him exist solely on charity so he can get the medical care
he needs.
Face it R, some people are incapable of being redeemed, or in this case,
deserve the self-serving petty little world they live in. He can call me and
everybody else in Canada who has received health care evil and thieves all
he wants, but it all comes down to the fact that he's got the social
conscious of a cockroach.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> That could happen, the same could be said if he knew that he would not be
> executed regardless of how many people he murdered.
Possibly, but then one might argue that's an opening for executions under
some, but not all circumstances, which is essentially what is happening
right now. ~ At least, with those states that have the death penalty.
On Dec 17, 11:43=A0am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Highland Pairos" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:Hd92l.4225$c%[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > I also agree that the current hybrid technology is not perfect. =A0Ther=
e is
> > the economic payoff issue that prevents them from being a greater sell =
to
> > many consumers. =A0There are also ecological concerns involved with the=
m.
> > The mining and processing of the cadmium used in the batteries is an
> > ecological problem, not to mention the disposal problem. =A0I would lik=
e to
> > hear about the viability of Lithium- Ion batteries as an alternative. =
=A0I
> > have heard some compelling arguments for it. =A0That being said, I do n=
ot
> > believe that our backs should simply be turned on the concept of hybrid
> > vehicles. =A0They need to continue to be developed and made more viable=
. =A0I
> > have heard them referred to as being a bridge technology toward hydroge=
n
> > fuel cell technology and that is one reason why some are not investing =
in
> > hybrid development. =A0My understanding is that hydrogen fuel cell is 1=
0
> > years out. That means that hybrid technology would be with us for at le=
ast
> > 15-20 years. That is the 10 years before hydrogen fuel cell hits the
> > street and then a potential 5 - 10 year transition among the car buying
> > public. =A0Making an investment in a technology that most likely has a =
15-20
> > year life does not seem foolhardy to me.
>
> > SteveP.
>
> Not to mention the electric eco cars cost more to build, operate, and
> dispose of during their whole life span than a Hummer does through out it=
s
> whole life span.
There are arguments to the contrary.
On Dec 19, 9:52=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> First a defense of stealing, now a call for violence. =A0The inevitable
> endgame of a broken worldview.
>
Is that how it worked when the land and resources were stolen from The
Native Americans? And then killing them because they resisted? Was it
a broken world view that caused all that violence?
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Upscale wrote:
>> "Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> I think I now understand why you're not married...
>> Honestly, I don't think I've ever sworn in front of a woman, not in person
>> anyway.My swearing is a vice that seldom pokes it's head out. In this case
>> it's trotted out solely for Tim's sake because he refers to it so often.
>>
>>
>
> "Great minds discuss ideas, mediocre minds discuss events and small
> minds discuss personalities.
>
> *(Attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt but more likely it's Socrates)*
Ah yes, personalities.
>
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You've obviously never actually run a company of any size. You cannot
> "run a business like a business" when every do-gooder, union wart,
> anti-Capitalist, earth hugger, and various other societal bottom feeders
> are demanding you do things their way even if it is irrational or,
> possibly
> even (in the case of the UAW), insane. The Big Three are not free to run
> their business to the satisfaction of their shareholders. They have
> a culture full of science dropouts and closet Marxists in their face
> on a regular basis telling them what to do.
You obviousely are out of the loop. I have only run 2 companies. Both
made/make a very nice return on investment, bottom line. I mave managed
numerous departments in several companies.
>
>>
>> It also has very little to do with the
>>> quality of their cars or whether people like their products.
>>
>> And that is BS also. Having made my living selling GM products and
>> retired
>> at 40 I can assure you that the quality of the competition blows away the
>> Big 3 quality.
>
> And I can tell your from immediate and recent experience that you're
> dead wrong - at least for trucks. We have owned many Japanese products
> in my household as well as a number of GM, I am in pretty good
> position to have seen the span of quality. What you say was true 20
> years ago, it's not any more. My 2008 Chev Tahoe is easily the better
> of my previously owned Nissan Pathfinder. This Tahoe replaces a 1995
> model that gave me 138000 miles of happy trails with only two major
> mechanical malfunctions.
I drove a 97 Chev PU for 10 years, traded last year. I had great incentive
to purchase GMC or Chevrolet. My son worked for the Chevrolet dealer until
the dealership folded 2 months ago. Not a problem, he has 2 other jobs. I
had deep employee priceing incentives + hundreds of dollare crdits through
the GM CCard program. I test drove a GMC and Checy PU last summer. They
really were no more comfortable or felt any better while driving than amy
older truck. The GMC dealer even offered to sell me a GMC PU with power
doore windows. etc, V8, take my 97 Chev in trade, "sight unseen" for a drive
out price of $18K, inc TTL. We test drove 6 different GMC trucks moving up
in trim levels each time trying to find one that was comfortable to sit in
and to find one that did not have a back door that moved while on the
freeway. You could literally see the door rack inside the opening while the
vehicle was going down the freeway. I walked away discusted and decided not
to buy a new truck.
Then we honored our appointment with the Toyota dealer and drove the Tundra.
At the time I did not like the looks of the new Tundra but all it took was 1
test drive. I gladly paid $6k more for the New Tundra over the similarily
equipped GMC. Since I have had it, 18 months, it has been in for warranty
work 1 time for a break light switch. No other warranty work needed.
My neighbor has a 3 year old Yukon, a totally different animal. Its drive
quality is totally different from that of a Pickup.
>
> Cars are another matter. No one in Detroit seems to know how to
> build a car worth a crap until you get into the luxury segment, and
> even there, they're not incredible. Honda consistently builds
> outstanding cars and if I wanted a car, that's what I'd buy.
Yeah, I own an Accord too.
> Toyota is overrated and is starting to look like GM 20 years ago
> with their maintenance problems and poor customer service.
That is a dealer problem, Have worked as a manager at all the positions in
an Oldsmobile dealership, I know what to look out for. My Toyota dealer is
better than most any dealership I have purchased from. Service is great and
that is not only focusing on the repair work. I am treated like I own the
place.
Nissan
> has been fine, if a little disconnected in their customer support.
> (The new 2008 Tahoe would have been a 2008 Pathfinder if the dealer
> had ever called me back as he promised.)
Nissan is getting ready to have Dodge build their Titan, the Titan is
plagued with problems.
>
> But again, I don't think this is the major problem with the Big Three
> money issues. They just can't afford to be competitive, invest in
> new technology, reengineer their cars regularly, and so on when
> they're paying layed off workers full salary and benefits for
> life (not an exaggeration).
Totally agree however it has been management that got them in this
situation. They operate like our government does. It's the what's in it
form me right now attitude.
>
>>
>> In actual
>>> fact, Detroit has never built better, more reliable cars that today
>>> are easily on par with the best of Japan or Europe.
>>
>> Partially true, they have never built better, a few of their vehicles are
>> on
>> par but as a whole, still way behind.
>
> As I said, they build the best trucks in the world, and most of their cars
> are uninspiring. How they can manage to get the fit and finish right on
> a light truck, but not a Malibu is just beyond me.
I wuld say they probably did build good trucks but the Tundra has been
gaining momentum for several years now and for the first time I did not buy
a GM truck.
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>
>>> and if you scroll down to "Finances" you'll get the same reality check I
>>> just did. Education at retail is bloody awful expensive!
>>>
>>
>> It all depends upon the school. Our Lutheran elementary school charges
>> on
>> the order of $4200 per year, our area Lutheran High School in Phoenix is
>> approximately $6500 per year. The quality of education is high, the
>> teacher student ratio is low and the environment much more conducive to
>> learning.
>
> That sounds good. I think I've heard around $8K for a (not Lutheran)
> church high school a few blocks from where I live.
>
> Out of curiosity, are the schools completely funded from tuition fees or
> is there additional funding from other sources?
>
In the case of the elementary school, we try to set the tuition to equal
the cost of education. As is the case for all non-profits, other donations
also help to keep the tuition cost affordable. The high school is also
funded by tuition fees and other donations. In both instances, there is no
external funding from a higher-level entity if that is what you were
asking.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 15, 10:35Â am, "Ed Edelenbos" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > Upscale wrote:
>>
>> >> There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
>> >> my wages to save my job.
>>
>> > On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
>> > they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the
>> > person sitting /next/ to them...
>>
>> That's my problem with the (modern) unions. Â It's no longer about
>> supporting the workers, it's about maintaining the union... Â sometimes at
>> the expense of the workers!
>>
>> Ed
>
> When it comes to unions, there is no doubt that they were needed at
> one time to put a stop to sending mine-workers into unsafe mines and
> also to stop railroad barons from working their labourers to death
> without adequate pay..... then again, the argument exists that those
> barons would do that again if given the chance. And yet, the plants
> operated by Toyota and Honda seem to be doing just fine...here in
> Ontario at least. They're talking a few lay-offs even there
I live and work within a few miles of a Mercedes Benz plant, the UAW has for
years tried to unionize the plant, he UAW maintains an office in the area,
so far they have not been successful most of the workers realize that they
would be no better off.
It's sad but everyone that I have talked to that works there, will only say
that the money is good, not that they like there jobs, very little praise
for their jobs or lifestyle.
Basilisk
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "David G. Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> NO matter the numbers in foreign countries, they still come to the USA to
>> fine quality living.
>
> Today. Get back to me in 25 to 50 years.
>
>
If you can assure me that I will be here in 50 years I will.
"Rusty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:XiR1l.5789$%[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Rusty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Destroy the unions so we can all do worse. The only thing wrong with
>>> union jobs is I don't have one.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Wow Rusty, your are fitting right into that mold of letting some else
>> take care of you.
>>
> Weak sauce Leon whether or not you get a good job you have to look after
> yourself ...and others around you.
Which is precisely my point. Don't rely on the union to save your butt,
stand up for your self, be self sufficient.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:be3b8957-f0ac-421a-a28d-40f39f911e45@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 16, 7:49 pm, "LD" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > "Leon" wrote:
>
> >> The that added expense would be short lived.
>
> > I don't understand. What is short lived about spending large amounts of
> > money.
>
> >>If you know you are going to die, you would be more likely to not break
> >>the law. Right now the system is absolutely going in the wrong
> >>dirrection.
>
> > The old execution question.
>
> > Does it or does it not prevent crime?
>
> > Some known facts.
>
> > Murder is by and large a crime of passion between people who know each
> > other so a legal deterrent doesn't apply in those situations.
>
> > People who are sentenced to death are usually poor and not able to
> > afford
> > adequate representation to avoid the death penalty.
>
> > Blacks and others of color are by and large, most likely to receive the
> > death penalty.
>
> > There is nothing "bleeding heart" about the above, they are just facts.
>
> > Ohio and Michigan are very similar in many respects.
>
> > Both Midwestern, similar size, similar size population, similar ethnic
> > mix
> > of people, similar industrial and/or agricultural mix of business.
>
> > They do have a basic difference.
>
> > Ohio has the death penalty, Michigan does not.
>
> > These states have been studied for years.
>
> > What sticks out is that the capital murder rate, as a percentage of
> > population, in Michigan is about equal to that in Ohio, year after year.
>
> > The death penalty in Ohio does not reduce the capital murder rate below
> > that of Michigan.
>
> > Texas, Georgia, and Florida have the highest execution rates in the
> > country, but it doesn't seem to affect their capital murder rates.
>
> > There is conclusive evidence that execution doesn't serve as a
> > deterrent.
>
> > OTOH, there is the "feel good" factor, "By god, that's one SOB we don't
> > have to worry about anymore."
>
> > In this day and age, there has to be a better way of dealing with man's
> > inhumanity to man other than state sanctioned murder.
>
> > Lew
>
> A quick Lobotomy and back on the street!
NOT a good idea. There enough French Canadians on this planet already.
===============================================================
LOL!
>>>
>>
>> Even if you want to debate the issue of the environmental impacts of the
>> vehicles we drive, you are still left with the fact that we are spending
>> billions of dollars overseas to pay for the oil that we are using and
>> need
>
> No question. The most compelling argument for alternative fuel is to
> starve the tin pot dictators around the world that happen to be
> sitting on oil supplies.
>
>> to use less of. You cannot debate the fact that it takes billions of
>> years
>> to make oil and we are using it a hell of a lot faster then that. Simple
>> logic says that if you use it faster then you can make it, you will run
>> out
>> of it. But beyond all of that, and I think far more germain to the issue
>> of
>
> The history here has been that humans have both found new ways to
> extract oil AND to use it more efficiently. There has been a
> "we're running out of oil" cry for decades and its been consistently
> wrong. Eventually, of course, we will run out, but we have plenty of
> time to bring other tech on line. It's not the end of the world
> the eco types keep keening about.
I think that you make the solid case for alternatives in your first
sentence. We have always found a way to use oil more efficiently. Now is
the time to do that. Now is the time to take significant steps to end the
one car, one driver commute, now is the time to make better choices about
the cars that we do drive, now is the time to develop alternative energy
sources. If we agree that there is a finite amount of time before the oil
runs out, and merely disagree on how much time there is, doesn't prudence
dictate that we begin taking all possible steps towards bringing "other tech
on line", and of equal importance, start changing the habits that will
impact this problem.
>
>> product strategy by the car companies, people buy fuel efficient cars
>> because they would rather spend their money on something other then gas.
>
> Perhaps, but I question the validity of that approach. Go look at
> the price difference between a hybrid and conventional vehicle.
> Then figure out how many years you have to own the thing to
> break even. At $4/gal it barely makes sense. Below that, it
> doesn't - at least in economic terms. Moreover, $4/gal happened
> when oil it $130+/bbl. Most folks in the oil biz seem to think that
> the natural price of oil is more like half that. Add to that the
> disposal and recycling issues for the batteries, and to me at least,
> hybrids are bad deal. They're simply a salve for eco-guilt.
I also agree that the current hybrid technology is not perfect. There is
the economic payoff issue that prevents them from being a greater sell to
many consumers. There are also ecological concerns involved with them. The
mining and processing of the cadmium used in the batteries is an ecological
problem, not to mention the disposal problem. I would like to hear about
the viability of Lithium- Ion batteries as an alternative. I have heard
some compelling arguments for it. That being said, I do not believe that
our backs should simply be turned on the concept of hybrid vehicles. They
need to continue to be developed and made more viable. I have heard them
referred to as being a bridge technology toward hydrogen fuel cell
technology and that is one reason why some are not investing in hybrid
development. My understanding is that hydrogen fuel cell is 10 years out.
That means that hybrid technology would be with us for at least 15-20 years.
That is the 10 years before hydrogen fuel cell hits the street and then a
potential 5 - 10 year transition among the car buying public. Making an
investment in a technology that most likely has a 15-20 year life does not
seem foolhardy to me.
SteveP.
>
>
>> Some other people simply see the logic of how wasteful it is to drive a
>> vehicle that is larger then they need.
>>
>> You can argue the principles and the reasons why people make the vehicle
>> choices that they do all you want, but if you are in the business of
>> selling
>> vehicles (or any product) you had better be able to anticipate, correctly
>> identify and then meet the actual market demand.
>>
>> SteveP.
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Leon" wrote:
> The that added expense would be short lived.
I don't understand. What is short lived about spending large amounts
of money.
>If you know you are going to die, you would be more likely to not
>break the law. Right now the system is absolutely going in the wrong
>dirrection.
The old execution question.
Does it or does it not prevent crime?
Some known facts.
Murder is by and large a crime of passion between people who know each
other so a legal deterrent doesn't apply in those situations.
People who are sentenced to death are usually poor and not able to
afford adequate representation to avoid the death penalty.
Blacks and others of color are by and large, most likely to receive
the death penalty.
There is nothing "bleeding heart" about the above, they are just
facts.
Ohio and Michigan are very similar in many respects.
Both Midwestern, similar size, similar size population, similar ethnic
mix of people, similar industrial and/or agricultural mix of business.
They do have a basic difference.
Ohio has the death penalty, Michigan does not.
These states have been studied for years.
What sticks out is that the capital murder rate, as a percentage of
population, in Michigan is about equal to that in Ohio, year after
year.
The death penalty in Ohio does not reduce the capital murder rate
below that of Michigan.
Texas, Georgia, and Florida have the highest execution rates in the
country, but it doesn't seem to affect their capital murder rates.
There is conclusive evidence that execution doesn't serve as a
deterrent.
OTOH, there is the "feel good" factor, "By god, that's one SOB we
don't have to worry about anymore."
In this day and age, there has to be a better way of dealing with
man's inhumanity to man other than state sanctioned murder.
Lew
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
snippery
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
I just spent a very pleasant half hour or so perusing your web site and some
of your links. I've got your site bookmarked and also your Python link. I'm
afraid I dismissed Python in the past without really knowing anything about
it.
Loved the "What The Market Will Bear" tale. Helps, I suppose, that I was
once a fly fisherman, appreciate the wonders of bamboo and tend to my wife's
coffee habit.
And I'm exploring the possibilities of 'The American Conservative' as a
replacement for a magazine I no longer find interesting.
All told, more than I've had to chew on from a web site in quite a while.
Thank you,
LD
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>
>>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>>>> and if you scroll down to "Finances" you'll get the same reality check
>>>>> I just did. Education at retail is bloody awful expensive!
>>>>>
>>>> It all depends upon the school. Our Lutheran elementary school
>>>> charges on
>>>> the order of $4200 per year, our area Lutheran High School in Phoenix
>>>> is
>>>> approximately $6500 per year. The quality of education is high, the
>>>> teacher student ratio is low and the environment much more conducive to
>>>> learning.
>>> That sounds good. I think I've heard around $8K for a (not Lutheran)
>>> church high school a few blocks from where I live.
>>>
>>> Out of curiosity, are the schools completely funded from tuition fees or
>>> is there additional funding from other sources?
>>>
>>
>> In the case of the elementary school, we try to set the tuition to
>> equal
>> the cost of education. As is the case for all non-profits, other
>> donations
>> also help to keep the tuition cost affordable. The high school is also
>> funded by tuition fees and other donations. In both instances, there is
>> no external funding from a higher-level entity if that is what you were
>> asking.
>>
>
> As a Lutheran institution, I would expect your funding is controlled
> by the very *highest* level entity ;)
>
LOL; we certainly think so, and are convinced seeing how things always
work out for the best.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Sounds to me like it's time to fire up old Sparky.
>
> Having been in an execution chamber, standing within 5 ft of the
> electric chair used by the State of Ohio, listening to a description
> of the process being given by a penitentiary employee, had a profound
> effect on me as a 13 year old.
>
> To this day, I could not vote for the death penalty.
>
> Having said that, I am convinced that life in prison without the
> possibility of parole, is not only less expensive, but extracts a
> greater penalty than execution.
Thank God for lawyers... not
>
> Given the choice of living the rest of your life in solitary
> confinement or perhaps sharing a jail cell having less that 70 sq ft
> with another human being or being executed, which would you choose?
>
> Think about it.
>
> Lew
>
>
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Compre the adjustment period of people learning that they "WILL" be
> exicuted
>> if found guilty of murder to the on going period of every convict
> convivted
>> of murder living free on our dollar fir the rest of his life. More
> liberal
>> laws in recent decades seem to not deter crime.
>
> There is a downside though. Anybody who has committed murder and knows
> that
> they will be executed for it, will have absolutely no reason not to commit
> murder again, taking as many as they can with them. They know they can
> only
> be executed once. In some warped sense, it might cause more deaths than
> might normally be the case.
>
>
That could happen, the same could be said if he knew that he would not be
executed regardless of how many people he murdered.
"cm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I have always felt Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell would make a great
>couple. But I have heard two wrongs don't make a right!
I wonder which one would be on top!
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Upscale wrote:
>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,
>>
>> Absolutely. Included in that lesson should be a sizable contingent of
>> CEO's
>> and every other person in the companies with golden parachutes and
>> ludicrous
>> $$$ plus salaries.
>
> If those executives worked for absolutely nothing - no base, no bonus,
> no stock options - it would make NO difference in the earnings of the
> companies in question. The P&L of manufacturing companies is
> dominated by the cost of labor. But it's fun to hate people with
> more money than you, eh?
You can look at that way but the fact that most CEO's have a golden
parachute there is no incentive to make a company perform better.
"Rusty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:7vR1l.5791$%[email protected]...
> Tim where do you get 80$ an hour out your ass like FUX news get real with
> the facts.We are all losing our jobs to China or other 3rd world
> countries.The only reason auto works jobs have lasted this long is the
> unions and I see these jobs as gone now to. Instead of bitching about the
> guy with the good job why don't you fight for good jobs and wages.Nah you
> want cheap china goods .Maybe we will meet on day fighting for that
> greeter job at Wal-Mart.
Rusty, Rusty, Rusty. The presence of unions have make it possible for
foreign car manufacturers to be able to afford to come "here" and build cars
more profitably. And yes a majority of that money stays here and helps to
fuel our economy. If the Big 3 could be more competitive they would not be
in the situation that they are in. Because of the unions, foreign car
manufacturers have come here, built manufacturing plants, and are kicking
the Big 3's butts.
The reason that some are loosing jobs to China is because the cost to
manufacture here is too high. The expense does not justify the quality
being produced.
Instead of bitching about loosing your job, accept what your work is really
worth or do something to better your self with out relying on the government
or union to make up for your inability to compete.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
<snipped>
>
> So I learned early on that unions vary considerably. Of course, I can't
> say if that still applies or not.
>
It still applies. When I go out on a job in Niagara Falls, NY often the
first thing I'm asked is to see my union card. The leaders of one of
the contractor's unions are still being prosecuted for various crimes
including bombings, extortion, racketeering, beatings, etc.. For a few
news articles over the past six or so years see:
http://www.nlpc.org/olap/UCU3/05_11_04.htm
http://www.nrtwc.org/exposed/exposed20.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/nyregion/02union.html
http://www.articlearchives.com/government-public-administration/government-bodies/1561468-1.html
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" suggests a horrendous picture!
>>
>> "cm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>I have always felt Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell would make a great
>>>couple. But I have heard two wrongs don't make a right!
>>
>>
>> I wonder which one would be on top!
> Stop that Leon! I just ate.
>
> <Trying hard to keep it down.>
>
> My wife, who is usually pretty level headed, just hates Rosie. She gets
> very irate if she appears on the TV screen.
With very few exceptions I don't want to hear or care what a celebrity has
to say about anything that requires any thought. Most did good to get out
of high school and probably less than 10% started college. I'd say maybe 2%
that started college got a degree.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Sounds to me like it's time to fire up old Sparky.
>>
>> Having been in an execution chamber, standing within 5 ft of the
>> electric chair used by the State of Ohio, listening to a description
>> of the process being given by a penitentiary employee, had a profound
>> effect on me as a 13 year old.
>>
>> To this day, I could not vote for the death penalty.
>
> This may surprise you ... me either, but for different
> reasons. Giving the state the power to kill its own citizens
> does not have a pleasant history.
The state does not knowingly kill anyone, it executes them. There is a
difference.
>
>>
>> Having said that, I am convinced that life in prison without the
>> possibility of parole, is not only less expensive, but extracts a
>> greater penalty than execution.
>
> That, while being forced to listen to Rosie O'Donnell, watch
> Michael Moore videos, and have nothing but pinups of Hillary
> Clinton in their cell.
>
>>
>> Given the choice of living the rest of your life in solitary
>> confinement or perhaps sharing a jail cell having less that 70 sq ft
>> with another human being or being executed, which would you choose?
>>
>> Think about it.
>
> Kind of like being in the Democratic party.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> A bullet in the
>> head is cheap, quick, humane, and rids us of the problem.
>
> Maybe, but what does it currently cost to get to that point? With all the
> automatic appeals made when someone is sentenced to death, it's no wonder
> that the death penalty costs the tax payers so much more. Shoot all the
> lawyers first then then do your quick, humane criminal executions.
The that added expense would be short lived. If you know you are going to
die, you would be more likely to not break the law. Right now the system is
absolutely going in the wrong dirrection.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:c1351e03-ae1e-4970-a7fa-dbf7e19cb21b@z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 15, 2:52 pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hell, Bubba ... just last Friday morning, probably the "most well known",
> "most respected", "most revered" member of the Wall Street financial
> community, a man held in the highest regard and esteem by hundreds of
> thousands of the smartest, savviest, richest folks in the world, a founder
> of NASDAQ and one its past Chairman ...
>
> .... turned out to be nothing but, a THIEF!
They need to bring him down here to Texas for the trial. After the
Enron and other scandals, we might get the death penalty for his sorry
ass.
No kidding, "what's his name" head fool of Enron sure did not do well
after being sentensed to prison. I suspect that his ways would not have
gone well for him with his new neighbors in prison.
He sure deserves it. How does one man even control 50 billion dollars
by himself? I read a lot about this, and apparently he has had this
under his hat as his own little project for almost 40 years.
I'll bet if the market had held, he would still be going strong.
Sounds to me like it's time to fire up old Sparky.
Why waste the electricity, rope, or bullet. Just turn him loose in the
general prison population and not in a country club facility.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Rusty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Destroy the unions so we can all do worse. The only thing wrong with
>> union jobs is I don't have one.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Wow Rusty, your are fitting right into that mold of letting some else take
> care of you.
>
Weak sauce Leon whether or not you get a good job you have to look after
yourself ...and others around you.
cm wrote:
> I have always felt Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell would make a great
> couple. But I have heard two wrongs don't make a right!
>
> cm
>
Please, there are some mental images that are too horrible to contemplate.
>
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> For openers, I am not a Michael Moore fan. In fact, I can't stand the
>> opportunistic self-promoter.
>> BUT.. fair is fair and he does make a point here that kinda makes sense.
>> The topic is close to me as I have contact with a lot of people from the
>> automotive industry. Small tool & die guys and one big upholstery shop.
>> When the big 3 go down, the shit-storm will roll across the border into
>> Canuckistan as there really is no border because AutoPact and NAFTA.
>>
>> A big part of me thinks they should just collapse just like any other
>> piss-poorly managed company. In this case the consequences would be just
>> too ginormous to even contemplate.
>>
>> The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,
>> but so does the UAW. Let the blames begin!
>>
>> No free lunch.
>>
>> r
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Rusty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Destroy the unions so we can all do worse. The only thing wrong with union
> jobs is I don't have one.
>
>
>
>
Wow Rusty, your are fitting right into that mold of letting some else take
care of you.
Upscale wrote:
> "Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I think I now understand why you're not married...
>
> Honestly, I don't think I've ever sworn in front of a woman, not in person
> anyway.My swearing is a vice that seldom pokes it's head out. In this case
> it's trotted out solely for Tim's sake because he refers to it so often.
>
>
Well, it's good that no "wimmin" will ever see your thoughts on usenet.
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:59:41 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> For the record, I watched a large ($6 billion) company I once worked for -
>> and that I really loved as an employer and place to work - get completely
>> sabotaged by their unions. These unions then took the company over
>> themselves and howled like stuck pigs when they ran the company into
>> the ground and the pensions they'd pledged to buy the company were
>> then worthless. I think this is not atypical of very large company
>> union behavior.
>
> I haven't paid attention enough to generalize - but I watched RCA
> self-destruct with considerable union help...
>
> It wasn't that the union set out to destroy the company (which had a
> truly putrid low- and mid-level management culture), but that the
> significantly more competent rank and file employees (mostly electrical
> engineers) who had been carrying the burden of not only their own work,
> but that of less competent (and sometimes more highly-paid) peers,
> slipped into the "Not My Job" attitude.
>
> Strictly speaking, they were right - but from a practical viewpoint, the
> effect was that teamwork went out the window - and it didn't take long
> before the primary concern became keeping one's backside covered.
>
> My last project with the company (for a government client whose name we
> were told never to even speak aloud) came about because RCA was so
> paralyzed that they'd felt the need to replace all RCA employees,
> including the project managers, with consultants. The RCA folks were
> sent to work on the smaller, less critical, and less sensitive Aegis
> project (where they built the gee-whiz command and control system that
> later erroneously targeted and killed an Iranian airliner).
>
> Every time I've heard one of these tales of corporate demise and been
> able to ask questions, I've learned of an unhealthy management culture
> /and/ a worker attitude sickness that seemed traceable to a
> union-encouraged breakdown in teamwork and an alienation of management
> and worker people - and in every such instance I've seen no way to lay
> all of the responsibility on just one of the parties.
>
If you stop and think about the reason unions was created in the first
place, to protect the workers, there was a need at that time. Now there is
enough laws on the books that protect the workers, there is really no need
for union protection. Unions now only serve themselves and create high
wages and benefits that most companies cannot afford, but what choice does
the company have in today's society. Union's still project the image that
they are their to protect the worker, when it is now no longer necessary
because of the current laws.
Paul T.
--
The only dumb question, is the one not asked
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" wrote
>>
>> Not to mention the electric eco cars cost more to build, operate, and
>> dispose of during their whole life span than a Hummer does through out
>> its whole life span.
>>
> But, but Leon....., electic cars are just SOOOOOOO...., trendy and in!!!!
>
> And Hummers are just so icky masculine and retro.
That is probably the real issue. Or eco drivers are have Hummer envy. ;~)
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I think I now understand why you're not married...
Honestly, I don't think I've ever sworn in front of a woman, not in person
anyway.My swearing is a vice that seldom pokes it's head out. In this case
it's trotted out solely for Tim's sake because he refers to it so often.
On Dec 15, 2:40=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> The reason the Big 3 are in trouble financially has *nothing* to do
> with executive compensation. It also has very little to do with the
> quality of their cars or whether people like their products. In actual
> fact, Detroit has never built better, more reliable cars that today
> are easily on par with the best of Japan or Europe. (Despite what the
> half wits in the media and those who believe them on their face say to
> the contrary.)
Do you include the folks at Consumer Reports in with those half-wits?
Oh - I'm cutting the best hand-cut dovetails I've ever cut, so I
should be able to command respect (and prices) like Garrett Hack?
In most things I agree with you, but this jumped out at me as a little
bit ludicrous.
JP
Morris Dovey wrote:
> PHT wrote:
>
>> If you stop and think about the reason unions was created in the first
>> place, to protect the workers, there was a need at that time. Now
>> there is
>> enough laws on the books that protect the workers, there is really no
>> need
>> for union protection.
>
> On the surface, it would seem so - but I worry that there are too many
> enterprises would pay only the mandated minimum wage. I'm not
> hypothesizing here - and historically single-enterprise communities were
> virtually enslaved before the advent of the American labor movement.
>
> You might find it an interesting exercise to extend that minimum wage to
> an annual gross income (multiply by 40 hours/week and again by 52
> weeks/year) and divide by 12 for a monthly gross income. Then consider
> the quality of life afforded by the resulting /net/ (after deductions)
> income. To make it real, would you choose that for yourself/your
> kids/your grandchildren?
No. That's why I took the time to become educated and develop skills
that could command higher wages. The essential fraud of the union
movement is that people are somehow innately "worth" whatever the
union says. Ordinarily, I don't care - let the unions and employers
work things out and let the marketplace dictate an employee's economic
value. But government has shown a repeated willingness to step in and
distort this process. One example is government intrusion in the form
of binding arbitration - surely not an enumerated power of the
government. Most recently, we see the "UAW Bailout Of 2008" begged for
before Congress. Both of these kinds of things distort the
price/feedback mechanism that should be setting the salary points for
union employees (and everyone else, for that matter). A similar
example is the insistence of the unions that they need a law
that forces votes to unionize to be public - a complete breach
of personal privacy and trust that the Obama bunch has already
said they will *support*.
>
>> Unions now only serve themselves and create high
>> wages and benefits that most companies cannot afford, but what choice
>> does
>> the company have in today's society. Union's still project the image that
>> they are their to protect the worker, when it is now no longer necessary
>> because of the current laws.
>
> Almost. I'm not a fan of trade unions, but there are situations in which
> there is no way an individual can negotiate a just solution to a problem.
>
> I think the best we can do is try to achieve some reasonable measure of
> balance - and it would seem that unions may be one of the tools for
> doing that.
>
I don't think "achieving balance" is even necessary. Let all the parties
to this discussion (the unions, the employers) alone. Pass no laws that
particularly favor either party. Require civil and legal behavior
on both parts and make them *negotiate*. If there is a shortage of
labor, the unions will get better terms. If there are plenty of
candidates for the work, then the contract will favor the employer.
Markets work when we let them. Employment markets are no different.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> You've just claimed to have been involved and also run several
> companies.
>>> How about the name of those companies? If you did as good a job as
> you're
>>> about to claim, then there's no harm in letting people know those
> company
>>> names so at least once someone can verify some of your claims. You won't
>>> though, because you can't.
>
> Name at least one company that you worked for as management that can be
> verified. No personal information to be lost there.
I was Chief Technologist at Covia Technologies.
I was VP Of Architecture at Time0 - at least one other Wrecker can
verify this, though I would not ask him to do this or he'll get cursed
by you.
>
> Name some of the small companies you ran. No personal information to be lost
> there.
I currently own my own company, TundraWare Inc. ... and I can verify it.
(Incorporated in IL)
Many, many years ago, I owned T&R Communications, a sole proprietorship.
I await your apology for calling me a liar.
>
> You won't do either because all you offer is commentary without substance.
> All you do is talk without ever backing ANY of it up. At least when Doug
> called me a liar, I was willing to put myself on the line to prove him
> wrong. You can't do that, can you?
Waiting for that apology.
>
> Show up Christmas day? Riiiight! You say it because you know it will never
> happen.
>
> You're full of unsubstantiated claims which you offer up as proof of
> something, but amount to ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
Still waiting.
>
> That's your life isn't it? You've incessantly accused me of theft based
> solely against the rights granted every citizen in my country. Sheer
No civil person considers stealing from their fellow citizens a "right".
> sophistry without substance. As I've stated before, you're just some sad
> little flake without a life.
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Dec 16, 7:49=A0pm, "LD" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > "Leon" wrote:
>
> >> The that added expense would be short lived.
>
> > I don't understand. What is short lived about spending large amounts of
> > money.
>
> >>If you know you are going to die, you would be more likely to not break
> >>the law. =A0Right now the system is absolutely going in the wrong
> >>dirrection.
>
> > The old execution question.
>
> > Does it or does it not prevent crime?
>
> > Some known facts.
>
> > Murder is by and large a crime of passion between people who know each
> > other so a legal deterrent doesn't apply in those situations.
>
> > People who are sentenced to death are usually poor and not able to affo=
rd
> > adequate representation to avoid the death penalty.
>
> > Blacks and others of color are by and large, most likely to receive the
> > death penalty.
>
> > There is nothing "bleeding heart" about the above, they are just facts.
>
> > Ohio and Michigan are very similar in many respects.
>
> > Both Midwestern, similar size, similar size population, similar ethnic =
mix
> > of people, similar industrial and/or agricultural mix of business.
>
> > They do have a basic difference.
>
> > Ohio has the death penalty, Michigan does not.
>
> > These states have been studied for years.
>
> > What sticks out is that the capital murder rate, as a percentage of
> > population, in Michigan is about equal to that in Ohio, year after year=
.
>
> > The death penalty in Ohio does not reduce the capital murder rate below
> > that of Michigan.
>
> > Texas, Georgia, and Florida have the highest execution rates in the
> > country, but it doesn't seem to affect their capital murder rates.
>
> > There is conclusive evidence that execution doesn't serve as a deterren=
t.
>
> > OTOH, there is the "feel good" factor, "By god, that's one SOB we don't
> > have to worry about anymore."
>
> > In this day and age, there has to be a better way of dealing with man's
> > inhumanity to man other than state sanctioned murder.
>
> > Lew
>
> A quick Lobotomy and back on the street!
NOT a good idea. There enough French Canadians on this planet already.
On Dec 15, 2:52=A0pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hell, Bubba ... just last Friday morning, probably the "most well known",
> "most respected", "most revered" member of the Wall Street financial
> community, a man held in the highest regard and esteem by hundreds of
> thousands of the smartest, savviest, richest folks in the world, a founde=
r
> of NASDAQ and one its past Chairman ...
>
> .... turned out to be nothing but, a THIEF!
They need to bring him down here to Texas for the trial. After the
Enron and other scandals, we might get the death penalty for his sorry
ass.
He sure deserves it. How does one man even control 50 billion dollars
by himself? I read a lot about this, and apparently he has had this
under his hat as his own little project for almost 40 years.
I'll bet if the market had held, he would still be going strong.
Sounds to me like it's time to fire up old Sparky.
Robert
Jay Pique wrote:
> On Dec 15, 9:26 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm not questioning that there has been a quality problem in Detroit.
>> There has been. My point is merely that this is not the central
>> issue before us today as they come whining to the rest of us to
>> bail their butts out. The central issue is their insane labor
>> costs. Oh, and BTW, I do think Detroit is building a better and
>> better product - even CR has noted this in some sectors of the
>> auto marketplace.
>
> Well, I did see that an American car did take top honors in a category
> this past year. It was "Best American Sedan". I love that one.
> Saying Detroit is making a better and better product says pretty much
> nothing. One would certainly hope they aren't turning out vehicles
> that are progressively worse! If what you are saying is that they are
> closing the gap on foreign competition then I'm not so sure I agree.
> And, regardless, the perception is that they are making an inferior
> product and the consumers are turning elsewhere.
>
> JP
Like I said, this is not simple:
http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/782/the-years-bestand-worst-selling-cars
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Are a sign of class envy. This is based on Upscale's consistent pattern
> of ideation here, not drawn out of thin air. (A consistent pattern, BTW,
> that he is unwilling to be held accountable for insofar as he hides
> behind an anonymous email identity.)
My email address is a working and easily verifiable one. If you were nearly
as smart as you think you are, then you'd have done a search on it and come
up with my name a long time ago. Why don't I reveal it to you? Because it
irritates you that I don't. Ok with that Asshole? A siginificant number of
people here use an alias. So what? You're still and asshole.
> Which of these are an insult?
Every paragraph you write has an insult or a criticism of some sort.
> I also apologize that you find "well-practised and well-honed" language
> offensive. When I grew up, mastery of language was considered a
> virtue not a vice or a debating tactic. I'm sorry it was apparently
> not so for you.
There's another insult. You don't have any virtue. You're a selfish, greedy,
consistent liar who has no conscious regard for anyone else except yourself.
There's absolutely no virtue in that.
> I am consistently "nice". I have strong opinions, and some explication
> of fact. What I do not do is curse at people and use vulgar invective
Maybe not you dumb fuck, but you insult people just the same. Just because
you trot out a few chosen phrases and criticise someone without swearing
puts you up on a pedestal as far as you're concerned.
You are an asshole of the first degree. Every time someone calls you on
something, you bring out some UNVERIFIABLE answer. Care for some examples?
You were accused of prejudice at one point. You trotted out the fact that
you not only had a black relative, but a black relative that was darker than
most. - UNVERIFIABLE
When accused of not contributing to charity, you claimed that you not only
donated to charity, but you donated anonymously, the ultimate in
unselfishness. - UNVERIFIABLE
You've just claimed to have been involved and also run several companies.
How about the name of those companies? If you did as good a job as you're
about to claim, then there's no harm in letting people know those company
names so at least once someone can verify some of your claims. You won't
though, because you can't. You're a veteran liar with Doug Miller as your
cowardly running mate.
That fact is that ALL YOU DO is talk without ever offering ANY type of
substance. You're an asshole of the first degree and I'm perfectly happy to
swear at you whenever I feel like it.
GOT THAT FUCK FACE?
Leon wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>
>>> You can look at that way but the fact that most CEO's have a golden
>>> parachute there is no incentive to make a company perform better.
>>>
>>>
>> I am not "looking at it" in any particular way. Businesses exist
>> solely to make money for their owners. When they fail to make money,
>> we who own a piece of them (as most of us with retirement funds and/or
>> multual funds and/or ETF postions ... i.e., Most of the working
>> class), should be asking *why* they are not profitable, not flogging
>> the anti-Capitalist Marxism so popular with the new administration,
>> not to mention many of th the voices here on the Wreck.
>
> Not profitable because of piss poor management and decision making.
Almost *all* of which surrounds the question of labor costs.
The rest is just rounding error.
>
>
>> The reason the Big 3 are in trouble financially has *nothing* to do
>> with executive compensation.
>
> Yeah, it kinda does. Had they had to balls to run a business like a
> business should be run there would be fewer problems.
You've obviously never actually run a company of any size. You cannot
"run a business like a business" when every do-gooder, union wart,
anti-Capitalist, earth hugger, and various other societal bottom feeders
are demanding you do things their way even if it is irrational or, possibly
even (in the case of the UAW), insane. The Big Three are not free to run
their business to the satisfaction of their shareholders. They have
a culture full of science dropouts and closet Marxists in their face
on a regular basis telling them what to do.
>
>
>
> It also has very little to do with the
>> quality of their cars or whether people like their products.
>
> And that is BS also. Having made my living selling GM products and retired
> at 40 I can assure you that the quality of the competition blows away the
> Big 3 quality.
And I can tell your from immediate and recent experience that you're
dead wrong - at least for trucks. We have owned many Japanese products
in my household as well as a number of GM, I am in pretty good
position to have seen the span of quality. What you say was true 20
years ago, it's not any more. My 2008 Chev Tahoe is easily the better
of my previously owned Nissan Pathfinder. This Tahoe replaces a 1995
model that gave me 138000 miles of happy trails with only two major
mechanical malfunctions.
Cars are another matter. No one in Detroit seems to know how to
build a car worth a crap until you get into the luxury segment, and
even there, they're not incredible. Honda consistently builds
outstanding cars and if I wanted a car, that's what I'd buy.
Toyota is overrated and is starting to look like GM 20 years ago
with their maintenance problems and poor customer service. Nissan
has been fine, if a little disconnected in their customer support.
(The new 2008 Tahoe would have been a 2008 Pathfinder if the dealer
had ever called me back as he promised.)
But again, I don't think this is the major problem with the Big Three
money issues. They just can't afford to be competitive, invest in
new technology, reengineer their cars regularly, and so on when
they're paying layed off workers full salary and benefits for
life (not an exaggeration).
>
> In actual
>> fact, Detroit has never built better, more reliable cars that today
>> are easily on par with the best of Japan or Europe.
>
> Partially true, they have never built better, a few of their vehicles are on
> par but as a whole, still way behind.
As I said, they build the best trucks in the world, and most of their cars
are uninspiring. How they can manage to get the fit and finish right on
a light truck, but not a Malibu is just beyond me.
>
>
> (Despite what the
>> half wits in the media and those who believe them on their face say to
>> the contrary.) No, Detroit is in trouble because their labor costs are
>> out of control, and the structure of their bargaining unit labor deals
>> is flatly insane. If you want to blame the executives for something,
>> blame them for not standing down the sleazy, greedy union leadership
>> and membership and forcing them to live in the real world.
>
> Well that "is" what I am blaming the executives for, piss poor management
> and no balls.
Easy to say (and I agree), but hard to do. When you have closet
Marxists running the unions, the universities, the media, and now,
finally, the new Presidency, its hard to stand up and say "Everyone
has to earn their own keep." In truth, the Auto "Bailout" is a UAW
bailout promoted by the congressional pigs on the left (but I repeat
myself) and with the assent of many parts of the right as well. This
is happening because a depressing proportion of the population believes
in some version of the execrable "Labor Theory Of Value." This same
population is either to dumb or dishonest to acknowledge that the LTV
is an essentially Marxist construct.
>
>> Your or my lack of wealth is not caused by someone else having wealth.
>> This is a lie to its foundations, but it is subtly peddled as fact
>> by misbegotten threads like this. I do not begrudge anyone any amount
>> of wealth so long as they did not steal or defraud to get it. The
>> reason the corporate CEOs get these big exit packages isn't that
>> hard to figure out:
>>
>> 1) There are few people in the world with the experience and brains
>> to run a $100+ Billion company. Constrained supply creates high
>> salaries and packages.
>
> Correct and beggs the question why we are paying these inept CEO's these
> large salaries and give them golden parachures. They absolutely do not
> qualify to run these companies or draw that kind of salary.
Because the alternatives are worse, and finding quality people even willing
to do it is hard. I was once an executive in a very small private firm
with visions of becoming a public company. I would *never* serve as
an exec in a public firm in today's whining political climate. I don't
need to work 70 hr weeks, and then have some smelly hippie retread tell
me I make too much money. No thanks. And I am not alone in this. I
know a good number of capable, honest, and hard working people who
have lost all taste for being in leadership roles in any public company.
>
>
>> 2) It used to be that execs made most of their money on stock options.
>> Then the 1990s came along and people saw these options vault into
>> the stratosphere in value - mostly in the IT sector. The usual
>> class warrior crybabies started whining about "execessive CEO pay"
>> and many companies stopped handing out options and paid higher
>> salaries instead. This is tragic, as stock options and grants
>> are the best way I know to incent a leader to make the company grow.
>
> And back then we had decent execs, pay plans these days attract the rif
> raff.
You're kidding yourself. There were plenty of bad execs back in the
day (I know, I worked for some of them). But there were good ones then
as well. The difference, as I said above, is that good people are
getting leary about working for public companies because the general
culture, the government, and the regulatory environment make doing so
not worth it. (You will see the same thing happen as people exit the
medical profession when Our Lord and Savior Comrade Obama turns in
into a socialist gulag.)
>
>> 3) It is the Board Of Directors that sets executive compensation. The
>> BOD answers to the stockholders. Guess what? Most of the stockholders
>> are actually fine with the current executive comp. If they were not,
>> they'd stage a stockholder revolt and throw out the incumbent board
>> and executives.
>
> Apparently this is not true, there has been no revolt. Having a sizeable of
> money in the market for the last 15 years, my little proportion has little
> influnce on their decision making.
Have you ever once complained to the BOD? To your mutual fund? To anyone
associated with the companies you think are overpaying their execs
and/or badly run?
>
>
> The stockholders, BTW, are mostly folks like us -
>> individuals who own a piece of these big companies via some kind
>> of fund or aggregate investment vehicle. If everyone is so upset
>> about executive comp, why do they not rise up and do something
>> about it?
>
> Because we each probably own less than .00001% of the total shares and that
> does not have much pull with the decision makers.
But together, we own an overwhelming amount of the stock. Our "together"
is expressed in collective investment vehicles which we CAN influence.
It is ironic that the execs actually should be paid MORE if we want
them to be better at what they do. Instead of paying them huge salaries,
they should own more of the companies they run. If their primary source
of income was determined based on their company's long term performance,
they'd do a much better job. But, as I said, the class warrior whiners
made sure that stock options with long vesting cycles got more-or-less
eliminated.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Dec 15, 6:46=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Dec 15, 3:45 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> You've obviously never actually run a company of any size. =A0
>
> > Have you?
>
> I have been on the leadership staff of 3 companies, in all cases
> reporting to the CEO (with one brief exception). =A0I have run a couple
> very small companies of my own.
>
> > Fuckface?
>
> This no doubt, is you being nice.
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Come on, bro'! A bit of friendly banter *slaps Timbo's shoulder in a
gesture of friendship*
I'm sorry, was that a little too forceful? <G>
I'm just really sorry that I don't have the same opinion of you that
you have of yourself. My bad.
Soooo. tell us all about it.. you ran some companies of your own? What
happened to them?
Highland Pairos wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Highland Pairos wrote:
>>> . A
>>> common sense discussion about the needs of the motoring public makes it
>>> very
>>> clear that most people do not NEED trucks or SUVs, and recent gas pricing
>> I disagree. I regularly engage in activities that require a large
>> storage area. I do not *always* need it, but when I do, no car would
>> serve the purpose as well as an SUV.
>
> There are most definatley those who do need large vehicles. I am not at all
> saying that there is no market for trucks and SUV. Rather I believe that the
> Big 3 has simply over relyed on them.
>
>>> has forced people to reevaluate their purchasing decisions. It seems to
>>> me
>> I bought my SUV when gas was $4/gal - it was a great buying opportunity.
>
> If you have the need for one, now is a monumentally good time to buy.
>
>>> that smart product strategy would be to develop a bread and butter,
>>> reliable
>>> straight forward automobile that will satisfy the wants and needs of the
>>> greatest number of people. That main product line can then be coupled
>>> with
>>> additional vehicle types that fill the needs of the smaller market
>>> segments,
>>> (i.e. contractors, boat owners, those that really do need to get through
>>> a
>>> major snow, sports car enthusiasts.)
>> This is what they should have done. Then again, the money was all being
>> made in light trucks and SUVs, not cars. So .. they went where the money
>> was. They failed to read the changes in the industry effectively and
>> got caught with the pants down.
>
> Agreed.
>
> . Why is Chrysler
>>> returning to the days of big motored rear-wheel drive cars, (i.e. the
>>> Charger, Magnum, etc.) when the mainline, practical concept is that of
>>> front-wheel drive small displacement 4 and 6 cylinder cars?
>> Because these really are the cars people like ... or at least that's
>> what they did like. The eco-weenies want everyone to drive a
>> shoebox that is vegan and ugly, but that's not what the buying public
>> really wants. They want comfort, safety, reliability, AND some
>> level of fuel economy.
>
> I would point to the sales figures for those cars versus those of Camrys,
> Accords, Priuses, Sentras, etc to dispute what it is that people really
> want. Eco-weenies aren't forcing people to buy the vehicles that they do.
> (They might want to, but they don't)
>
>>> If you look at the relatively recent history of the Big 3 and their
>>> products, you have to notice the successes. What was the product that
>>> saved
>>> Chrysler once before? The Aries K platform, midsized, front wheel drive,
>>> practical and flexible. That platform was used for so many different
>>> vehicles, its amazing. What saved Ford in the late 80's? The Taurus,
>>> midsized, front wheel drive, straight forward automobile. What have the
>> Especially the SHO with that big honking Yamaha power plant in it.
>>
>>> Japanese been selling by the boatload (or trainload)? Small to midsized,
>>> front wheel drive, 4 and 6 cylinder sedans.
>>>
>
>> The market changed faster than they could react. I'd argue this was
>> both because of a lack of vision in leadership, AND an inflexible,
>> archaic labor rewards system.
>
> I definatley agree with the lack of vision AND leadership, and am curious
> how the labor agreement impacts product strategy.
>
> SteveP.
>
>
Because the ability to change market direction quickly requires a
flexible workforce. Many of the the past UAW contracts were completely
inflexible with draconian workrules and terms. It's hard to turn
the company on a dime when labor is dragging its feed.
As you say, there's lot's of blame to go around here from senior mangement,
to the Board, to the UAW leadership, to the worker bees themselves.
Personally, I love GM truck products and hope they stay in business,
just not by stealing my- and my fellow citizens' money.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Dec 15, 9:26=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not questioning that there has been a quality problem in Detroit.
> There has been. =A0My point is merely that this is not the central
> issue before us today as they come whining to the rest of us to
> bail their butts out. =A0The central issue is their insane labor
> costs. =A0Oh, and BTW, I do think Detroit is building a better and
> better product - even CR has noted this in some sectors of the
> auto marketplace.
Well, I did see that an American car did take top honors in a category
this past year. It was "Best American Sedan". I love that one.
Saying Detroit is making a better and better product says pretty much
nothing. One would certainly hope they aren't turning out vehicles
that are progressively worse! If what you are saying is that they are
closing the gap on foreign competition then I'm not so sure I agree.
And, regardless, the perception is that they are making an inferior
product and the consumers are turning elsewhere.
JP
Excellent, Dude.
It should never smell like bait.
tom
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:56:02 -0600, Morris Dovey <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Ed Edelenbos wrote:
>> "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Upscale wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
>>>> my wages to save my job.
>>>
>>> On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
>>> they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the
>>> person sitting /next/ to them...
>>
>> That's my problem with the (modern) unions. It's no longer about
>> supporting the workers, it's about maintaining the union... sometimes
>> at the expense of the workers!
>
>Too often true. One possible remedy in this case might be to also
>require reorganization of the UAW chapters into independent
>(unaffiliated) plant unions, so that workers could retain the
>protections and benefits of collective bargaining without a single union
>having a strangle hold on such a large portion of the economy...
>
>...just a thought.
Regards,
Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 19, 8:18 pm, "David G. Nagel" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> NO matter the numbers in foreign countries, they still come to the USA
>> to fine quality living.
>
> For how long?
>
> You are still living in the past, my friend. You seem to think that
> what the mighty USA once stood for cannot be superceded from either
> the outside or from within.
>
> I do hope that you will get it together and find yourselves again, but
> for now, you're getting walked on by the competition.
> That kind of onslaught has momentum. It will take years to stave off
> the waves before your efforts will once gain (and I hope) make you
> leaders of the free world.
> You really have no idea the damage that last administration has done
> to your once great country.
> No idea at all.
> And then to think that Obama will somehow rescue you, is folly.
> Either one of two things will happen:
> The Obama camp will motivate the American public to do with less and
> start a recovery
> or
> You've been had by an imposter who is really no different than any
> other blood-sucking overlord.
My wife's best friend and her husband are from Indian. My wife's
friend's brother is a General in the Army in India. Her husband had to
come to the US to get a job. All slots for his cast were filled back home.
As to the great damage that the last administration has done to the US,
well they are back for a second chance. Or do you mean the present
administration? Please tell me if you can.
"Rusty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> If unions go down you can count on 10$ an hour as a high wage for the
> middle class as the greedy 5% scoop up all the easy cash.
I would sure like to see if that turns out to be ture or not.
If it turns out to be true, the unions will be back but for now the unions
are a big part of the problem. I't probably not a bad thing to get paid for
your actual worth.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:51:28 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:
>
>> Your input makes me a bit less resistant to Tim's position that
>> education should be privatized (but not enough so that I'm willing to
>> adopt his view without a /lot/ more information).
>
> Private education in this country consists of high end "exclusive"
> academies for the rich and schools operated by religious groups. There
> are few affordable secular private schools.
Not even remotely true. There are plenty of people home schooling
their children for a fraction of the cost of public- or private
schools. And these home schooled children consistently outperform
their public schooled counterparts academically when they later attend
higher education.
Moreover, I think the real cost of public schools is way, way higher
than most people believe. Something like $3000/yr of my property taxes
go to the school system. But ... this is far from the whole story.
There are state, local, and county sales taxes getting poured into the
educational system. Then there are the many Federal taxes that are
levied (income, excise, import duties, service fees ...) some portion
of which get sent back to the States for education. Then there is the
money sent to the educators from State lotteries and other gambling
sources. Finally, there are private sector institutions and
individuals that donate time, materials, and money to their local
schools. If someone could tally this all up, I'd guess that a public
school education actually costs more than a private education and - on
average - produces a more poorly educated graduate. But, by golly,
those public school grads have been well versed in identity politics,
tolerance (for everything but traditional Judeo-Christian values),
sexual politics, and collectivist political ideology.
A depressing number of Americans are incapable of imagining a world in
which government is not their Mommy and Daddy, There is thus little
widespread interest in exploring private school options for the
masses.
>
> And private education for a fee is an unaffordable tax on the poor,
> especially if it remains illegal to not send your kids to school. A
> tax supported system is the only chance many poor kids have to get a
> smattering of education, even if the school quality is low.
>
There are many implicit and wrong assumptions in this paragraph:
1) You assume that - in the face of a more rational tax system -
there would not be sufficient charity to educate those in genuine
need. I might point out that my undergrad program paid *100%* of
*every* student's tuition once they were accepted to study there.
It was and is a parochial program paid for by the alumni (as opposed
to paying for, say, a football stadium). So, yes, Virginia, it
is possible to have education paid for entirely in the private sector.
2) You assume that tax supported immediately leads to public schools.
Vouchers are one compromise way to improve what we have today
considerably by putting the parents in the position to have real
school choice. You get both tax support and a strong imperative
to move to private education and/or massively improve public schools.
These are opposed notably by the NEA because the teachers' union
does not want their constituency to be meaningfully held accountable
for their work product.
3) You can't fix education without fixing the lousy parenting that
dominates the culture. This lousy parenting transcends demography
and geography. It isn't just inner city ghetto dwellers ignoring
the education of their children, its the lily white suburbanites
as well. Where children have become an income stream to the
putative poor, they've become a fashion accessory to the affluent.
It's kind of hard to educate a child when their own parents
aren't paying attention. "Tax support" does not fix this in
any way. In fact, it is "tax support" that created the
"children as an revenue stream" problem in the first place.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> You can look at that way but the fact that most CEO's have a golden
>> parachute there is no incentive to make a company perform better.
>>
>>
> I am not "looking at it" in any particular way. Businesses exist
> solely to make money for their owners. When they fail to make money,
> we who own a piece of them (as most of us with retirement funds and/or
> multual funds and/or ETF postions ... i.e., Most of the working
> class), should be asking *why* they are not profitable, not flogging
> the anti-Capitalist Marxism so popular with the new administration,
> not to mention many of th the voices here on the Wreck.
Not profitable because of piss poor management and decision making.
>
> The reason the Big 3 are in trouble financially has *nothing* to do
> with executive compensation.
Yeah, it kinda does. Had they had to balls to run a business like a
business should be run there would be fewer problems.
It also has very little to do with the
> quality of their cars or whether people like their products.
And that is BS also. Having made my living selling GM products and retired
at 40 I can assure you that the quality of the competition blows away the
Big 3 quality.
In actual
> fact, Detroit has never built better, more reliable cars that today
> are easily on par with the best of Japan or Europe.
Partially true, they have never built better, a few of their vehicles are on
par but as a whole, still way behind.
(Despite what the
> half wits in the media and those who believe them on their face say to
> the contrary.) No, Detroit is in trouble because their labor costs are
> out of control, and the structure of their bargaining unit labor deals
> is flatly insane. If you want to blame the executives for something,
> blame them for not standing down the sleazy, greedy union leadership
> and membership and forcing them to live in the real world.
Well that "is" what I am blaming the executives for, piss poor management
and no balls.
>
> Your or my lack of wealth is not caused by someone else having wealth.
> This is a lie to its foundations, but it is subtly peddled as fact
> by misbegotten threads like this. I do not begrudge anyone any amount
> of wealth so long as they did not steal or defraud to get it. The
> reason the corporate CEOs get these big exit packages isn't that
> hard to figure out:
>
> 1) There are few people in the world with the experience and brains
> to run a $100+ Billion company. Constrained supply creates high
> salaries and packages.
Correct and beggs the question why we are paying these inept CEO's these
large salaries and give them golden parachures. They absolutely do not
qualify to run these companies or draw that kind of salary.
> 2) It used to be that execs made most of their money on stock options.
> Then the 1990s came along and people saw these options vault into
> the stratosphere in value - mostly in the IT sector. The usual
> class warrior crybabies started whining about "execessive CEO pay"
> and many companies stopped handing out options and paid higher
> salaries instead. This is tragic, as stock options and grants
> are the best way I know to incent a leader to make the company grow.
And back then we had decent execs, pay plans these days attract the rif
raff.
>
> 3) It is the Board Of Directors that sets executive compensation. The
> BOD answers to the stockholders. Guess what? Most of the stockholders
> are actually fine with the current executive comp. If they were not,
> they'd stage a stockholder revolt and throw out the incumbent board
> and executives.
Apparently this is not true, there has been no revolt. Having a sizeable of
money in the market for the last 15 years, my little proportion has little
influnce on their decision making.
The stockholders, BTW, are mostly folks like us -
> individuals who own a piece of these big companies via some kind
> of fund or aggregate investment vehicle. If everyone is so upset
> about executive comp, why do they not rise up and do something
> about it?
Because we each probably own less than .00001% of the total shares and that
does not have much pull with the decision makers.
I would love to tour the Southland
In a travelling minstrel show
Yes I'd love to tour the Southland
In a traveling minstrel show
Yes I'm dying to be a star and make them laugh
Sound just like a record on the phonograph
Those days are gone forever
Over a long time ago, oh yeah
I have never met Napoleon
But I plan to find the time
I have never met Napoleon
But I plan to find the time
'Cause he looks so fine upon that hill
They tell me he was lonely, he's lonely still
Those days are gone forever
Over a long time ago, oh yeah
I stepped up on the platform
The man gave me the news
He said, You must be joking son
Where did you get those shoes?
Where did you get those shoes?
Well, I've seen 'em on the TV, the movie show
They say the times are changing but I just don't know
These things are gone forever
Regards,
Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > You've just claimed to have been involved and also run several
companies.
> > How about the name of those companies? If you did as good a job as
you're
> > about to claim, then there's no harm in letting people know those
company
> > names so at least once someone can verify some of your claims. You won't
> > though, because you can't.
Name at least one company that you worked for as management that can be
verified. No personal information to be lost there.
Name some of the small companies you ran. No personal information to be lost
there.
You won't do either because all you offer is commentary without substance.
All you do is talk without ever backing ANY of it up. At least when Doug
called me a liar, I was willing to put myself on the line to prove him
wrong. You can't do that, can you?
Show up Christmas day? Riiiight! You say it because you know it will never
happen.
You're full of unsubstantiated claims which you offer up as proof of
something, but amount to ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
That's your life isn't it? You've incessantly accused me of theft based
solely against the rights granted every citizen in my country. Sheer
sophistry without substance. As I've stated before, you're just some sad
little flake without a life.
Rusty wrote:
> How are unions the problem? Gm I believe has some of the best productivity
> levels in the auto industry.It's about a liveable wage ,you can always find
> someone to do it cheaper. If that ceo that ran GM into the ground is worth
> 15 million a year. I'm sure you or I could run GM into the bankruptcy for
> allot less.
You are conveniently ignoring the elephant in the room. GM
productivity is high because of very high levels of automation,
not because the union 'workers' are working harder. Moreover,
GM is stuck paying ridiculous benefits that no other working
group in America enjoys. Among these are - for some classes
of UAW members - being paid full salary and benefits forever
after being laid off. This is not a living wage, it is
insanity. More to the point, some bolt tightener in a factory
isn't worth something in the area of $80/hr (depending whose
numbers are accurate) when you take into account base and
benefits.
I've seen more than one company ruined by union greed.
Fortunately, this time, the UAW has their fellow Communists
running the congress and will likely get a "UAW Bailout" bill
passed in some form with minimal concessions on their part.
Instead of just running the companies into the ground, the UAW
will simply waddle up to the public trough like all the other
pigs and demand the rest of us maintain their quality of life.
The problem is, with all the swine at the trough, just who is
going to be left to actually produce new wealth so the old, lazy
pigs (the execs, the unions, the financial companies, the
individuals in excessive debt ...) can continue to eat for
"free"?????
P.S. The CEO didn't run GM into the ground, the UAW did. The
CEO just didn't do his job and the tell the union to go
scratch. The best part of all this may be that these
jobs will be lost forever and end up in China or
Indonesia. I'd love to see the UAW idiots take on the
Chinese government...
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Rusty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> If unions go down you can count on 10$ an hour as a high wage for the
>>> middle class as the greedy 5% scoop up all the easy cash.
>> I would sure like to see if that turns out to be ture or not.
>>
>> If it turns out to be true, the unions will be back but for now the unions
>> are a big part of the problem. I't probably not a bad thing to get paid
>> for your actual worth.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>
>> Hang on a second here. Yes, education is expensive. Just how is
>> it cheaper if it is public? I'd argue that public education - if the
>> real and complete costs are tallied - is *more* expensive than
>> private because there is no market feedback to make it efficient.
>> By some estimates, the US now spends more per student, inflation
>> adjusted, than at any time since education went public, and the results
>> are declining on average. This is not a money problem.
>
> 'Scuse me but /you/ were the person who made it a tax->money issue. If
> you'd like me to agree that we should be seeing a better result for the
> money spent, I can go along with that...
>
Not quite. My argument is:
1) Government has no enumerated power to be in the education business
(at least the Federal govt doesn't).
2) Private is not more expensive than Public if honest accounting
is used.
3) You cannot get good results in a system that inherently has no
accountability or feedback.
Therefore schools should be private, not tax funded, and parents
ought to be held accountable for the education of their children.
For the rather small percentage of the population that actually
cannot afford to do this, there is considerable charity available ...
and there would be even more if the egregious taxation system
were eliminated.
Failing this plan, at the very least, we should kick the Federal
government out of the education space entirely - where, as I said
it has no legal authority to act - an demand that State and local
governments tax as necessary to carry their own water in these
matters.
> But first, let's decide on what problem we'd like to solve.
>
>>> Yabbut - in a democracy "rights" are what the people decide they are,
>>> whether they make sense or seem appropriate to you or not. By choosing
>>> to live in a democracy we accept a social contract to live by the rules
>>> chosen by the majority. One of the good things about our democracy is
>>> that we've incorporated mechanisms to change those rules whenever a
>>> majority so elects.
>>
>> Well again, hang on:
>>
>> 1) The "rights" everyone is trying to vote themselves are not
>> under the purview of the Federal government because it has
>> no enumerated power to grant such gifts. To legally elect
>> themselves these freebies, the Sheeple ought to change the
>> Constitution. They won't, moochers are never that honest.
>
> There's no need for a specific constitutional authority, any more than
> there is for, say, sanitation. It's sufficient that duly elected
> legislators passed legislation authorizing expenditures.
Sorry, that is not the nature of the US Constitution as written and
intended. The *Federal* government was to be limited to a very few so
called "enumerated powers*. All other matters, by direct
Constitutional mandate, were to be managed by the individual citizens
or the several States. To grant the Federal government more power
legally requires a change to the Constitution.
However, ever since FDR, the moochers have been on the upswing and
have found all manner of non-existent Federal jurisdictions by flat
out fraudulent Constitutional interpretations. FDR himself
acknowledged this insofar as he new that the New (bad) Deal was itself
non-Constitutional in many ways. That's why he tried to pack the
Supreme Court. In short, if the population does not demand its
representatives act lawfully, then it makes very little difference
what is written down. Today's Federal leviathan would horrify the
Framers and lives in direct contradiction to the intent of the
Constitution to keep the Federal government small.
>
>> 2) Some rights - the ones explicated in our Constitution - are
>> innate and freely distributed to all. My right to free speech
>> does not diminish your similar right. But the "rights" people
>> are inventing for themselves are not equally distributed.
>> They are "rights" granted to some citizens at the expense
>> of others. This is not a honest theory of rights, its just
>> stealing under mob rule masquerading as a "right".
>
> The last time I looked around, public education was available to all -
> and I didn't see any provision for exclusions. Are you aware of someone
> who was denied access to that? If so, I'd be very interested in hearing
> the story...
My child was denied the education I could afford to get them
privately because I could not pay for that private program AND
simultaneously be forced to continue to support the debauched
public program. Giving everyone equal access to the lowest common
denominator does not justify calling it an inherent "right". In
my case, my family's "rights" were diminished to the benefit of
another family's. This is a net imbalance in liberty wherein the
government chooses the winners and losers completely absent any
investigation of merit or appropriateness. More generally, any
activity of government beyond the defense of liberty and law itself
pretty much always yields and imbalance like this where there are
beneficiaries and (unwilling) benefactors, and it's always morally
wrong to do so.
Even more broadly, someone's need for something - no matter how real,
important, legitimate, or urgent - does not grant them the moral
permission to loot someone else's treasure - no matter how much that
other person has. A starving man does not have moral authority to
steal from the wealthy man. The starving mad has moral permission to
ask for help, offer to work when and if able, but there is no moral
get-out-of-jail-free card just because he needs something.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 15, 3:45 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You've obviously never actually run a company of any size.
>
> Have you?
I have been on the leadership staff of 3 companies, in all cases
reporting to the CEO (with one brief exception). I have run a couple
very small companies of my own.
> Fuckface?
This no doubt, is you being nice.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>>
>> I am not debating your position here, I am just curious. I know that
>> many
>> of the work rules are ridiculous and inflexible. Are there really rules
>> that prevent the company from designing new and different products and
>> then
>> shifting its production over to that new product?
>
> I'd guess not. But the issue isn't the design phase. The issue is
> just how fast can you train and deploy the workforce to actually
> *build* the new model. Can you use your workforce in multiple roles,
> or do the union contracts insist on very stratified work assignments?
> Can you move work from plant to plant easily to get efficiencies of
> scale? Can you install automation to replace manual labor for
> improved productivity and quality without also having to payoff the
> union for years afterwards?
You are correct in that there is a need to be flexible, and I have not doubt
that the labor contracts do nothing to help with flexibility. I would also
agree with you that labor agreements (or portions thereof) that prevent
that needed flexibility do need to be tossed and better agreements drawn up.
>
> I don't know the answers to these questions, and I'm sure not excusing
> the leadership of the Big Three. But, we're going to hold the CEOs
> accountable here, then let's hold the UAW accountable in equal parts.
100%, absolutley correct. Now if Leon will agree that the Union must share
in the blame, (which he may have already, I would need to go back and read),
I would (if I ran the world) turn the two of you loose on Detroit to work
through the solutions to this problem. Only I would put you with the
management to solve their issues and I would put Leon on the Unions.
>
>
>>
>> As far as the use of taxpayer money is concerned, I have great
>> reservations
>> about our money being used for all of these bailouts. I definitely agree
>> with the principles against bailouts, bad companies that cannot compete
>> should go out of business. However, there are two facts that sway me
>> towards going along with bailouts. #1. The track record of government
>> loans
>> and 'bailouts' to private industry is one of success in terms of the loan
>> itself. I recently heard a list of the 5 major bailouts in the past 50
>> years(?) (I think that was the time frame). The two that I can remember
>> off
>> the top of my head are the Chrysler loan and the S&L debacle. All 5 have
>> been paid back, with interest and on time or early. (The fact that
>> Chrysler
>> is back on the hill, hat in hand, however, causes me to question the long
>> term wisdom of bailouts.) #2. The failure of all three companies in
>> quick
>> succession would be disastrous for this country for quite a while. I
>> believe that there would be a great deal of hardship for many people for
>> a
>> long time. That being said, for one of them to go away I think might be
>> a
>> healthy thinning of the herd. If there is going to be a bailout, I
>> firmly,
>> unwaveringly believe that it needs to be handled as a business matter,
>> not
>> as corporate welfare. The American taxpayers need to view this and
>> conduct
>> themselves as one very large investor. To that end, it is unconscionable
>> that the Big 3 even asked for help with out having a plan prepared to
>> right
>> their ships and convince the potential investors that their money would
>> be
>> well spent. There is no way I will ever support money turned over
>> without a
>> significant address of the problems that a bunch of simple wood butchers
>> like us can identify.
>
> All that is well and good, but here's my fear: The government -
> especially these days - is like an infestation of termites. Once they
> get in, they never go away. A government "managed" car industry will
> be rife with corruption, ridiculous regulation, politically correct
> policy decisions, and so forth. This isn't like Chrysler's loan
> guarantees of the past. This is a full on trade of Capitalism for
> Socialism - many of the politicians are just drooling at that
> opportunity. The truth of this bailout is that it is not a bailout of
> the auto companies. It is a bailout of the unions because bailing
> out the unions buys votes, and votes are all that the political
> types care about.
I also have those concerns that once the government is in the door, they
never leave. I also agree that the major problem in even asking the Big 3
for a business plan is deciding who will evaluate it. There is no one in
Washington in whom I have the confidence in their qualifications, nor the
faith in their integrity to make that evaluation. The issue of further
management and representation of the investors is even harder. One thing
that I firmly believe about 'bailouts' in general is, that if the American
people are going to be investors, they should then be owners, and as such
they should have a seat on the boards of whatever companies are invested in.
I do believe that there are individuals in our society, that if they were
called to serve, and they were to accept, they would have the competency and
the integrity to represent the American investors on the boards of these
companies. The obviously difficult step is to identify those individuals,
and to keep the selection process as non-political as possible.
> The right answer here is to let the car companies go bankrupt. Then,
> under the supervision of a court they could retool their abusive union
> contracts, set rational compensation models for their management team,
> and - most importantly - make everyone involved from the floor
> sweepers to the CEO, stock participants in the company with an
> incentive to grow it and make it better. This would work better and
> faster than having the professional politicians - most of whom have
> never run anything other than their mouths - "manage" a huge, high
> complexity industry.
I am open to the idea of a managed bankruptcy. The only issue in that which
gives me pause is the concern that consumers may not be willing to purchase
automobiles from a company that is in bankruptcy. The consumer may have
profound concerns that the company may go under and be unable to support
their product. The end result being that bankruptcy would only be a path to
failure. I am not convinced that this would be the case but it is a concern
that cannot be dismissed out of hand.
Steve P.
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Dec 15, 10:35=A0am, "Ed Edelenbos" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Upscale wrote:
>
> >> There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
> >> my wages to save my job.
>
> > On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
> > they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the per=
son
> > sitting /next/ to them...
>
> That's my problem with the (modern) unions. =A0It's no longer about suppo=
rting
> the workers, it's about maintaining the union... =A0sometimes at the expe=
nse
> of the workers!
>
> Ed
When it comes to unions, there is no doubt that they were needed at
one time to put a stop to sending mine-workers into unsafe mines and
also to stop railroad barons from working their labourers to death
without adequate pay..... then again, the argument exists that those
barons would do that again if given the chance. And yet, the plants
operated by Toyota and Honda seem to be doing just fine...here in
Ontario at least. They're talking a few lay-offs even there
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>
>>> Out of curiosity, are the schools completely funded from tuition fees or
>>> is there additional funding from other sources?
>>
>> In the case of the elementary school, we try to set the tuition to
>> equal
>> the cost of education. As is the case for all non-profits, other
>> donations
>> also help to keep the tuition cost affordable. The high school is also
>> funded by tuition fees and other donations. In both instances, there
>> is no
>> external funding from a higher-level entity if that is what you were
>> asking.
>
> I wasn't - I was curious as to whether the tuition represented actual
> costs as a result of discussion up-thread.
>
> Your input makes me a bit less resistant to Tim's position that
> education should be privatized (but not enough so that I'm willing to
> adopt his view without a /lot/ more information).
>
And therein lies the problem. We do not get truthful accounting from
our fine government agencies about the real costs and expenditures
for programs such as education. It's hard to make policy decisions
when you cannot fairly compare the options and consequences. Absent
a ton of detailed analysis that most of us do not have the time
or even the data to do, we don't know what the real cost of
public education is. My guess - and that's all it is - is that
private education is on par or cheaper, and delivers a better
product on average.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
cm wrote:
> Amen,
>
> cm
>
>
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> For openers, I am not a Michael Moore fan. In fact, I can't stand
>> the
>> opportunistic self-promoter.
>> BUT.. fair is fair and he does make a point here that kinda makes
>> sense. The topic is close to me as I have contact with a lot of
>> people from the automotive industry. Small tool & die guys and one
>> big upholstery shop. When the big 3 go down, the shit-storm will
>> roll across the border into Canuckistan as there really is no
>> border
>> because AutoPact and NAFTA.
>>
>> A big part of me thinks they should just collapse just like any
>> other
>> piss-poorly managed company. In this case the consequences would be
>> just too ginormous to even contemplate.
>>
>> The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a
>> lesson, but so does the UAW. Let the blames begin!
>>
>> No free lunch.
>>
>> r
Typical liberalism--unions demand contracts that make the company
noncompetitive, and the goverment passes laws that force them to make
products that they have to sell below cost, and then when it all goes
sour, the company's mismanaged.
Would serve us all right if the people who had to try to keep a
company afloat with all this crap being forced on them took their ball
and went home.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Jay Pique wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2:40 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The reason the Big 3 are in trouble financially has *nothing* to do
>> with executive compensation. It also has very little to do with the
>> quality of their cars or whether people like their products. In
>> actual fact, Detroit has never built better, more reliable cars
>> that
>> today are easily on par with the best of Japan or Europe. (Despite
>> what the half wits in the media and those who believe them on their
>> face say to the contrary.)
>
> Do you include the folks at Consumer Reports in with those
> half-wits?
No, they're quarter-wits at best.
> Oh - I'm cutting the best hand-cut dovetails I've ever cut, so I
> should be able to command respect (and prices) like Garrett Hack?
>
> In most things I agree with you, but this jumped out at me as a
> little
> bit ludicrous.
>
> JP
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Highland Pairos wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Highland Pairos wrote:
>>> . A
>>> common sense discussion about the needs of the motoring public
>>> makes it very
>>> clear that most people do not NEED trucks or SUVs, and recent gas
>>> pricing
>>
>> I disagree. I regularly engage in activities that require a large
>> storage area. I do not *always* need it, but when I do, no car
>> would
>> serve the purpose as well as an SUV.
>
> There are most definatley those who do need large vehicles. I am
> not
> at all saying that there is no market for trucks and SUV. Rather I
> believe that the Big 3 has simply over relyed on them.
>
>>
>>> has forced people to reevaluate their purchasing decisions. It
>>> seems to me
>>
>> I bought my SUV when gas was $4/gal - it was a great buying
>> opportunity.
>
> If you have the need for one, now is a monumentally good time to
> buy.
>
>>
>>> that smart product strategy would be to develop a bread and
>>> butter,
>>> reliable
>>> straight forward automobile that will satisfy the wants and needs
>>> of the greatest number of people. That main product line can then
>>> be coupled with
>>> additional vehicle types that fill the needs of the smaller market
>>> segments,
>>> (i.e. contractors, boat owners, those that really do need to get
>>> through a
>>> major snow, sports car enthusiasts.)
>>
>> This is what they should have done. Then again, the money was all
>> being made in light trucks and SUVs, not cars. So .. they went
>> where the money was. They failed to read the changes in the
>> industry effectively and got caught with the pants down.
>
> Agreed.
>
> . Why is Chrysler
>>> returning to the days of big motored rear-wheel drive cars, (i.e.
>>> the Charger, Magnum, etc.) when the mainline, practical concept is
>>> that of front-wheel drive small displacement 4 and 6 cylinder
>>> cars?
>>
>> Because these really are the cars people like ... or at least
>> that's
>> what they did like. The eco-weenies want everyone to drive a
>> shoebox that is vegan and ugly, but that's not what the buying
>> public
>> really wants. They want comfort, safety, reliability, AND some
>> level of fuel economy.
>
> I would point to the sales figures for those cars versus those of
> Camrys, Accords, Priuses, Sentras, etc to dispute what it is that
> people really want. Eco-weenies aren't forcing people to buy the
> vehicles that they do. (They might want to, but they don't)
>
>>
>>>
>>> If you look at the relatively recent history of the Big 3 and
>>> their
>>> products, you have to notice the successes. What was the product
>>> that saved
>>> Chrysler once before? The Aries K platform, midsized, front wheel
>>> drive, practical and flexible. That platform was used for so many
>>> different vehicles, its amazing. What saved Ford in the late
>>> 80's?
>>> The Taurus, midsized, front wheel drive, straight forward
>>> automobile. What have the
>>
>> Especially the SHO with that big honking Yamaha power plant in it.
>>
>>> Japanese been selling by the boatload (or trainload)? Small to
>>> midsized, front wheel drive, 4 and 6 cylinder sedans.
>>>
>
>> The market changed faster than they could react. I'd argue this
>> was
>> both because of a lack of vision in leadership, AND an inflexible,
>> archaic labor rewards system.
>
> I definatley agree with the lack of vision AND leadership, and am
> curious how the labor agreement impacts product strategy.
Something that is forgotten in all this bashing of SUVs is that they
are an unintended consequence of a do-gooder tax law.
Soccermoms or their equivalent at one time drove station wagons.
However a station wagon is considered to be a car for tax purposes and
thus it gets included in the gas guzzler tax. SUVs are considered to
be light commercial vehicles under the definitions contained in the
tax laws and so are not subject to the gas guzzler tax. Thus the auto
makers have a government incentive to produce SUVs and not station
wagons.
But once again the automakers are labelled as "mismanaged" and
"lacking vision" for responding to a force that was beyond their
control.
The sad part of all this is that everybody is blaming the management
at the auto makers and nobody is looking at all the idiot do-gooder
laws and union contracts and other crap that they are forced to deal
with that have backed them into thie corner.
If the upper management was really the incompetent self-centered
jackasses that you people make them out to be then they would just
take their money and let the country go hang. I don't know why they
bother to try to keep their companies afloat when it's clear that
everybody who depends on them hates them.
Something that is forgotten in all this is that Toyota is not in very
good shape right now either. Neither is Nissan, which was taken over
by Renault of all companies ten years or so back.
And speaking of do-gooder laws, Toyota and Nissan are cooperating in
developing technologies to comply with California's do-gooder laws,
while the US auto makers are prohibited from doing so by another
do-gooder law.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>
>> The state does not knowingly kill anyone, it executes them. There
>> is a difference.
>
> Except for the exceptions, of course. Of the more notable instances
> have been Kent State, Ruby Ridge, and Waco.
>
> I guess you /could/ call those executions if you really wanted to...
Kent State was a screwup. The thing I can't understand is why they
continued to allow the BATF to have weapons after Ruby Ridge and Waco.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
> There is some evidence that Ford got some value from Volvo, as Ford has
> done well in recent crash tests. Ford does make some good cars, like
> the Mondeo, they just need to bring more of them to the US. Europe
> always got the Cosworth Escort, we got the other one. Last year, I
> drove a Fusion and really liked the car.
Note that Ford is the company that is saying they might just
weather this whole mess without any help from the government.
They would like a nice little line-of-credit as a fallback, but
apparently they are in better shape than the others.
> I don't think GM learned very much from Subaru.
You've got to be willing to learn. GM has always wanted to
be a rule and law unto itself. 50 years ago they could.
> I think Chrysler should be allowed to die. My Jeeps have been absolute
> garbage. My wife likes them, but the only saving grace for us once the
> warranty ends is that I'm mechanically inclined.
But, what about my buddy who bought one of those "lifetime warranty"
Jeeps a couple years ago . . . ?? Personally, I like Chrysler's
willingness to design and build distinctive stuff. They're at
least trying to do interesting things, but their marketing or
something just isn't keeping up with the effort. Also, their
best stuff seems to be from 10 years ago, though they do have
some new designs nothing as daring as the Viper or PT Cruiser
or Prowler.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
Highland Pairos wrote:
>>> Even if you want to debate the issue of the environmental impacts
>>> of the vehicles we drive, you are still left with the fact that we
>>> are spending billions of dollars overseas to pay for the oil that
>>> we are using and need
>>
>> No question. The most compelling argument for alternative fuel is
>> to
>> starve the tin pot dictators around the world that happen to be
>> sitting on oil supplies.
>>
>>> to use less of. You cannot debate the fact that it takes billions
>>> of years
>>> to make oil and we are using it a hell of a lot faster then that.
>>> Simple logic says that if you use it faster then you can make it,
>>> you will run out
>>> of it. But beyond all of that, and I think far more germain to
>>> the
>>> issue of
>>
>> The history here has been that humans have both found new ways to
>> extract oil AND to use it more efficiently. There has been a
>> "we're running out of oil" cry for decades and its been
>> consistently
>> wrong. Eventually, of course, we will run out, but we have plenty
>> of
>> time to bring other tech on line. It's not the end of the world
>> the eco types keep keening about.
>
> I think that you make the solid case for alternatives in your first
> sentence. We have always found a way to use oil more efficiently.
> Now is the time to do that. Now is the time to take significant
> steps to end the one car, one driver commute,
Preach preach preach preach preach. Give people a reason to do it
that doesn't involve taxing them or putting them in jail.
> now is the time to make
> better choices about the cars that we do drive,
Give people a reason to do it that doesn't involve taxing them,
putting them in jail, or forcing automobile manufacturers to make cars
that nobody wants on the basis of a quota system.
> now is the time to
> develop alternative energy sources.
Don't need to. "Alternative energy sources" are highly developed.
What we need to do is stop listening to the environmental activists
who prevent us from using them.
> If we agree that there is a
> finite amount of time before the oil runs out, and merely disagree
> on
> how much time there is, doesn't prudence dictate that we begin
> taking
> all possible steps towards bringing "other tech on line", and of
> equal importance, start changing the habits that will impact this
> problem.
No need to "change the habits" if "other tech" is going to be "on
line" unless by "other tech" you mean some POS econut thing that
doesn't work as well as what we have now.
>>> product strategy by the car companies, people buy fuel efficient
>>> cars because they would rather spend their money on something
>>> other
>>> then gas.
>>
>> Perhaps, but I question the validity of that approach. Go look at
>> the price difference between a hybrid and conventional vehicle.
>> Then figure out how many years you have to own the thing to
>> break even. At $4/gal it barely makes sense. Below that, it
>> doesn't - at least in economic terms. Moreover, $4/gal happened
>> when oil it $130+/bbl. Most folks in the oil biz seem to think
>> that
>> the natural price of oil is more like half that. Add to that the
>> disposal and recycling issues for the batteries, and to me at
>> least,
>> hybrids are bad deal. They're simply a salve for eco-guilt.
>
> I also agree that the current hybrid technology is not perfect.
It's really rather pointless. Its main reason for existence is that
under the California quota system hybrids are "green" and they are
actually usable cars, albeit horribly expensive and not terribly
efficient.
> There is the economic payoff issue that prevents them from being a
> greater sell to many consumers. There are also ecological concerns
> involved with them. The mining and processing of the cadmium used
> in
> the batteries is an ecological problem, not to mention the disposal
> problem.
So tell the Congress to pull the plug on California's quota system and
keep it pulled.
> I would like to hear about the viability of Lithium- Ion
> batteries as an alternative. I have heard some compelling arguments
> for it. That being said, I do not believe that our backs should
> simply be turned on the concept of hybrid vehicles. They need to
> continue to be developed and made more viable. I have heard them
> referred to as being a bridge technology toward hydrogen fuel cell
> technology and that is one reason why some are not investing in
> hybrid development. My understanding is that hydrogen fuel cell is
> 10 years out.
You have heard wrong. You can lease fuel cell Hondas now, today, that
work fine. Most existing cars can be converted to run on hydrogen as
well. The only real obstacles are ramping up hydrogen production and
the building of enough hydrogen filling stations make them useable
over most of the country. But this doesn't automatically solve any
problems--the hydrogen currently comes mostly from natural gas via a
cracking process--we'll need to build a large number of
nuclear-electric plants before electrolytic hydrogen becomes viable
without the use of petrochemicals.
> That means that hybrid technology would be with us for
> at least 15-20 years.
Why bother with it at all?
> That is the 10 years before hydrogen fuel cell
> hits the street and then a potential 5 - 10 year transition among
> the
> car buying public.
Hydrogen fuel cell is on the streets now.
> Making an investment in a technology that most
> likely has a 15-20 year life does not seem foolhardy to me.
It does when all it gains you is the privilege of selling cars in
California.
> SteveP.
>
>>
>>
>>> Some other people simply see the logic of how wasteful it is to
>>> drive a vehicle that is larger then they need.
>>>
>>> You can argue the principles and the reasons why people make the
>>> vehicle choices that they do all you want, but if you are in the
>>> business of selling
>>> vehicles (or any product) you had better be able to anticipate,
>>> correctly identify and then meet the actual market demand.
>>>
>>> SteveP.
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>>>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:01:45 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:
>
>> As with software, there's always more than one way to skin a cat.
>> If
>> you don't like the way the system runs, it's nearly always possible
>> to re-design for improvements - and that improvements almost always
>> come from disaffected users who /haven't/ given up. The old name
>> for
>> disaffected users who /have/ given up (or never made a real effort)
>> was "lusers". I encourage you to not join that community.
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>> Change is the only constant, and predictions are only predictions.
>> :)
>
> Back when I was designing/writing SCADA software, I always tried to
> think about possible future requirements due to external changes.
> I've had customers comment years later that they went to modify
> something and found the hooks for the modification were already
> there. Nothing like a delayed pat on the back :-).
>
> I'm so obsolete now I'd have trouble programming "Hello, world" :-).
Just drag a text box off the list and type "Hello, world" in it :-)
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Jay Pique wrote:
> On Dec 15, 9:26 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm not questioning that there has been a quality problem in
>> Detroit.
>> There has been. My point is merely that this is not the central
>> issue before us today as they come whining to the rest of us to
>> bail their butts out. The central issue is their insane labor
>> costs. Oh, and BTW, I do think Detroit is building a better and
>> better product - even CR has noted this in some sectors of the
>> auto marketplace.
>
> Well, I did see that an American car did take top honors in a
> category
> this past year. It was "Best American Sedan". I love that one.
> Saying Detroit is making a better and better product says pretty
> much
> nothing. One would certainly hope they aren't turning out vehicles
> that are progressively worse! If what you are saying is that they
> are
> closing the gap on foreign competition then I'm not so sure I agree.
> And, regardless, the perception is that they are making an inferior
> product and the consumers are turning elsewhere.
Nice rhetoric. Now show us how it fits the actual numbers for the
current situation.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"B A R R Y" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news:[email protected]...
> Highland Pairos wrote:
> > My personal speculation is that a Camry built in Kentucky does for=20
> > America then an F-150 built in Mexico.)
>=20
> The same building in Fremont, CA, builds my "Jap Scrap" Toyota Tacoma, =
> the Toyota Corolla, and the Pontiac Vibe:
>=20
> <http://www.nummi.com/>
>=20
> The place is even UAW represented.
>=20
> They've been building Toyota trucks in this plant since 1991.
>=20
> Go figure...
Sorta tells one something about the Vibe, don't it??? <G>
P D Q
"David G. Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> NO matter the numbers in foreign countries, they still come to the USA to
> fine quality living.
Today. Get back to me in 25 to 50 years.
Highland Pairos wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> I would point to the sales figures for those cars versus those of Camrys,
> Accords, Priuses, Sentras, etc to dispute what it is that people really
> want. Eco-weenies aren't forcing people to buy the vehicles that they do.
> (They might want to, but they don't)
No, but there's been this phony consciousness raising going on to
get people to experience environmental guilt. Any number of otherwise
rational people have bought into the extremist (and unsupported) views
of the Global Warming Chicken Littles that overstate the severity and
impact of GW so they buy these kinds of cars out of misplaced fear
and guilt.
Speaking of which, I wonder if this will cause the Sierra Club to
*demand* we all drive high-emissions cars to get things warmed back
up:
http://cdapress.com/articles/2008/11/17/columns/columns06.txt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 19, 9:52 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> First a defense of stealing, now a call for violence. The inevitable
>> endgame of a broken worldview.
>>
> Is that how it worked when the land and resources were stolen from The
> Native Americans? And then killing them because they resisted? Was it
> a broken world view that caused all that violence?
>
Absolutely. The stealing was wrong in the first place. Their
response was predictable in the face of it. Attempting to exterminate
them was the evil outcome of an evil starting point. OTOH, it's not as
if they Amer-Indians lived in peace amongst themselves prior to
arrival of the Europeans. Tribalism and theft have pretty much
always added up to violence.
You don't get durably good results from initially bad premises.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Tim... how angry and disgusted you must be with life and those around
> you. You have slammed all the doors to any and all input from those
> who /are/ offering up some new ideas. Yet you are so sunk in your
> quicksand, that it is now obvious you are terribly lost. You need a
> hug.
>
> What he needs is several slaps in the face. (this is where Tim claims to
First a defense of stealing, now a call for violence. The inevitable
endgame of a broken worldview.
> have a 6th degree black belt in seventeen forms of martial arts). Or ever
> better, a debilitating illness that eats away any savings he's squirreled
> away and then let him exist solely on charity so he can get the medical care
> he needs.
>
> Face it R, some people are incapable of being redeemed, or in this case,
> deserve the self-serving petty little world they live in. He can call me and
> everybody else in Canada who has received health care evil and thieves
Receiving from a system you're forced to participate in is not evil.
Defending theft - as you have repeatedly - is evil.
> he wants, but it all comes down to the fact that he's got the social
> conscious of a cockroach.
>
Maybe. But I don't want to steal from my neighbors nor do I fantasize
about violence upon strangers I chat with on usenet. As always, your
bad premises lead to bad conclusions and even worse behavior. This
has nothing to do with me.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Rusty wrote:
> Destroy the unions so we can all do worse. The only thing wrong with union
> jobs is I don't have one.
>
>
>
>
Right, because unions are a magic potion that create wealth out of
thin air. The laws of economics are superseded by the demands of
the unions. As long as the union is there, there will always be
lots of wealth and productivity. Right.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:32:33 -0500, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> A bullet in the
>> head is cheap, quick, humane, and rids us of the problem.
>
>Maybe, but what does it currently cost to get to that point? With all the
>automatic appeals made when someone is sentenced to death, it's no wonder
>that the death penalty costs the tax payers so much more. Shoot all the
>lawyers first then then do your quick, humane criminal executions.
...I wonder if there's a study out there regarding gradations of
murder. What percentage of inmates on death row are there because
they, *without a doubt* murdered another human being; THEY are the
ones who don't deserve to breathe our air for even 5 minutes after
conviction.
>
>> I would choose to live.
...yup! Me too. Lots of good books, I'd be happy...
>
>As would most. You can get used to almost every situation if it goes on long
>enough. If not used to it, then at least able to put up with it.
>
>Of course, I'm not sure that applies to being married to a nagging,
>harassing wife. You're probably right Doug, I'm sure I have myself to blame
>for not being married. But, I like it that way. :)
...yup! Me too...
cg
Highland Pairos wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Highland Pairos wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>> I would point to the sales figures for those cars versus those of Camrys,
>>> Accords, Priuses, Sentras, etc to dispute what it is that people really
>>> want. Eco-weenies aren't forcing people to buy the vehicles that they
>>> do.
>>> (They might want to, but they don't)
>> No, but there's been this phony consciousness raising going on to
>> get people to experience environmental guilt. Any number of otherwise
>> rational people have bought into the extremist (and unsupported) views
>> of the Global Warming Chicken Littles that overstate the severity and
>> impact of GW so they buy these kinds of cars out of misplaced fear
>> and guilt.
>>
>> Speaking of which, I wonder if this will cause the Sierra Club to
>> *demand* we all drive high-emissions cars to get things warmed back
>> up:
>>
>> http://cdapress.com/articles/2008/11/17/columns/columns06.txt
>>
>
> Even if you want to debate the issue of the environmental impacts of the
> vehicles we drive, you are still left with the fact that we are spending
> billions of dollars overseas to pay for the oil that we are using and need
No question. The most compelling argument for alternative fuel is to
starve the tin pot dictators around the world that happen to be
sitting on oil supplies.
> to use less of. You cannot debate the fact that it takes billions of years
> to make oil and we are using it a hell of a lot faster then that. Simple
> logic says that if you use it faster then you can make it, you will run out
> of it. But beyond all of that, and I think far more germain to the issue of
The history here has been that humans have both found new ways to
extract oil AND to use it more efficiently. There has been a
"we're running out of oil" cry for decades and its been consistently
wrong. Eventually, of course, we will run out, but we have plenty of
time to bring other tech on line. It's not the end of the world
the eco types keep keening about.
> product strategy by the car companies, people buy fuel efficient cars
> because they would rather spend their money on something other then gas.
Perhaps, but I question the validity of that approach. Go look at
the price difference between a hybrid and conventional vehicle.
Then figure out how many years you have to own the thing to
break even. At $4/gal it barely makes sense. Below that, it
doesn't - at least in economic terms. Moreover, $4/gal happened
when oil it $130+/bbl. Most folks in the oil biz seem to think that
the natural price of oil is more like half that. Add to that the
disposal and recycling issues for the batteries, and to me at least,
hybrids are bad deal. They're simply a salve for eco-guilt.
> Some other people simply see the logic of how wasteful it is to drive a
> vehicle that is larger then they need.
>
> You can argue the principles and the reasons why people make the vehicle
> choices that they do all you want, but if you are in the business of selling
> vehicles (or any product) you had better be able to anticipate, correctly
> identify and then meet the actual market demand.
>
> SteveP.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 18, 6:06 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> snipped a whole bunch of old, tired rhetoric.
>> Even more broadly, someone's need for something - no matter how real,
>> important, legitimate, or urgent - does not grant them the moral
>> permission to loot someone else's treasure - no matter how much that
>> other person has.
>
>> A starving man does not have moral authority to
>> steal from the wealthy man.
>
>> The starving mad has moral permission to
>
> That HAS to be Freudian.
>
>> ask for help, offer to work when and if able, but there is no moral
>> get-out-of-jail-free card just because he needs something.
>>
>
> Tim... how angry and disgusted you must be with life and those around
I am neither angry nor disgusted with life. I am disgusted
with my dishonest fellow citizens, no more, no less. I am,
however, on strike at the moment, committed to doing nothing
whatsoever that benefits said moochers. No reason to work long
hours, help create new companies, and increase the population of the
employed. I too shall retreat to moocher land and resign myself
to working just enough to take care of my own interests. I'm
trying to figure out how to pillage the Federal handout system
legally so I can get back the many dollars it's extracted from
me by force to support things like drum beating classes and
identity politics in universities. I think I am going to like
being on welfare - you meet the nicest people in line.
> you. You have slammed all the doors to any and all input from those
> who /are/ offering up some new ideas. Yet you are so sunk in your
I have done no such thing. I simply cannot accept ideas predicated
on theft as morally legitimate. Charity? I'm all for it (when I'm
not on strike). Lending a helping hand up? You bet (when I'm
not on strike). But it's pretty outrageous to watch a significant
portion of my life's income evaporating into asinine programs
run by political con artists that benefit lazy mooches and then
get told, "you're not doing your fair share."
> quicksand, that it is now obvious you are terribly lost. You need a
> hug. Let me guide out of your rage, and enjoy some humour.
>
> The whole world is NOT trying to steal all your pennies.
My fellow citizens are trying to steal from anyone who will give
them what they want. I am one of many people thus targeted.
I've never thought it was personal, conspiratorial, or specific
to me. It is merely evil and immoral.
> Private schools are run by elitist bigots. ( I was educated in one.)
I was educated in two and observed neither elitism nor bigotry
in either in the total of some 10 years between them I attended.
> (pssst.. have fun with that line.)
Maybe the bigotry and elitism wasn't really innate to schools
but adhered more to [some of] the students themselves?
> I know of no-one as bitter as you are, Tim.
You don't know me at all.
You are wrong about my being bitter. I am not.
I am playing defense (and I am on strike).
> Take a breath of fresh air and repeat after me:
> Robatoy is the light.
Robatoy is a fright.
> Robatoy knows everything.
Robatoy knows who killed JFK.
> Robatoy will cure you.
>
I don't have fleas.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Highland Pairos wrote:
>> I'm not sure what "foreign" even means these days. Many of the
>> most lauded cars are built here with US labor. They just don't
>> have the legacy labor costs with which GM, Ford, and Chrysler
>> must contend.
>
> This is one aspect of the "Amurrrican vs. furrin" car debate that I find
> most amusing. Define foreign vs domestic production. More importantly
> which situation is more beneficial to the U.S. economy, an American car
> (Ford, GM, Chrysler) that is built in another country (or at least a
> signifacnt number of the subassemblies) or a foreign car that is built here
> in the U.S. paying American workers? One school of thought says that the
> money from the American cars go to American companies and benefits America,
> while the money from the foreign car leaves the country. However, that only
> applies to the 10-20% profit margins (that is a general estimation of profit
> margin). The bulk of the money spent when you buy a car goes to the costs.
> So the question is, which production situation puts more money into and has
> greater benefit to the U.S. economy? (This is not at loaded question by me,
> I truly have not heard a solid analysis upon which to form an opinion in the
> matter. My personal speculation is that a Camry built in Kentucky does for
> America then an F-150 built in Mexico.)
>
> SteveP.
I'm not sure it matters much, and probably will matter less over time.
Markets are increasingly global. Trade has historically benefited all
participants after the initial bumps of adjustment occur. For example,
an F-150 built in Mexico means that some number of Mexican citizens
can find good work at home and US residents can buy a good product at
a better price. Despite all the howling we hear about trade causing a
net loss of jobs, no such thing is true. I don't have the cite handy,
but (and this is rough and from memory) from the Bush 41 Presidency
until today (prior to the recent rise in unemployment) there were
nearly *twice* as many people working in the US. Trade creates greater
markets and greater opportunity for everyone.
See, for example:
http://www.freetrade.org/node/737
http://www.freetrade.org/node/37
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v23n4/freetrade.pdf
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:04:33 -0600, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>Upscale wrote:
>
>> There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
>> my wages to save my job.
>
>On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
>they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the
>person sitting /next/ to them...
>
>...and Iowa wages are already sub-par.
Morris.. Hate to bring a rain cloud over your sunny thought, but in my
experience, saying you'll take a pay cut and actually doing it are 2 different
things..
Sort of like saying that you'd die for someone and then rethinking it if the
choice is presented..
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
Leon wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> You've obviously never actually run a company of any size. You cannot
>> "run a business like a business" when every do-gooder, union wart,
>> anti-Capitalist, earth hugger, and various other societal bottom feeders
>> are demanding you do things their way even if it is irrational or,
>> possibly
>> even (in the case of the UAW), insane. The Big Three are not free to run
>> their business to the satisfaction of their shareholders. They have
>> a culture full of science dropouts and closet Marxists in their face
>> on a regular basis telling them what to do.
>
> You obviousely are out of the loop. I have only run 2 companies. Both
> made/make a very nice return on investment, bottom line. I mave managed
> numerous departments in several companies.
Noted ... with my apologies. Did you ever have any of the following
pleasures while running your companies:
1) Having the government tell you how to run it and then tax you
on money you never actually made.
2) Having a union undermine its competitiveness with outrageous
demands.
3) Working your <Biblican beast of burden> off for years, and then
have someone tell you that "you guys in mangement make too much
money."
It's very special when any of these things happen.
>
>>> It also has very little to do with the
>>>> quality of their cars or whether people like their products.
>>> And that is BS also. Having made my living selling GM products and
>>> retired
>>> at 40 I can assure you that the quality of the competition blows away the
>>> Big 3 quality.
>> And I can tell your from immediate and recent experience that you're
>> dead wrong - at least for trucks. We have owned many Japanese products
>> in my household as well as a number of GM, I am in pretty good
>> position to have seen the span of quality. What you say was true 20
>> years ago, it's not any more. My 2008 Chev Tahoe is easily the better
>> of my previously owned Nissan Pathfinder. This Tahoe replaces a 1995
>> model that gave me 138000 miles of happy trails with only two major
>> mechanical malfunctions.
>
> I drove a 97 Chev PU for 10 years, traded last year. I had great incentive
> to purchase GMC or Chevrolet. My son worked for the Chevrolet dealer until
> the dealership folded 2 months ago. Not a problem, he has 2 other jobs. I
> had deep employee priceing incentives + hundreds of dollare crdits through
> the GM CCard program. I test drove a GMC and Checy PU last summer. They
> really were no more comfortable or felt any better while driving than amy
> older truck. The GMC dealer even offered to sell me a GMC PU with power
> doore windows. etc, V8, take my 97 Chev in trade, "sight unseen" for a drive
> out price of $18K, inc TTL. We test drove 6 different GMC trucks moving up
> in trim levels each time trying to find one that was comfortable to sit in
> and to find one that did not have a back door that moved while on the
> freeway. You could literally see the door rack inside the opening while the
> vehicle was going down the freeway. I walked away discusted and decided not
> to buy a new truck.
> Then we honored our appointment with the Toyota dealer and drove the Tundra.
> At the time I did not like the looks of the new Tundra but all it took was 1
> test drive. I gladly paid $6k more for the New Tundra over the similarily
> equipped GMC. Since I have had it, 18 months, it has been in for warranty
> work 1 time for a break light switch. No other warranty work needed.
> My neighbor has a 3 year old Yukon, a totally different animal. Its drive
> quality is totally different from that of a Pickup.
I drove a Tundra with the TRD engine for about a week last year.
I hated nearly everything about it. This was not because of its lack
of quality - it was very well made. I just never got comfortable with
its ergonomics and control layout. This is purely a comment about
taste not quality, however. As I say, it was very well screwed
together.
>> Cars are another matter. No one in Detroit seems to know how to
>> build a car worth a crap until you get into the luxury segment, and
>> even there, they're not incredible. Honda consistently builds
>> outstanding cars and if I wanted a car, that's what I'd buy.
>
> Yeah, I own an Accord too.
>
>> Toyota is overrated and is starting to look like GM 20 years ago
>> with their maintenance problems and poor customer service.
>
>
> That is a dealer problem, Have worked as a manager at all the positions in
> an Oldsmobile dealership, I know what to look out for. My Toyota dealer is
> better than most any dealership I have purchased from. Service is great and
> that is not only focusing on the repair work. I am treated like I own the
> place.
>
>
>
> Nissan
>> has been fine, if a little disconnected in their customer support.
>> (The new 2008 Tahoe would have been a 2008 Pathfinder if the dealer
>> had ever called me back as he promised.)
>
> Nissan is getting ready to have Dodge build their Titan, the Titan is
> plagued with problems.
>
>> But again, I don't think this is the major problem with the Big Three
>> money issues. They just can't afford to be competitive, invest in
>> new technology, reengineer their cars regularly, and so on when
>> they're paying layed off workers full salary and benefits for
>> life (not an exaggeration).
>
> Totally agree however it has been management that got them in this
> situation. They operate like our government does. It's the what's in it
> form me right now attitude.
There's no question that the buck should stop with the executives that
led them into this mess. This is why I favor exec compensation in the
form of long-vesting stock options with no fast forward vest if they
are terminated. It would be good for all concerned if large corp
execs owned more of the companies they run, instead of being well paid
gardeners whose pay does not vary even if every flower wilts and dies.
I also favor the unions being forced (via negotiation, not the government)
to take a large portion of their pensions and benefits in the form of
long-vesting company stock while also being given a vote on the board.
It has to be in everyone's interest for the company to succeed it will not.
>
>>> In actual
>>>> fact, Detroit has never built better, more reliable cars that today
>>>> are easily on par with the best of Japan or Europe.
>>> Partially true, they have never built better, a few of their vehicles are
>>> on
>>> par but as a whole, still way behind.
>> As I said, they build the best trucks in the world, and most of their cars
>> are uninspiring. How they can manage to get the fit and finish right on
>> a light truck, but not a Malibu is just beyond me.
>
> I wuld say they probably did build good trucks but the Tundra has been
> gaining momentum for several years now and for the first time I did not buy
> a GM truck.
>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Jay Pique wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2:40 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The reason the Big 3 are in trouble financially has *nothing* to do
>> with executive compensation. It also has very little to do with the
>> quality of their cars or whether people like their products. In actual
>> fact, Detroit has never built better, more reliable cars that today
>> are easily on par with the best of Japan or Europe. (Despite what the
>> half wits in the media and those who believe them on their face say to
>> the contrary.)
>
> Do you include the folks at Consumer Reports in with those half-wits?
> Oh - I'm cutting the best hand-cut dovetails I've ever cut, so I
> should be able to command respect (and prices) like Garrett Hack?
>
> In most things I agree with you, but this jumped out at me as a little
> bit ludicrous.
>
> JP
I'm not questioning that there has been a quality problem in Detroit.
There has been. My point is merely that this is not the central
issue before us today as they come whining to the rest of us to
bail their butts out. The central issue is their insane labor
costs. Oh, and BTW, I do think Detroit is building a better and
better product - even CR has noted this in some sectors of the
auto marketplace.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
<SNIP>
>>
>> Privatize it. Make the teachers earn the respect and compensation of the
>> parents. Make parents accountable for the education of their children
>> under threat of felony charges. None of this will actually happen.
>
> Do I actually hear Tim Daneliuk advocating /for/ force and coersion? You
> can't have it both ways.
Uh, yes I can. *Initiating* force is always wrong. Fraud is always
wrong. In the case of minor children, parents are by default presumed
to be the proper caretakers. When they fail to see to their children's
education, this is an initiation of at least fraud, and arguably
force, because they are condemning their children to fail. The
children - as minors - are legally presumed to be incapable of caring
for themselves and thus the state does have the right to interdict on
their behalf, no different than a policeman arresting someone trying
to break into your house.
As far as "making" teacher earn the respect of parents, I mean this
in a noncoerive way - there should be a marketplace for schools
and teachers as there is anything else. Parents would choose from
that pool based on their perception of the fitness of the school/teacher,
the amount they were willing to pay for it, and how that school
environment mapped to their personal values and ambitions for their
child.
>
> You're right - it won't happen because coersion isn't a viable solution.
>
>>> Got a plan?
>>
>> No. I've mostly given up. The larger society has decided that a
>> "right" is anything they wish for: education, healthcare, safety,
>> peace of mind, a "living" wage, and all of the rest of the drool that
>> spews forth on a regular basis. We live - in the US and most of the
>> rest of the West - in societies driven by the moochers and the
>> looters. The few producers are worn out, overworked, overtaxed, and
>> underappreciated.
>
> I had to go drink a cup of coffee and pause to unload the emotional
> baggage. Back at the keyboard, I see all of the things you've listed as
> /desirable/ - and from what you've told about yourself, I infer that you
> don't consider them /undesirable/.
They are desireable. They are not political rights. They are things
each individual and/or family ought to achieve or earn in their own
right. The sole exception is safety. The state has some role to
play in defending the borders, interdicting in matters of fraud, force,
and threat, and generally maintaining the *framework* of a civil
society. This does not, however, include using the coercion of the state
to inflict its versions of healthcare, education, et al.
>
> Within the context of a democracy, each of those things can be
> considered goals worth pursuing, and AFAICT your reservations have more
> to do with /how/ to best attain those benefits for the greatest number
> of participants.
My reservation has to do with the fact that the unwashed masses are
willing to give away their liberty and freedom merely upon the promise
of some politician that what they want will be given them by government.
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
Franklin
These goals - very much worth pursuing - belong in private life, not
as chits to buy votes.
>
> As with software, there's always more than one way to skin a cat. If you
> don't like the way the system runs, it's nearly always possible to
> re-design for improvements - and that improvements almost always come
> from disaffected users who /haven't/ given up. The old name for
> disaffected users who /have/ given up (or never made a real effort) was
> "lusers". I encourage you to not join that community.
You or I or anyone else that still values freedom are in a declining
minority. The demographics here are overwhelming. The last election
alone demonstrates that people will buy almost anything at face value
from a politician promising them "free" stuff, "change", and all the
rest of goo that came from our soon-to-be communist-in-chief. The
system cannot be redesigned when a majority of the participants
are happy to watch it fail - fiddling on the deck of the Titanic
as it were.
>
>> When 5% of the working population pay the
>> overwhelming proportion of Federal taxes in the US, but some 40% pay
>> little- or no taxes but can vote (and thus appoint the next President)
>> there is no resolution.
>
> So? How about making a serious proposal for tax reform you consider more
> reasonable? Personally, I'd prefer a flat rate without exemptions
> coupled with hard limits on government spending, structured so that
> after a period of a century or two, government could be fully endowed
> and further taxation prohibited. :)
Me too. It will never happen.
>
>> The next great superpower will be China, with
>> India as an arguable close second. They will not be liberal
>> democracies as we understand the term. The virtues of Western
>> civilization - a civilization that did more to free mankind in less
>> time than any other institution in recorded human history - are nearly
>> dead or on their deathbed. These are not just the rambling of someone
>> of "a certain age". They are the observations of someone who has lived
>> in 3 countries and traveled to many more over 5 decades and has seen
>> the difference. The US - once a light for freedom and opportunity -
>> has become a ghetto for political correctness, government overreach,
>> and whining demands for imaginary "rights." The US is not dying from
>> external attack. It has committed suicide...
>
> I've only lived in two countries, although I've traveled to a reasonable
> number of others over /six/ decades. Interestingly, I've always found
> much to admire wherever I traveled. Americans do indeed have much to be
> proud of, but we're not done learning from others - and it's been said
> that our greatest strengths are our ability and willingness to re-invent
> ourselves.
But that latter thing is exactly what is missing. The citizenry
hardly wants to "re-invent" the culture or the nation. It is too
busy abdicating itself to the leviathan of the state.
>
> Change is the only constant, and predictions are only predictions. :)
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I tire of your strawmen. I do not criticize you for participating
>
> Get as tired as you want flake.
>
>> of the State - is entirely legitimate. But the State extracting
>> taxes from one person to give it to another one causes an imbalance
>> of liberty - it's immoral and so is defending any such act.
>
> Obviously, you don't have the smallest idea of what you're talking about. I
> can see you're quite happy to continue playing the asshole. Hey, it's your
> life, go for it, however it's beyond me how the people around you continue
> to let you exist
This is not a responsive answer - it is a baseless rant (with, of course,
your usual limited and foul vocabulary). I object to the government
using its power to take from some citizens and give to others.
Why don't you try explaining just how this is OK ethically. If you
or I did it, it would be called "stealing". But somehow, folks like
you who defend such actions, magically manage to lift the prohibitions
on theft when the government (the most powerful institution in human
society) does it. Astonishing.
>
> How about the state extracting money from it's citizens to go to war in
> Iraq? Have to root out all those WMD's eh? The state taking money and using
> it for it's own selfish means.
The State is charged with the defense of society as part of its larger
role to defend liberty. There is certainly a fair debate to be had
about whether or not the Iraq war specifically was a good call or not,
but the general idea of defending the borders, preemptively repelling
attacks, and so on, are all well within the charter of government.
Under US Constitutional law, such actions are among the very *few* things
explicitly given to the Federal government by charter.
> I guess that doesn't count he? I guess we can
> add self delusion to your greedy, selfish nature.
Yawn.
>
> You're so full of crap it's stagnating beyond imagination.
>
>
Zzzzzzzzz
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rusty wrote:
>> Destroy the unions so we can all do worse. The only thing wrong with
>> union
>> jobs is I don't have one.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Right, because unions are a magic potion that create wealth out of
> thin air. The laws of economics are superseded by the demands of
> the unions. As long as the union is there, there will always be
> lots of wealth and productivity. Right.
>
Well Management has created nothing from a huge company.Still they got paid
well,my fingers hurt to much when I type all the zeros
LD wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> snippery
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
> I just spent a very pleasant half hour or so perusing your web site and
> some of your links. I've got your site bookmarked and also your Python
> link. I'm afraid I dismissed Python in the past without really knowing
> anything about it.
>
> Loved the "What The Market Will Bear" tale. Helps, I suppose, that I was
> once a fly fisherman, appreciate the wonders of bamboo and tend to my
> wife's coffee habit.
>
> And I'm exploring the possibilities of 'The American Conservative' as a
> replacement for a magazine I no longer find interesting.
>
> All told, more than I've had to chew on from a web site in quite a while.
>
> Thank you,
> LD
>
>
>
You're welcome ;)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> Rusty wrote:
>
>>> Destroy the unions so we can all do worse. The only thing wrong
>>> with union jobs is I don't have one.
>
> Why not? Surely all you have to do is apply for a job for which you're
> qualified, pay the fee to join the union, then do the work and make your
> dues payments on time - right? Seems perfectly straight-forward to me. :)
>
> That's the way it played for me when I got out of the army and went to
> work for the C&EI Railroad as an accountant (except that I didn't know
> anything about either railroads or accounting) - I just wanted a job and
> told 'em that I'd learn whatever I needed and whatever job they put me
> on, I'd do it well until school started in the fall. I bought the
> mandatory union card and paid my dues - and ended up with a big pile of
> cardboard boxes full of paperwork on TOFC (later called "piggyback")
> shipments that had (variously) never been billed or billed but never
> paid. The problem was that TOFC was new and attempts to process the
> billings had run into the "Not My Job" wall. It became /my/ job. The
> best guess was that there was about $10,000,000 in receivables lurking
> in the boxes, and that I would probably do well to collect half of that.
>
> A month later, I had the process down fairly well, and made my second
> monthly dues payment. I'd managed to recover just under $2,000,000 and
> felt pretty good about myself, the job I had, and life in general. In
> true cornball fashion, I even found myself singing "I been workin' on
> the railroad" on the way home one payday. :)
>
> It was about halfway through the second month that the shop steward
> stopped by my desk and invited me to join the group for the 10am coffee
> break in the cafeteria - and I told him "No thanks, I've some work I'm
> trying to get finished up before lunch."
>
> Big mistake - but I had no way of knowing just how big it was, or even
> that it was a mistake. He left to go drink coffee and I went back to work.
>
> About a week later I was called into the VP Operation's office and asked
> to close the door. He told me that the union had presented two choices -
> either Dovey is in the cafeteria for both morning and afternoon coffee
> breaks or the /entire/ railroad would cease functioning. Period. I
> apologized for causing a problem and assured him that I'd be in the
> cafeteria for all future coffee breaks.
>
> And so I was - but I took whatever I was working on and a yellow pad
> with me. Sometimes I even drank a cup of coffee as I made notes.
>
> I don't think that was actually the end of the matter because at the end
> of that second month there was a posting on the bulletin board for a
> "TOFC Accounting Manager" job opening. Apparently the union contract
> specified that no one could be hired for any job unless it was first
> posted so that existing employees could ask to be considered - and a
> couple of the gals in accounting told me that I should write a letter
> asking for the job. I did - and became a department manager. As a
> management person, I didn't need to continue my union membership (and
> didn't) and could take coffee breaks whenever I wanted (and didn't). It
> didn't particularly bother me that I was the only person in my
> department. It wasn't difficult to tell that the shop steward felt
> differently.
>
> In September I asked for an exit interview with the VP I'd talked to
> earlier, and was able to tell him (as if he hadn't already known) that
> I'd gotten through the original pile and recovered more than $12 million
> of the estimated 10, that all TOFC accounts were current, and that I'd
> put together a manual containing all the contact information for all of
> the customers with notes about what approaches worked best with which
> customers.
>
> When I suggested that he make everyone managers of one-person
> departments, he just smiled and wished me well in school.
>
>> Right, because unions are a magic potion that create wealth out of
>> thin air. The laws of economics are superseded by the demands of the
>> unions. As long as the union is there, there will always be lots of
>> wealth and productivity. Right.
>
> In spite of my experiences, a union /can/ be a positive influence in a
> workplace to ensure (or at least advocate for) fairness and justice. My
> experience is limited, but I think plant unions are better suited to
> work /with/ management than are trade unions.
>
> I would suggest to Rusty that a close look at both employer /and/ union
> is advisable...
>
I've seen unions shops that worked well in small manufacturing settings
(say, under 100 employees). I've never seen a union setting that was
effective or worthwhile at large scale. I have no objection in principle
to organized labor, only that companies ought not to be forced to bargain
with them if they choose not to.
For the record, I watched a large ($6 billion) company I once worked for -
and that I really loved as an employer and place to work - get completely
sabotaged by their unions. These unions then took the company over
themselves and howled like stuck pigs when they ran the company into
the ground and the pensions they'd pledged to buy the company were
then worthless. I think this is not atypical of very large company
union behavior.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Tim and Leon,
I think that you two have been having a very worthwhile and interesting
discussion and I would like to compliment you both on the ease with which it
can be read and the civil manner in which you have conducted yourselves.
I firmly believe that the true nature of the problem before us, is either an
amalgam of the issues that you both raise, or somewhere in between. From
all that I have read, heard and observed, I think that you both are right
while seeming to be on opposite sides of a fence.
However, one issue that I must chime in on, is the issue of the products
that you have been discussing. You seem to agree that the Big 3 make trucks
that range somewhere from good to superior, but that their cars are
completely lacking. Well in addition to labor issues, and management
issues, I would say that your assessment of their products is #1. correct
and #2. the third and equal part of the problem. The Big 3 have centered
their product strategy around trucks and SUVs and failed the car market. A
common sense discussion about the needs of the motoring public makes it very
clear that most people do not NEED trucks or SUVs, and recent gas pricing
has forced people to reevaluate their purchasing decisions. It seems to me
that smart product strategy would be to develop a bread and butter, reliable
straight forward automobile that will satisfy the wants and needs of the
greatest number of people. That main product line can then be coupled with
additional vehicle types that fill the needs of the smaller market segments,
(i.e. contractors, boat owners, those that really do need to get through a
major snow, sports car enthusiasts.)
I simply do not understand the product strategies of the Big 3. If you
tally the TV ads from Ford and Chrysler these days, you mostly see ads for
trucks. Vehicles that most people do not need or want anymore. GM has
finally brought to market a hybrid drive system. I know very little about
it technically, but why release it only in a $60k SUV rather then in a
mid-size sedan that would appeal to a greater market. Why is Chrysler
returning to the days of big motored rear-wheel drive cars, (i.e. the
Charger, Magnum, etc.) when the mainline, practical concept is that of
front-wheel drive small displacement 4 and 6 cylinder cars?
If you look at the relatively recent history of the Big 3 and their
products, you have to notice the successes. What was the product that saved
Chrysler once before? The Aries K platform, midsized, front wheel drive,
practical and flexible. That platform was used for so many different
vehicles, its amazing. What saved Ford in the late 80's? The Taurus,
midsized, front wheel drive, straight forward automobile. What have the
Japanese been selling by the boatload (or trainload)? Small to midsized,
front wheel drive, 4 and 6 cylinder sedans.
The companies definitely have labor issues, and management issues, but they
also have equally debilitating product strategy issues, (which BTW is
technically a management issue but one of such import that I believe it
deserves its own examination.)
SteveP.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> You've obviously never actually run a company of any size. You cannot
>>> "run a business like a business" when every do-gooder, union wart,
>>> anti-Capitalist, earth hugger, and various other societal bottom feeders
>>> are demanding you do things their way even if it is irrational or,
>>> possibly
>>> even (in the case of the UAW), insane. The Big Three are not free to
>>> run
>>> their business to the satisfaction of their shareholders. They have
>>> a culture full of science dropouts and closet Marxists in their face
>>> on a regular basis telling them what to do.
>>
>> You obviousely are out of the loop. I have only run 2 companies. Both
>> made/make a very nice return on investment, bottom line. I mave managed
>> numerous departments in several companies.
>
> Noted ... with my apologies. Did you ever have any of the following
> pleasures while running your companies:
>
> 1) Having the government tell you how to run it and then tax you
> on money you never actually made.
>
> 2) Having a union undermine its competitiveness with outrageous
> demands.
>
> 3) Working your <Biblican beast of burden> off for years, and then
> have someone tell you that "you guys in mangement make too much
> money."
>
> It's very special when any of these things happen.
>
>>
>>>> It also has very little to do with the
>>>>> quality of their cars or whether people like their products.
>>>> And that is BS also. Having made my living selling GM products and
>>>> retired
>>>> at 40 I can assure you that the quality of the competition blows away
>>>> the
>>>> Big 3 quality.
>>> And I can tell your from immediate and recent experience that you're
>>> dead wrong - at least for trucks. We have owned many Japanese products
>>> in my household as well as a number of GM, I am in pretty good
>>> position to have seen the span of quality. What you say was true 20
>>> years ago, it's not any more. My 2008 Chev Tahoe is easily the better
>>> of my previously owned Nissan Pathfinder. This Tahoe replaces a 1995
>>> model that gave me 138000 miles of happy trails with only two major
>>> mechanical malfunctions.
>>
>> I drove a 97 Chev PU for 10 years, traded last year. I had great
>> incentive
>> to purchase GMC or Chevrolet. My son worked for the Chevrolet dealer
>> until
>> the dealership folded 2 months ago. Not a problem, he has 2 other jobs.
>> I
>> had deep employee priceing incentives + hundreds of dollare crdits
>> through
>> the GM CCard program. I test drove a GMC and Checy PU last summer. They
>> really were no more comfortable or felt any better while driving than amy
>> older truck. The GMC dealer even offered to sell me a GMC PU with power
>> doore windows. etc, V8, take my 97 Chev in trade, "sight unseen" for a
>> drive
>> out price of $18K, inc TTL. We test drove 6 different GMC trucks moving
>> up
>> in trim levels each time trying to find one that was comfortable to sit
>> in
>> and to find one that did not have a back door that moved while on the
>> freeway. You could literally see the door rack inside the opening while
>> the
>> vehicle was going down the freeway. I walked away discusted and decided
>> not
>> to buy a new truck.
>> Then we honored our appointment with the Toyota dealer and drove the
>> Tundra.
>> At the time I did not like the looks of the new Tundra but all it took
>> was 1
>> test drive. I gladly paid $6k more for the New Tundra over the
>> similarily
>> equipped GMC. Since I have had it, 18 months, it has been in for
>> warranty
>> work 1 time for a break light switch. No other warranty work needed.
>> My neighbor has a 3 year old Yukon, a totally different animal. Its
>> drive
>> quality is totally different from that of a Pickup.
>
> I drove a Tundra with the TRD engine for about a week last year.
> I hated nearly everything about it. This was not because of its lack
> of quality - it was very well made. I just never got comfortable with
> its ergonomics and control layout. This is purely a comment about
> taste not quality, however. As I say, it was very well screwed
> together.
>
>
>>> Cars are another matter. No one in Detroit seems to know how to
>>> build a car worth a crap until you get into the luxury segment, and
>>> even there, they're not incredible. Honda consistently builds
>>> outstanding cars and if I wanted a car, that's what I'd buy.
>>
>> Yeah, I own an Accord too.
>>
>>> Toyota is overrated and is starting to look like GM 20 years ago
>>> with their maintenance problems and poor customer service.
>>
>>
>> That is a dealer problem, Have worked as a manager at all the positions
>> in
>> an Oldsmobile dealership, I know what to look out for. My Toyota dealer
>> is
>> better than most any dealership I have purchased from. Service is great
>> and
>> that is not only focusing on the repair work. I am treated like I own
>> the
>> place.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nissan
>>> has been fine, if a little disconnected in their customer support.
>>> (The new 2008 Tahoe would have been a 2008 Pathfinder if the dealer
>>> had ever called me back as he promised.)
>>
>> Nissan is getting ready to have Dodge build their Titan, the Titan is
>> plagued with problems.
>>
>>> But again, I don't think this is the major problem with the Big Three
>>> money issues. They just can't afford to be competitive, invest in
>>> new technology, reengineer their cars regularly, and so on when
>>> they're paying layed off workers full salary and benefits for
>>> life (not an exaggeration).
>>
>> Totally agree however it has been management that got them in this
>> situation. They operate like our government does. It's the what's in
>> it
>> form me right now attitude.
>
> There's no question that the buck should stop with the executives that
> led them into this mess. This is why I favor exec compensation in the
> form of long-vesting stock options with no fast forward vest if they
> are terminated. It would be good for all concerned if large corp
> execs owned more of the companies they run, instead of being well paid
> gardeners whose pay does not vary even if every flower wilts and dies.
> I also favor the unions being forced (via negotiation, not the government)
> to take a large portion of their pensions and benefits in the form of
> long-vesting company stock while also being given a vote on the board.
> It has to be in everyone's interest for the company to succeed it will
> not.
>>
>>>> In actual
>>>>> fact, Detroit has never built better, more reliable cars that today
>>>>> are easily on par with the best of Japan or Europe.
>>>> Partially true, they have never built better, a few of their vehicles
>>>> are
>>>> on
>>>> par but as a whole, still way behind.
>>> As I said, they build the best trucks in the world, and most of their
>>> cars
>>> are uninspiring. How they can manage to get the fit and finish right on
>>> a light truck, but not a Malibu is just beyond me.
>>
>> I wuld say they probably did build good trucks but the Tundra has been
>> gaining momentum for several years now and for the first time I did not
>> buy
>> a GM truck.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Highland Pairos wrote:
> My personal speculation is that a Camry built in Kentucky does for
> America then an F-150 built in Mexico.)
The same building in Fremont, CA, builds my "Jap Scrap" Toyota Tacoma,
the Toyota Corolla, and the Pontiac Vibe:
<http://www.nummi.com/>
The place is even UAW represented.
They've been building Toyota trucks in this plant since 1991.
Go figure...
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>> PHT wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you stop and think about the reason unions was created in the first
>>>> place, to protect the workers, there was a need at that time. Now
>>>> there is
>>>> enough laws on the books that protect the workers, there is really no
>>>> need
>>>> for union protection.
>>> On the surface, it would seem so - but I worry that there are too many
>>> enterprises would pay only the mandated minimum wage. I'm not
>>> hypothesizing here - and historically single-enterprise communities were
>>> virtually enslaved before the advent of the American labor movement.
>>>
>>> You might find it an interesting exercise to extend that minimum wage to
>>> an annual gross income (multiply by 40 hours/week and again by 52
>>> weeks/year) and divide by 12 for a monthly gross income. Then consider
>>> the quality of life afforded by the resulting /net/ (after deductions)
>>> income. To make it real, would you choose that for yourself/your
>>> kids/your grandchildren?
>>
>> No. That's why I took the time to become educated and develop skills
>> that could command higher wages.
>
> Good for you. I'd pat you on the back except that you're already doing
> it. I can't help wondering how well you'd do starting from scratch
That was not my point - I was merely commenting that minimum wage is
not an inevitable endgame for people.
> /today/ with only minimum wages available...
I started with far, far less that today's situation. Single parent
poor family, etc. Went to two private universities (under- and grad
school) w/o a dime of debt or govt grant money and NO debt at the
end ... by working, sometimes multiple cruddy jobs.
>
> ...and I wonder how you'll respond when (not if!) everything you have to
> offer your employers is available for one-fifth the cost from
> Abd'AlShugal via internet from Islamabad.
Then I'll have to do something different for a living. I've already
switched career gears multiple times in my life, and am prepared to
do so again as needed.
>
>> The essential fraud of the union
>> movement is that people are somehow innately "worth" whatever the
>> union says. Ordinarily, I don't care - let the unions and employers
>> work things out and let the marketplace dictate an employee's economic
>> value.
>
> In a marketplace where employers compete for the best employees and
> where prospective employees compete for the best jobs, I agree with you
> completely.
>
> Unfortunately, that description does not apply to all marketplaces - or
> even uniformly through /most/ marketplaces. To insist that it does is to
> deny reality. In an ideal world, all forces would be in balance - but in
> the real world, people struggle to achieve imbalances that benefit them
> more than their peers.
>
> My perception is that even as you say: "Let the system achieve
> equilibrium," you're advocating a particular definition of the system
> that would be of benefit to (especially) yourself.
No, I advocate that government stay out of the way other than to
ensure there is no fraud, force, or threat by any of the players.
Buying and selling labor resources should be no different than
buying and selling TVs - you find the best price, best vendor,
etc. and do business with them. Labor is absolutely the same thing.
>
>> But government has shown a repeated willingness to step in and
>> distort this process.
>
> It has - because it is also driven by market forces. :)
But ... it has the legitimate legal use of force at its disposal
and THAT makes it very dangerous and THAT is why its scope must
be consciously very narrow.
>
>> One example is government intrusion in the form
>> of binding arbitration - surely not an enumerated power of the
>> government. Most recently, we see the "UAW Bailout Of 2008" begged for
>> before Congress. Both of these kinds of things distort the
>> price/feedback mechanism that should be setting the salary points for
>> union employees (and everyone else, for that matter). A similar
>> example is the insistence of the unions that they need a law
>> that forces votes to unionize to be public - a complete breach
>> of personal privacy and trust that the Obama bunch has already
>> said they will *support*.
>
> No argument with what you've said. Examples abound. What you haven't
> addressed are the market forces that produced these examples. Until
> you've done that, you have no basis (other than wishful thinking) for
> dealing with them.
The "market forces" that produced them are an ignorant public and
pandering politicians. They have created an environment deadly to
liberty but apparently in both their self-interest. In the short
term it may well be so, but not in the long term. Given the current
trajectory, the US is headed for 3rd rate economic and geopolitical
status in probably only a couple generations.
>
>>> Almost. I'm not a fan of trade unions, but there are situations in which
>>> there is no way an individual can negotiate a just solution to a
>>> problem.
>>>
>>> I think the best we can do is try to achieve some reasonable measure of
>>> balance - and it would seem that unions may be one of the tools for
>>> doing that.
>>
>> I don't think "achieving balance" is even necessary. Let all the parties
>> to this discussion (the unions, the employers) alone. Pass no laws that
>> particularly favor either party. Require civil and legal behavior
>> on both parts and make them *negotiate*. If there is a shortage of
>> labor, the unions will get better terms. If there are plenty of
>> candidates for the work, then the contract will favor the employer.
>> Markets work when we let them. Employment markets are no different.
>
> Let's agree to disagree. I value "fairness" and "justice" in my dealings
> with others and between others and I'm convinced that neither is
> possible without balance. All of my life experience informs me that both
> are necessary.
>
I do too. So does anyone whose been successful at what they do.
You cannot durably succeed by lying, cheating, and stealing - it is
a self-limiting set of behaviors. But being fair and just does not
mean overpaying for underskilled or unskilled labor. It does not
mean extending benefits beyond that which is earned, and so on.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> The that added expense would be short lived.
>
> I don't understand. What is short lived about spending large amounts of
> money.
Compre the adjustment period of people learning that they "WILL" be exicuted
if found guilty of murder to the on going period of every convict convivted
of murder living free on our dollar fir the rest of his life. More liberal
laws in recent decades seem to not deter crime.
>>If you know you are going to die, you would be more likely to not break
>>the law. Right now the system is absolutely going in the wrong
>>dirrection.
>
> The old execution question.
>
> Does it or does it not prevent crime?
Absolutely, whether it be on our streets or behind prison walls.
>
> Some known facts.
>
> Murder is by and large a crime of passion between people who know each
> other so a legal deterrent doesn't apply in those situations.
Well that is one reason to murder and probably the most often used defense.
Still, if you know growing up that you will be exicuted for murdering a
person regardless of the reason the rate of murders would go down.
> People who are sentenced to death are usually poor and not able to afford
> adequate representation to avoid the death penalty.
Being poor is no excuse to get out of punishment for murder.
>
> Blacks and others of color are by and large, most likely to receive the
> death penalty.
That is ture today. Exicution of "all" murderers would do away with
descrimination.
>
> There is nothing "bleeding heart" about the above, they are just facts.
>
> Ohio and Michigan are very similar in many respects.
>
> Both Midwestern, similar size, similar size population, similar ethnic mix
> of people, similar industrial and/or agricultural mix of business.
>
> They do have a basic difference.
>
> Ohio has the death penalty, Michigan does not.
>
> These states have been studied for years.
>
> What sticks out is that the capital murder rate, as a percentage of
> population, in Michigan is about equal to that in Ohio, year after year.
The trend did not begin overnight, it will not stop overnight.
> The death penalty in Ohio does not reduce the capital murder rate below
> that of Michigan.
If every one was on board I strongly believe that the trend would go toward
less murders.
>
> Texas, Georgia, and Florida have the highest execution rates in the
> country, but it doesn't seem to affect their capital murder rates.
I can assure you that many convivted of murder in Texas are not from Texas.
>
> There is conclusive evidence that execution doesn't serve as a deterrent.
Same goes for housing murdererss for the rest of their lives on our dime.
>
> OTOH, there is the "feel good" factor, "By god, that's one SOB we don't
> have to worry about anymore."
Precicely!
>
> In this day and age, there has to be a better way of dealing with man's
> inhumanity to man other than state sanctioned murder.
There is, quit giving the murderers a way out of paying equally for their
crime.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:5aebd4b4-5f16-4246-aa9f-a9491b62cead@a12g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 15, 11:10 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
Snip
>
> As you say Leon, the writing has been on the wall for many years now,
> probably about 25 or so. I remember reading many serious
> dissertations concerning the demise of the Big Three as early as the
> 80s. Poor quality cars, silly labor costs, bad management, etc.,
> etc., created a monster cancer that has slowly killed the industry.
I still remember like it was yesterday working for the Oldsmobile dealer. I
was the Service Sales Manager at the time when Oldsmobile was probably the
most arrogant. Our dealership had won the Oldsmobile Service Supremacy
award. This was based mostly on customer satisfaction with the service
performed. Oldsmobile steered many customers our way because the other 4
dealers could not fix reoccurring warranty problems. Because we did more
warranty work "proportionally" in service than the other dealerships we
automatically had 10-15% of our warranty claims kick back to us. The
reason, we had more warranty claims than was our share. Never mind the fact
that the cars did have problems and we were the only ones that could do a
repair that lasted.
>
> Even protectionist taxes couldn't kill the foreign cars or their
> makers. They invested billions here in our own country to build
> better cars here with our own labor forces at a better price. They
> beat us at our own game with quality, design, pricing, reliability,
> and most importantly a long term business model.
And the foreigh auto makers are making more money with the added taxes. If
the Big 3 workers are worth a damn they should not have a problem finding
jobs elsewhere but they are probably going to be paid a wage more in line
with what they are actually worth. Right now if they are layed off they get
up to 95% continued salary for 2 years.
>
> Compare that the first meeting of the Big Three with the Senators to
> beg for money a month or so ago (when they flew up to meet in their
> private jets to be greeted by private limos) revealed they literally
> had no written, no verbal, or even an objective for a plan that would
> save them. They simply wanted the money to pay bills, base on "or
> else the public would all pay for this".
The fools showed their hand right off the bat. You know if the leader of a
company is wasteful and ignorant the rest of the company is probably in the
same shape.
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Are a sign of class envy. This is based on Upscale's consistent pattern
>> of ideation here, not drawn out of thin air. (A consistent pattern, BTW,
>> that he is unwilling to be held accountable for insofar as he hides
>> behind an anonymous email identity.)
>
> My email address is a working and easily verifiable one. If you were nearly
> as smart as you think you are, then you'd have done a search on it and come
> up with my name a long time ago. Why don't I reveal it to you? Because it
> irritates you that I don't. Ok with that Asshole? A siginificant number of
> people here use an alias. So what? You're still and asshole.
I thought you'd plonked me. I did miss the nonstop cursing.
>
>> Which of these are an insult?
>
> Every paragraph you write has an insult or a criticism of some sort.
Calling someone to account for their beliefs is not an insult ...
unless, of course, your beliefs are indefensible. Say ... like
defending stealing.
>
>> I also apologize that you find "well-practised and well-honed" language
>> offensive. When I grew up, mastery of language was considered a
>> virtue not a vice or a debating tactic. I'm sorry it was apparently
>> not so for you.
>
> There's another insult. You don't have any virtue. You're a selfish, greedy,
> consistent liar who has no conscious regard for anyone else except yourself.
> There's absolutely no virtue in that.
I have not once lied here ... ever. I am also not selfish or greedy in
the sense that you use the words. I do object to being stolen from -
something you've defended regularly.
>
>> I am consistently "nice". I have strong opinions, and some explication
>> of fact. What I do not do is curse at people and use vulgar invective
>
> Maybe not you dumb fuck, but you insult people just the same. Just because
> you trot out a few chosen phrases and criticise someone without swearing
> puts you up on a pedestal as far as you're concerned.
Are you angry because I don't respond in kind or are you angry because
you have no defensible counterpoint? (I'm just curious.)
>
> You are an asshole of the first degree. Every time someone calls you on
> something, you bring out some UNVERIFIABLE answer. Care for some examples?
>
> You were accused of prejudice at one point. You trotted out the fact that
> you not only had a black relative, but a black relative that was darker than
> most. - UNVERIFIABLE
Nor will I provide you with personal details in a place like the internet.
Feel free to drop by Christmas day and I'll introduce you. Oh, and I freely
admit to being prejudiced, just not racist. I am prejudiced against
ignorance, threat, theft, wealth redistribution, and whining - many of
the things you defend so vigorously.
>
> When accused of not contributing to charity, you claimed that you not only
> donated to charity, but you donated anonymously, the ultimate in
> unselfishness. - UNVERIFIABLE
Precisely. The point is that it *is* unverifable*.
>
> You've just claimed to have been involved and also run several companies.
> How about the name of those companies? If you did as good a job as you're
> about to claim, then there's no harm in letting people know those company
> names so at least once someone can verify some of your claims. You won't
> though, because you can't. You're a veteran liar with Doug Miller as your
> cowardly running mate.
>
> That fact is that ALL YOU DO is talk without ever offering ANY type of
> substance. You're an asshole of the first degree and I'm perfectly happy to
> swear at you whenever I feel like it.
I'd guess that swearing tests the limit of your vocabulary and ideas.
>
> GOT THAT FUCK FACE?
>
Like I said ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Highland Pairos wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Highland Pairos wrote:
>
>>>> The market changed faster than they could react. I'd argue this was
>>>> both because of a lack of vision in leadership, AND an inflexible,
>>>> archaic labor rewards system.
>>> I definatley agree with the lack of vision AND leadership, and am curious
>>> how the labor agreement impacts product strategy.
>>>
>>> SteveP.
>>>
>>>
>> Because the ability to change market direction quickly requires a
>> flexible workforce. Many of the the past UAW contracts were completely
>> inflexible with draconian workrules and terms. It's hard to turn
>> the company on a dime when labor is dragging its feed.
>>
>> As you say, there's lot's of blame to go around here from senior
>> mangement,
>> to the Board, to the UAW leadership, to the worker bees themselves.
>> Personally, I love GM truck products and hope they stay in business,
>> just not by stealing my- and my fellow citizens' money.
>
> I am not debating your position here, I am just curious. I know that many
> of the work rules are ridiculous and inflexible. Are there really rules
> that prevent the company from designing new and different products and then
> shifting its production over to that new product?
I'd guess not. But the issue isn't the design phase. The issue is
just how fast can you train and deploy the workforce to actually
*build* the new model. Can you use your workforce in multiple roles,
or do the union contracts insist on very stratified work assignments?
Can you move work from plant to plant easily to get efficiencies of
scale? Can you install automation to replace manual labor for
improved productivity and quality without also having to payoff the
union for years afterwards?
I don't know the answers to these questions, and I'm sure not excusing
the leadership of the Big Three. But, we're going to hold the CEOs
accountable here, then let's hold the UAW accountable in equal parts.
>
> As far as the use of taxpayer money is concerned, I have great reservations
> about our money being used for all of these bailouts. I definitely agree
> with the principles against bailouts, bad companies that cannot compete
> should go out of business. However, there are two facts that sway me
> towards going along with bailouts. #1. The track record of government loans
> and 'bailouts' to private industry is one of success in terms of the loan
> itself. I recently heard a list of the 5 major bailouts in the past 50
> years(?) (I think that was the time frame). The two that I can remember off
> the top of my head are the Chrysler loan and the S&L debacle. All 5 have
> been paid back, with interest and on time or early. (The fact that Chrysler
> is back on the hill, hat in hand, however, causes me to question the long
> term wisdom of bailouts.) #2. The failure of all three companies in quick
> succession would be disastrous for this country for quite a while. I
> believe that there would be a great deal of hardship for many people for a
> long time. That being said, for one of them to go away I think might be a
> healthy thinning of the herd. If there is going to be a bailout, I firmly,
> unwaveringly believe that it needs to be handled as a business matter, not
> as corporate welfare. The American taxpayers need to view this and conduct
> themselves as one very large investor. To that end, it is unconscionable
> that the Big 3 even asked for help with out having a plan prepared to right
> their ships and convince the potential investors that their money would be
> well spent. There is no way I will ever support money turned over without a
> significant address of the problems that a bunch of simple wood butchers
> like us can identify.
All that is well and good, but here's my fear: The government -
especially these days - is like an infestation of termites. Once they
get in, they never go away. A government "managed" car industry will
be rife with corruption, ridiculous regulation, politically correct
policy decisions, and so forth. This isn't like Chrysler's loan
guarantees of the past. This is a full on trade of Capitalism for
Socialism - many of the politicians are just drooling at that
opportunity. The truth of this bailout is that it is not a bailout of
the auto companies. It is a bailout of the unions because bailing
out the unions buys votes, and votes are all that the political
types care about.
The right answer here is to let the car companies go bankrupt. Then,
under the supervision of a court they could retool their abusive union
contracts, set rational compensation models for their management team,
and - most importantly - make everyone involved from the floor
sweepers to the CEO, stock participants in the company with an
incentive to grow it and make it better. This would work better and
faster than having the professional politicians - most of whom have
never run anything other than their mouths - "manage" a huge, high
complexity industry.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:59:41 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:
> Every time I've heard one of these tales of corporate demise and been
> able to ask questions, I've learned of an unhealthy management culture
> /and/ a worker attitude sickness that seemed traceable to a
> union-encouraged breakdown in teamwork and an alienation of management
> and worker people - and in every such instance I've seen no way to lay
> all of the responsibility on just one of the parties.
My father was a Linotype operator and belonged to the Typographical union.
I cannot remember them ever going on strike (at least not in our locale)
and they published a magazine that, along with union news, gave the
expenditures for every local, all the way down to what they spent on
postage.
As a tabulating machine operator for a wire/steel company, I was told I
had to join the Steelworkers union. I did and went to a meeting. When I
asked how often they published financial reports two rather burly members
physically ejected me from the meeting! I found another job.
So I learned early on that unions vary considerably. Of course, I can't
say if that still applies or not.
So there may be times that it's all the unions fault, and times it's all
the management. But I agree that most times it's both.
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:01:45 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:
> As with software, there's always more than one way to skin a cat. If you
> don't like the way the system runs, it's nearly always possible to
> re-design for improvements - and that improvements almost always come
> from disaffected users who /haven't/ given up. The old name for
> disaffected users who /have/ given up (or never made a real effort) was
> "lusers". I encourage you to not join that community.
>
<snip>
> Change is the only constant, and predictions are only predictions. :)
Back when I was designing/writing SCADA software, I always tried to think
about possible future requirements due to external changes. I've had
customers comment years later that they went to modify something and found
the hooks for the modification were already there. Nothing like a delayed
pat on the back :-).
I'm so obsolete now I'd have trouble programming "Hello, world" :-).
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:51:28 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:
> Your input makes me a bit less resistant to Tim's position that
> education should be privatized (but not enough so that I'm willing to
> adopt his view without a /lot/ more information).
Private education in this country consists of high end "exclusive"
academies for the rich and schools operated by religious groups. There
are few affordable secular private schools.
And private education for a fee is an unaffordable tax on the poor,
especially if it remains illegal to not send your kids to school. A
tax supported system is the only chance many poor kids have to get a
smattering of education, even if the school quality is low.
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>> Do I actually hear Tim Daneliuk advocating /for/ force and coersion? You
>>> can't have it both ways.
>>
>> Uh, yes I can. *Initiating* force is always wrong. Fraud is always
>> wrong. In the case of minor children, parents are by default presumed
>> to be the proper caretakers. When they fail to see to their children's
>> education, this is an initiation of at least fraud, and arguably
>> force, because they are condemning their children to fail. The
>> children - as minors - are legally presumed to be incapable of caring
>> for themselves and thus the state does have the right to interdict on
>> their behalf, no different than a policeman arresting someone trying
>> to break into your house.
>>
>> As far as "making" teacher earn the respect of parents, I mean this
>> in a noncoerive way - there should be a marketplace for schools
>> and teachers as there is anything else. Parents would choose from
>> that pool based on their perception of the fitness of the school/teacher,
>> the amount they were willing to pay for it, and how that school
>> environment mapped to their personal values and ambitions for their
>> child.
>
> I don't think you'll achieve much traction pushing this issue - not
> because I have anything against private education, but because I don't
> see any practical means of implementation due to cost.
>
> In a most fortunate twist of fate (I lived in a country with /no/ high
> schools, and my stepfather's employer paid for dependents' education at
> any accredited boarding school), I got to make my own choice of private
> schools (subject to parental veto for cause) high school. My first two
> choices (ACS in Beirut and a boarding school in England) were vetoed for
> what seemed good reasons, and my third choice was where I went.
>
> I dug around to find a web page with some cost info and came up with:
>
> http://www.boardingschoolreview.com/school_ov/school_id/201
>
> and if you scroll down to "Finances" you'll get the same reality check I
> just did. Education at retail is bloody awful expensive!
Hang on a second here. Yes, education is expensive. Just how is
it cheaper if it is public? I'd argue that public education - if the
real and complete costs are tallied - is *more* expensive than
private because there is no market feedback to make it efficient.
By some estimates, the US now spends more per student, inflation
adjusted, than at any time since education went public, and the results
are declining on average. This is not a money problem.
>
> [ I think it's worth every penny for kids whose parents can afford it -
> and if you watch the video (at the top of the page) you can see a bit of
> why I hold that opinion - what they present is real and true. ]
>
>>> I had to go drink a cup of coffee and pause to unload the emotional
>>> baggage. Back at the keyboard, I see all of the things you've listed as
>>> /desirable/ - and from what you've told about yourself, I infer that you
>>> don't consider them /undesirable/.
>>
>> They are desireable. They are not political rights. They are things
>> each individual and/or family ought to achieve or earn in their own
>> right. The sole exception is safety. The state has some role to
>> play in defending the borders, interdicting in matters of fraud, force,
>> and threat, and generally maintaining the *framework* of a civil
>> society. This does not, however, include using the coercion of the state
>> to inflict its versions of healthcare, education, et al.
>
> Yabbut - in a democracy "rights" are what the people decide they are,
> whether they make sense or seem appropriate to you or not. By choosing
> to live in a democracy we accept a social contract to live by the rules
> chosen by the majority. One of the good things about our democracy is
> that we've incorporated mechanisms to change those rules whenever a
> majority so elects.
Well again, hang on:
1) The "rights" everyone is trying to vote themselves are not
under the purview of the Federal government because it has
no enumerated power to grant such gifts. To legally elect
themselves these freebies, the Sheeple ought to change the
Constitution. They won't, moochers are never that honest.
2) Some rights - the ones explicated in our Constitution - are
innate and freely distributed to all. My right to free speech
does not diminish your similar right. But the "rights" people
are inventing for themselves are not equally distributed.
They are "rights" granted to some citizens at the expense
of others. This is not a honest theory of rights, its just
stealing under mob rule masquerading as a "right".
>
> You /can/ effect the changes you want, but first you'll need to build
> the necessary consensus...
Today's consensus is mooching. This is why I say we are in an
inexorable slide to the loss of liberty and preeminence in the world.
>
>>> Within the context of a democracy, each of those things can be
>>> considered goals worth pursuing, and AFAICT your reservations have more
>>> to do with /how/ to best attain those benefits for the greatest number
>>> of participants.
>>
>> My reservation has to do with the fact that the unwashed masses are
>> willing to give away their liberty and freedom merely upon the promise
>> of some politician that what they want will be given them by government.
>>
>> "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
>> Franklin
>>
>> These goals - very much worth pursuing - belong in private life, not
>> as chits to buy votes.
>
> Since you've referenced one of my favorite Ben Franklin quotes, let's
> also quote from the document under discussion when he said those words:
>
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident,
> that all men are created equal,..."
>
> I welcome you to the land of the unwashed masses (est. July 4, 1776)
All men are *created* equal, but none of the Framers held that they
actually *were* equal. They merely articulated a baseline set of
inherent rights all citizens ought to enjoy and wrote a legal framework
so that all citizens would be "equal" before the law, under the law,
and from the law. The "equality" in question was not about the
citizen, it was that the government ought to be "equal" in its
behavior.
>
>>> As with software, there's always more than one way to skin a cat. If you
>>> don't like the way the system runs, it's nearly always possible to
>>> re-design for improvements - and that improvements almost always come
>>> from disaffected users who /haven't/ given up. The old name for
>>> disaffected users who /have/ given up (or never made a real effort) was
>>> "lusers". I encourage you to not join that community.
>>
>> You or I or anyone else that still values freedom are in a declining
>> minority. The demographics here are overwhelming. The last election
>> alone demonstrates that people will buy almost anything at face value
>> from a politician promising them "free" stuff, "change", and all the
>> rest of goo that came from our soon-to-be communist-in-chief. The
>> system cannot be redesigned when a majority of the participants
>> are happy to watch it fail - fiddling on the deck of the Titanic
>> as it were.
>
> As you already know, our opinions differ on all of the above except that
> I can agree that "free stuff" always carries a price tag.
>
>>>> When 5% of the working population pay the
>>>> overwhelming proportion of Federal taxes in the US, but some 40% pay
>>>> little- or no taxes but can vote (and thus appoint the next President)
>>>> there is no resolution.
>>>
>>> So? How about making a serious proposal for tax reform you consider more
>>> reasonable? Personally, I'd prefer a flat rate without exemptions
>>> coupled with hard limits on government spending, structured so that
>>> after a period of a century or two, government could be fully endowed
>>> and further taxation prohibited. :)
>>
>> Me too. It will never happen.
>
> Never is a /very/ long time... :)
Never in time to make a difference to you or me, or likely our children.
Our grandchildren will probably have to learn Mandarin.
>
>>>> The next great superpower will be China, with
>>>> India as an arguable close second. They will not be liberal
>>>> democracies as we understand the term. The virtues of Western
>>>> civilization - a civilization that did more to free mankind in less
>>>> time than any other institution in recorded human history - are nearly
>>>> dead or on their deathbed. These are not just the rambling of someone
>>>> of "a certain age". They are the observations of someone who has lived
>>>> in 3 countries and traveled to many more over 5 decades and has seen
>>>> the difference. The US - once a light for freedom and opportunity -
>>>> has become a ghetto for political correctness, government overreach,
>>>> and whining demands for imaginary "rights." The US is not dying from
>>>> external attack. It has committed suicide...
>>>
>>> I've only lived in two countries, although I've traveled to a reasonable
>>> number of others over /six/ decades. Interestingly, I've always found
>>> much to admire wherever I traveled. Americans do indeed have much to be
>>> proud of, but we're not done learning from others - and it's been said
>>> that our greatest strengths are our ability and willingness to re-invent
>>> ourselves.
>>
>> But that latter thing is exactly what is missing. The citizenry
>> hardly wants to "re-invent" the culture or the nation. It is too
>> busy abdicating itself to the leviathan of the state.
>
> Methinks it's too early to tell - let's see how it plays out. One or the
> other of us (or possibly both) may be surprised.
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Highland Pairos wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
>>
>> I would point to the sales figures for those cars versus those of Camrys,
>> Accords, Priuses, Sentras, etc to dispute what it is that people really
>> want. Eco-weenies aren't forcing people to buy the vehicles that they
>> do.
>> (They might want to, but they don't)
>
> No, but there's been this phony consciousness raising going on to
> get people to experience environmental guilt. Any number of otherwise
> rational people have bought into the extremist (and unsupported) views
> of the Global Warming Chicken Littles that overstate the severity and
> impact of GW so they buy these kinds of cars out of misplaced fear
> and guilt.
>
> Speaking of which, I wonder if this will cause the Sierra Club to
> *demand* we all drive high-emissions cars to get things warmed back
> up:
>
> http://cdapress.com/articles/2008/11/17/columns/columns06.txt
>
Even if you want to debate the issue of the environmental impacts of the
vehicles we drive, you are still left with the fact that we are spending
billions of dollars overseas to pay for the oil that we are using and need
to use less of. You cannot debate the fact that it takes billions of years
to make oil and we are using it a hell of a lot faster then that. Simple
logic says that if you use it faster then you can make it, you will run out
of it. But beyond all of that, and I think far more germain to the issue of
product strategy by the car companies, people buy fuel efficient cars
because they would rather spend their money on something other then gas.
Some other people simply see the logic of how wasteful it is to drive a
vehicle that is larger then they need.
You can argue the principles and the reasons why people make the vehicle
choices that they do all you want, but if you are in the business of selling
vehicles (or any product) you had better be able to anticipate, correctly
identify and then meet the actual market demand.
SteveP.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Rusty wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Rusty wrote:
>>> Destroy the unions so we can all do worse. The only thing wrong with
>>> union
>>> jobs is I don't have one.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Right, because unions are a magic potion that create wealth out of
>> thin air. The laws of economics are superseded by the demands of
>> the unions. As long as the union is there, there will always be
>> lots of wealth and productivity. Right.
>>
> Well Management has created nothing from a huge company.Still they got paid
> well,my fingers hurt to much when I type all the zeros
>
>
You are being silly. Management has certainly made many mistakes -
the biggest being their capitulation to the UAW. But - judging from
my 2008 Chevy truck - they still know how to build a very nice
product.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> 3) You can't fix education without fixing the lousy parenting that
> dominates the culture. This lousy parenting transcends demography
> and geography. It isn't just inner city ghetto dwellers ignoring
> the education of their children, its the lily white suburbanites
> as well. Where children have become an income stream to the
> putative poor, they've become a fashion accessory to the affluent.
> It's kind of hard to educate a child when their own parents
> aren't paying attention. "Tax support" does not fix this in
> any way. In fact, it is "tax support" that created the
> "children as an revenue stream" problem in the first place.
>
Yet the school board just wants more money to fix all those problems. If
you don't agree that you should pay more, you are against children and
un-American. Our school system needs major overhaul and the schools need
discipline and the students need parents that care. We pay the most per
student, but we are ranked #10 in education.
In China the school year is 220 days.
In India, there are more honor students than the USA has students
No matter how hard you wave the flag, there will come a time that the US Is
no longer the most powerful country in the world.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Highland Pairos wrote:
>> Tim and Leon,
>>
>> I think that you two have been having a very worthwhile and interesting
>> discussion and I would like to compliment you both on the ease with which
>> it
>> can be read and the civil manner in which you have conducted yourselves.
>>
>> I firmly believe that the true nature of the problem before us, is either
>> an
>> amalgam of the issues that you both raise, or somewhere in between. From
>> all that I have read, heard and observed, I think that you both are right
>> while seeming to be on opposite sides of a fence.
>>
>> However, one issue that I must chime in on, is the issue of the products
>> that you have been discussing. You seem to agree that the Big 3 make
>> trucks
>> that range somewhere from good to superior, but that their cars are
>> completely lacking. Well in addition to labor issues, and management
>> issues, I would say that your assessment of their products is #1. correct
>> and #2. the third and equal part of the problem. The Big 3 have centered
>> their product strategy around trucks and SUVs and failed the car market.
>> A
>> common sense discussion about the needs of the motoring public makes it
>> very
>> clear that most people do not NEED trucks or SUVs, and recent gas pricing
>
> I disagree. I regularly engage in activities that require a large
> storage area. I do not *always* need it, but when I do, no car would
> serve the purpose as well as an SUV.
Where did you read that Steve indicated that "YOU" did not need a SUV. I
think he clearly states that "most" people do not need trucks or SUV's.
In all acutuality, in Houston where probably more trucks and SUV's are are
purchased than most any where else most never see cargo. Most only have a
couple of people riding in them and they have never seen dirt under their
wheels.
Basically the world does not follow your foot steps or do as you think.
>
>> has forced people to reevaluate their purchasing decisions. It seems to
>> me
>
> I bought my SUV when gas was $4/gal - it was a great buying opportunity.
If you "could not have afforded" $4 per gallon for gasoline it would have
been a poor decision to buy a vehicle that does not get better gas mileage.
I actually drove my Tundra more than the Honda when the gasoline prices were
high. Because you and I apparently have disposable income the increase in g
gasoline prices did not affect our decision making about which vehicle to
drive. and yes, it was a great buying opportunity, it has been for the last
4 or 5 years and because of the current economy this year it is an excelent
buying opportunity for most any vehicle with the exception of a few very
high gase mileage vehicles.
>
>> that smart product strategy would be to develop a bread and butter,
>> reliable
>> straight forward automobile that will satisfy the wants and needs of the
>> greatest number of people. That main product line can then be coupled
>> with
>> additional vehicle types that fill the needs of the smaller market
>> segments,
>> (i.e. contractors, boat owners, those that really do need to get through
>> a
>> major snow, sports car enthusiasts.)
>
> This is what they should have done. Then again, the money was all being
> made in light trucks and SUVs, not cars. So .. they went where the money
> was. They failed to read the changes in the industry effectively and
> got caught with the pants down.
Well where the money was being made was kinda short sighted by the Big 3
wasn't it. The import builders are not suffering as much because they
understood what would sell when sales are week, and those that can continue
to make sales during hard times are those that will survive. That just
kinda falls into a common sense way of thinking.
>
>>
>> I simply do not understand the product strategies of the Big 3. If you
>> tally the TV ads from Ford and Chrysler these days, you mostly see ads
>> for
>> trucks. Vehicles that most people do not need or want anymore. GM has
>> finally brought to market a hybrid drive system. I know very little
>> about
>> it technically, but why release it only in a $60k SUV rather then in a
>> mid-size sedan that would appeal to a greater market. Why is Chrysler
>> returning to the days of big motored rear-wheel drive cars, (i.e. the
>> Charger, Magnum, etc.) when the mainline, practical concept is that of
>> front-wheel drive small displacement 4 and 6 cylinder cars?
>
> Because these really are the cars people like ... or at least that's
> what they did like. The eco-weenies want everyone to drive a
> shoebox that is vegan and ugly, but that's not what the buying public
> really wants. They want comfort, safety, reliability, AND some
> level of fuel economy.
Again, you are partially correct. These bigger vehicles are indeed what
people like but not necessarily what they can afford. A company with a
sound business plan will understand what their customers will always be able
to afford.
>
>>
>> If you look at the relatively recent history of the Big 3 and their
>> products, you have to notice the successes. What was the product that
>> saved
>> Chrysler once before? The Aries K platform, midsized, front wheel drive,
>> practical and flexible. That platform was used for so many different
>> vehicles, its amazing. What saved Ford in the late 80's? The Taurus,
>> midsized, front wheel drive, straight forward automobile. What have the
>
> Especially the SHO with that big honking Yamaha power plant in it.
>
>> Japanese been selling by the boatload (or trainload)? Small to midsized,
>> front wheel drive, 4 and 6 cylinder sedans.
>>
>> The companies definitely have labor issues, and management issues, but
>> they
>> also have equally debilitating product strategy issues, (which BTW is
>> technically a management issue but one of such import that I believe it
>> deserves its own examination.)
>
> The market changed faster than they could react. I'd argue this was
> both because of a lack of vision in leadership, AND an inflexible,
> archaic labor rewards system.
I cannot agree there either. Since 2000, gasoline prices have been on the
rise and have been higher than ever since September of 2005. R&D should
have been on target long before the prices of gasoline went drastically
higher. Your second statement is entirely correct especially the mention of
lack of leadership which led to the unions literally "out smarting" the Big
3 leaders. Status Quo ate their lunch.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Dec 15, 1:09 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081215/bs_nm/
us_generalmotors_loan_bankofamerica>
So if Congress gives them all just 14 B, how will that fix anything?
BOA actually stepped in only as a means to protect their own interest
or we would never really know the real cost for GM.
I am wondering what it will cost to bail out all of them... I don't
believe there is a bottom to this this, especially if we wind up with
all three on deck with their hands out.
And now that the additional (on top of the TARP 700 B) stimulus/
bailout money is approaching an additional TRILLION before stewardship
of the country has even changed hands, I am wondering myself when all
of this will stop.
U
I'm afraid to say that a majority of the Big 3 workers are not totally
unlike the majority of the people that bought houses that were way beyond
their pay grade. It all catches up with you sooner or later. Later has
arrived.
Upscale wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,
>
> Absolutely. Included in that lesson should be a sizable contingent of CEO's
> and every other person in the companies with golden parachutes and ludicrous
> $$$ plus salaries.
If those executives worked for absolutely nothing - no base, no bonus,
no stock options - it would make NO difference in the earnings of the
companies in question. The P&L of manufacturing companies is
dominated by the cost of labor. But it's fun to hate people with
more money than you, eh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Doug Winterburn wrote:
> Upscale wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> That fact is that ALL YOU DO is talk without ever offering ANY type of
>> substance. You're an asshole of the first degree and I'm perfectly happy to
>> swear at you whenever I feel like it.
>>
>> GOT THAT FUCK FACE?
>>
>>
>
> I think I now understand why you're not married...
Naw, he's being charming ... wait till he gets warmed up ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
If unions go down you can count on 10$ an hour as a high wage for the
middle class as the greedy 5% scoop up all the easy cash.
It has happened in the forest industry. they broke the unions by contracting
out. Now the company takes bids for the work and contractors lowball each
other so much, they end up going bankrupt and not paying there workers. The
company still gets the same money for the logged area as the logs are sold
through them. I like the Chinese but if you think some Chinese company isn't
going to lowball you to get your job,good luck to you.GM has plans for a big
plant in Russia, is it with bailout money? Bankers just took us for 850 000
000 000 if not more and no regulation and you think they have your interests
in mind? They have transferred all the cash from public to private hands now
they are transferring private dept to the public.I can think of nothing
since Regan that has been done by the neo-conservative powers that control
the republican party that has helped the middle class.The republican party
isn't conservative anymore they are just greedy and power hungry praying on
the stupid.
> No free lunch.
>
> r
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2:05 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Upscale wrote:
>>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,
>>> Absolutely. Included in that lesson should be a sizable contingent of CEO's
>>> and every other person in the companies with golden parachutes and ludicrous
>>> $$$ plus salaries.
>> If those executives worked for absolutely nothing - no base, no bonus,
>> no stock options - it would make NO difference in the earnings of the
>> companies in question. The P&L of manufacturing companies is
>> dominated by the cost of labor. But it's fun to hate people with
>> more money than you, eh?
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
> Are you EVER going to say something constructive without shitting on
> somebody?
> Will you EVER stop hiding behind those well-practised and well-honed
> insults of yours?
>
> You can't be nice, can you...?!
I cited a fact - That CEO compensation is trivial in the calculation
of manufacturing companies' P&L.
Then I cited an opinion - That statements like:
The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,
Are a sign of class envy. This is based on Upscale's consistent pattern
of ideation here, not drawn out of thin air. (A consistent pattern, BTW,
that he is unwilling to be held accountable for insofar as he hides
behind an anonymous email identity.)
Which of these are an insult? Is it insulting to call someone out for
envying other people?
I also apologize that you find "well-practised and well-honed" language
offensive. When I grew up, mastery of language was considered a
virtue not a vice or a debating tactic. I'm sorry it was apparently
not so for you.
I am consistently "nice". I have strong opinions, and some explication
of fact. What I do not do is curse at people and use vulgar invective
when I disagree with folks. This is not a claim you can make. Methinks
we have a beam/mote problem between you and me (respectively).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Sounds to me like it's time to fire up old Sparky.
>
> Having been in an execution chamber, standing within 5 ft of the electric
> chair used by the State of Ohio, listening to a description of the process
> being given by a penitentiary employee, had a profound effect on me as a
> 13 year old.
>
> To this day, I could not vote for the death penalty.
So you want to continue to support and deal with a fellon that does not
deserve to be around other humans?
>
> Having said that, I am convinced that life in prison without the
> possibility of parole, is not only less expensive, but extracts a greater
> penalty than execution.
Totally agree, the penalty is shared by the tax payers. A bullet in the
head is cheap, quick, humane, and rids us of the problem.
>
> Given the choice of living the rest of your life in solitary confinement
> or perhaps sharing a jail cell having less that 70 sq ft with another
> human being or being executed, which would you choose?
I would choose to live.
Jay Pique wrote:
> On Dec 15, 9:26 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm not questioning that there has been a quality problem in Detroit.
>> There has been. My point is merely that this is not the central
>> issue before us today as they come whining to the rest of us to
>> bail their butts out. The central issue is their insane labor
>> costs. Oh, and BTW, I do think Detroit is building a better and
>> better product - even CR has noted this in some sectors of the
>> auto marketplace.
>
> Well, I did see that an American car did take top honors in a category
> this past year. It was "Best American Sedan". I love that one.
> Saying Detroit is making a better and better product says pretty much
> nothing. One would certainly hope they aren't turning out vehicles
Not so. We own both Japanese and American vehicles in my household.
Both are very good at what they do. Do I think *all* American
cars are competitive with their foreign counterparts? No. But
there are good models from which to choose. The idea that the
foreign cars are innately better on their face is ... well, an
oversimplification. The Japanese, for example, have had plenty
of quality problems that kind of get glossed over - Izusu and
Mitsubishi leap to mind. As always, research and homework
pay dividends when buying new transportion. That said, I've
never had a Honda product in my hands that was not flawless.
This is both the case as we've owned their vehicles and in
my extensive travels renting them. OTOH, the worst car I've
driven in decades was a Volvo. It was well built but had
abysmal ergonomics.
> that are progressively worse! If what you are saying is that they are
> closing the gap on foreign competition then I'm not so sure I agree.
We will get something like 12" of snow here in metro Chicago
this very night. My Chevy SUV will walk through it effortlessly
with comfort and stability to spare. So will selected Japanese
vehicles. There is no obvious winner. It depends on what you
buy, how you maintain the vehicle, and most importantly, how you
drive.
> And, regardless, the perception is that they are making an inferior
> product and the consumers are turning elsewhere.
>
> JP
I'm not sure what "foreign" even means these days. Many of the
most lauded cars are built here with US labor. They just don't
have the legacy labor costs with which GM, Ford, and Chrysler
must contend.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> 3) You can't fix education without fixing the lousy parenting that
>> dominates the culture. This lousy parenting transcends demography
>> and geography. It isn't just inner city ghetto dwellers ignoring
>> the education of their children, its the lily white suburbanites
>> as well. Where children have become an income stream to the
>> putative poor, they've become a fashion accessory to the affluent.
>> It's kind of hard to educate a child when their own parents
>> aren't paying attention. "Tax support" does not fix this in
>> any way. In fact, it is "tax support" that created the
>> "children as an revenue stream" problem in the first place.
>>
>
> Yet the school board just wants more money to fix all those problems. If
> you don't agree that you should pay more, you are against children and
> un-American. Our school system needs major overhaul and the schools need
> discipline and the students need parents that care. We pay the most per
> student, but we are ranked #10 in education.
>
> In China the school year is 220 days.
> In India, there are more honor students than the USA has students
>
> No matter how hard you wave the flag, there will come a time that the US Is
> no longer the most powerful country in the world.
>
>
NO matter the numbers in foreign countries, they still come to the USA
to fine quality living.
Amen,
cm
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> For openers, I am not a Michael Moore fan. In fact, I can't stand the
> opportunistic self-promoter.
> BUT.. fair is fair and he does make a point here that kinda makes sense.
> The topic is close to me as I have contact with a lot of people from the
> automotive industry. Small tool & die guys and one big upholstery shop.
> When the big 3 go down, the shit-storm will roll across the border into
> Canuckistan as there really is no border because AutoPact and NAFTA.
>
> A big part of me thinks they should just collapse just like any other
> piss-poorly managed company. In this case the consequences would be just
> too ginormous to even contemplate.
>
> The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,
> but so does the UAW. Let the blames begin!
>
> No free lunch.
>
> r
"Rusty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> How are unions the problem? Gm I believe has some of the best productivity
> levels in the auto industry.It's about a liveable wage ,you can always
> find someone to do it cheaper.
A liveable wage doing a job that most "anyone can do"??? One does not need
to have a college education to put parts on a car in an assembly line, empty
trash cans or what else the workers do. I am sure a majority of the workers
could be hard workers but this is not a profession that is in great demand.
Their shoes could easily be filled by some one fresh out of HS.
The Unions are a problem because GM spends 90% of its profit on each vehicle
on legacy benefit programs for employees that are retired. Where else can
you be layed off from a job and expect to receive a salery between 75-90% of
the full salary for 2 years.
If that ceo that ran GM into the ground is worth
> 15 million a year. I'm sure you or I could run GM into the bankruptcy for
> allot less.
Absolutely and with out a doubt if you pulled 50 college educated people
off the street at least a few of them could do a better job.
Robatoy wrote:
>
> People flocked to Audis and Subarus for all-wheel drive in a good
> looking comfortable safe car with good economy for decades. The big 3
> sat on their hands.
>
Actually, they bought part of Subie and Saab, and sold Subarus and
Trailblazers as Saabs. The Saab 9-7... Appalling...
There is some evidence that Ford got some value from Volvo, as Ford has
done well in recent crash tests. Ford does make some good cars, like
the Mondeo, they just need to bring more of them to the US. Europe
always got the Cosworth Escort, we got the other one. Last year, I
drove a Fusion and really liked the car.
I don't think GM learned very much from Subaru.
I think Chrysler should be allowed to die. My Jeeps have been absolute
garbage. My wife likes them, but the only saving grace for us once the
warranty ends is that I'm mechanically inclined.
I'm a big Toyota / Honda / Subaru fan, but back in October, I rented a
Pontiac G6. I thought it drove rather nicely. This car had 28k RENTAL
MILES on the clock, a LOT for a rental, but didn't have a single rattle!
It accelerated nicely with no torque steer, and handled much better
than I would have expected. It did have a low rent interior, but the
car definitely showed a far better build quality than past GM cars I've
driven.
I have always felt Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell would make a great
couple. But I have heard two wrongs don't make a right!
cm
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> For openers, I am not a Michael Moore fan. In fact, I can't stand the
> opportunistic self-promoter.
> BUT.. fair is fair and he does make a point here that kinda makes sense.
> The topic is close to me as I have contact with a lot of people from the
> automotive industry. Small tool & die guys and one big upholstery shop.
> When the big 3 go down, the shit-storm will roll across the border into
> Canuckistan as there really is no border because AutoPact and NAFTA.
>
> A big part of me thinks they should just collapse just like any other
> piss-poorly managed company. In this case the consequences would be just
> too ginormous to even contemplate.
>
> The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,
> but so does the UAW. Let the blames begin!
>
> No free lunch.
>
> r
"Lew Hodgett" wrote
> Given the choice of living the rest of your life in solitary confinement
> or perhaps sharing a jail cell having less that 70 sq ft with another
> human being or being executed, which would you choose?
>
> Think about it.
Ask anyone sitting in that chair about 30 seconds before the switch is
flipped as to his immediate "choice".
Think about that ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Sounds to me like it's time to fire up old Sparky.
Having been in an execution chamber, standing within 5 ft of the
electric chair used by the State of Ohio, listening to a description
of the process being given by a penitentiary employee, had a profound
effect on me as a 13 year old.
To this day, I could not vote for the death penalty.
Having said that, I am convinced that life in prison without the
possibility of parole, is not only less expensive, but extracts a
greater penalty than execution.
Given the choice of living the rest of your life in solitary
confinement or perhaps sharing a jail cell having less that 70 sq ft
with another human being or being executed, which would you choose?
Think about it.
Lew
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>> Do I actually hear Tim Daneliuk advocating /for/ force and coersion? You
>>> can't have it both ways.
>>
>> Uh, yes I can. *Initiating* force is always wrong. Fraud is always
>> wrong. In the case of minor children, parents are by default presumed
>> to be the proper caretakers. When they fail to see to their children's
>> education, this is an initiation of at least fraud, and arguably
>> force, because they are condemning their children to fail. The
>> children - as minors - are legally presumed to be incapable of caring
>> for themselves and thus the state does have the right to interdict on
>> their behalf, no different than a policeman arresting someone trying
>> to break into your house.
>>
>> As far as "making" teacher earn the respect of parents, I mean this
>> in a noncoerive way - there should be a marketplace for schools
>> and teachers as there is anything else. Parents would choose from
>> that pool based on their perception of the fitness of the school/teacher,
>> the amount they were willing to pay for it, and how that school
>> environment mapped to their personal values and ambitions for their
>> child.
>
> I don't think you'll achieve much traction pushing this issue - not
> because I have anything against private education, but because I don't
> see any practical means of implementation due to cost.
>
> In a most fortunate twist of fate (I lived in a country with /no/ high
> schools, and my stepfather's employer paid for dependents' education at
> any accredited boarding school), I got to make my own choice of private
> schools (subject to parental veto for cause) high school. My first two
> choices (ACS in Beirut and a boarding school in England) were vetoed for
> what seemed good reasons, and my third choice was where I went.
>
> I dug around to find a web page with some cost info and came up with:
>
> http://www.boardingschoolreview.com/school_ov/school_id/201
>
> and if you scroll down to "Finances" you'll get the same reality check I
> just did. Education at retail is bloody awful expensive!
>
It all depends upon the school. Our Lutheran elementary school charges on
the order of $4200 per year, our area Lutheran High School in Phoenix is
approximately $6500 per year. The quality of education is high, the
teacher student ratio is low and the environment much more conducive to
learning.
... snip
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
<[email protected]> wrote
> Shakespeare couldn't write better stories of greed, deception,
> generosity, back stabbing, immense wealth, altruism, and outright
> immoral activities. Many things that were done in business 100+ years
> weren't illegal here simply because no one thought they needed a law
> for people to behave.
Hell, Bubba ... just last Friday morning, probably the "most well known",
"most respected", "most revered" member of the Wall Street financial
community, a man held in the highest regard and esteem by hundreds of
thousands of the smartest, savviest, richest folks in the world, a founder
of NASDAQ and one its past Chairman ...
.... turned out to be nothing but, a THIEF!
Now, just what does that say about those not so "well respected", "revered",
etc, eh? About the only thing good about it, on the surface, is that it is
the elite who got taken.
Problem is, it will more than likely end up doing a superb job finally
proving the "domino theory".
<Damn, damn! ... I can't believe I did that!! I replied to a thread with
the words "Michael Moore" in the header ... now I'm going to go take a shit
just to get the stink off ...>
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Highland Pairos wrote:
>>. A
>> common sense discussion about the needs of the motoring public makes it
>> very
>> clear that most people do not NEED trucks or SUVs, and recent gas pricing
>
> I disagree. I regularly engage in activities that require a large
> storage area. I do not *always* need it, but when I do, no car would
> serve the purpose as well as an SUV.
There are most definatley those who do need large vehicles. I am not at all
saying that there is no market for trucks and SUV. Rather I believe that the
Big 3 has simply over relyed on them.
>
>> has forced people to reevaluate their purchasing decisions. It seems to
>> me
>
> I bought my SUV when gas was $4/gal - it was a great buying opportunity.
If you have the need for one, now is a monumentally good time to buy.
>
>> that smart product strategy would be to develop a bread and butter,
>> reliable
>> straight forward automobile that will satisfy the wants and needs of the
>> greatest number of people. That main product line can then be coupled
>> with
>> additional vehicle types that fill the needs of the smaller market
>> segments,
>> (i.e. contractors, boat owners, those that really do need to get through
>> a
>> major snow, sports car enthusiasts.)
>
> This is what they should have done. Then again, the money was all being
> made in light trucks and SUVs, not cars. So .. they went where the money
> was. They failed to read the changes in the industry effectively and
> got caught with the pants down.
Agreed.
. Why is Chrysler
>> returning to the days of big motored rear-wheel drive cars, (i.e. the
>> Charger, Magnum, etc.) when the mainline, practical concept is that of
>> front-wheel drive small displacement 4 and 6 cylinder cars?
>
> Because these really are the cars people like ... or at least that's
> what they did like. The eco-weenies want everyone to drive a
> shoebox that is vegan and ugly, but that's not what the buying public
> really wants. They want comfort, safety, reliability, AND some
> level of fuel economy.
I would point to the sales figures for those cars versus those of Camrys,
Accords, Priuses, Sentras, etc to dispute what it is that people really
want. Eco-weenies aren't forcing people to buy the vehicles that they do.
(They might want to, but they don't)
>
>>
>> If you look at the relatively recent history of the Big 3 and their
>> products, you have to notice the successes. What was the product that
>> saved
>> Chrysler once before? The Aries K platform, midsized, front wheel drive,
>> practical and flexible. That platform was used for so many different
>> vehicles, its amazing. What saved Ford in the late 80's? The Taurus,
>> midsized, front wheel drive, straight forward automobile. What have the
>
> Especially the SHO with that big honking Yamaha power plant in it.
>
>> Japanese been selling by the boatload (or trainload)? Small to midsized,
>> front wheel drive, 4 and 6 cylinder sedans.
>>
> The market changed faster than they could react. I'd argue this was
> both because of a lack of vision in leadership, AND an inflexible,
> archaic labor rewards system.
I definatley agree with the lack of vision AND leadership, and am curious
how the labor agreement impacts product strategy.
SteveP.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:51:28 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:
>
>> Your input makes me a bit less resistant to Tim's position that
>> education should be privatized (but not enough so that I'm willing to
>> adopt his view without a /lot/ more information).
>
> Private education in this country consists of high end "exclusive"
> academies for the rich and schools operated by religious groups. There
> are few affordable secular private schools.
>
> And private education for a fee is an unaffordable tax on the poor,
Not getting what you mean by "unaffordable tax", how is somebody else
paying for something a "tax" on the poor?
> especially if it remains illegal to not send your kids to school. A
> tax supported system is the only chance many poor kids have to get a
> smattering of education, even if the school quality is low.
How about giving those poor people an opportunity to choose the school to
which their children go? Voucher systems would make private education
affordable and make the public system get its act together.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
> I'm not sure what "foreign" even means these days. Many of the
> most lauded cars are built here with US labor. They just don't
> have the legacy labor costs with which GM, Ford, and Chrysler
> must contend.
This is one aspect of the "Amurrrican vs. furrin" car debate that I find
most amusing. Define foreign vs domestic production. More importantly
which situation is more beneficial to the U.S. economy, an American car
(Ford, GM, Chrysler) that is built in another country (or at least a
signifacnt number of the subassemblies) or a foreign car that is built here
in the U.S. paying American workers? One school of thought says that the
money from the American cars go to American companies and benefits America,
while the money from the foreign car leaves the country. However, that only
applies to the 10-20% profit margins (that is a general estimation of profit
margin). The bulk of the money spent when you buy a car goes to the costs.
So the question is, which production situation puts more money into and has
greater benefit to the U.S. economy? (This is not at loaded question by me,
I truly have not heard a solid analysis upon which to form an opinion in the
matter. My personal speculation is that a Camry built in Kentucky does for
America then an F-150 built in Mexico.)
SteveP.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
How are unions the problem? Gm I believe has some of the best productivity
levels in the auto industry.It's about a liveable wage ,you can always find
someone to do it cheaper. If that ceo that ran GM into the ground is worth
15 million a year. I'm sure you or I could run GM into the bankruptcy for
allot less.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Rusty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> If unions go down you can count on 10$ an hour as a high wage for the
>> middle class as the greedy 5% scoop up all the easy cash.
>
> I would sure like to see if that turns out to be ture or not.
>
> If it turns out to be true, the unions will be back but for now the unions
> are a big part of the problem. I't probably not a bad thing to get paid
> for your actual worth.
>
>
>
"Robatoy" wrote:
>To house, guard and feed some schmuck is less expensive than a shot
>of
sodium barbitulate (if that's what they use) or a few KV's worth of
lektricity?
You are forgetting the legal costs involved in executing some one,
sometimes approaching $2-$3 million on each side.
Assume $1K/week, 52 weeks/yr and it is maybe $60K/yr max.
Even if the legal costs are only $1.5 million, that covers 25 years of
incarceration without factoring in the time cost of money which would
extend the time covered.
Bottom line.............................
Only the lawyers make out in a capital case.
Lew
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> For openers, I am not a Michael Moore fan. In fact, I can't stand the
> opportunistic self-promoter.
> BUT.. fair is fair and he does make a point here that kinda makes sense.
> The topic is close to me as I have contact with a lot of people from the
> automotive industry. Small tool & die guys and one big upholstery shop.
> When the big 3 go down, the shit-storm will roll across the border into
> Canuckistan as there really is no border because AutoPact and NAFTA.
>
> A big part of me thinks they should just collapse just like any other
> piss-poorly managed company. In this case the consequences would be just
> too ginormous to even contemplate.
>
> The big 3 corporate automotive clusterfarks need to be taught a lesson,
> but so does the UAW. Let the blames begin!
>
> No free lunch.
>
> r
For the most part, the Big 3 have already fallen, they have not exactly been
in the game for the last 4 or 5 years. They all talk like there will be a
huge problem if they go down. Suppliers will simply have to find new
customers as they probably already have or should have. The writing has
been on the wall for several now.