If there is a Detroit bailout, should the CEOs be forced to give up their perks?
Proud 2 b liberal said 11/19, 08:15 AM
This is not a question of whether or not to bailout the auto industry. It is more an argument against corporate greed. Yesterday, the heads of the big three automakers came to Washington to beg for money. The flew in on private jets wearing thousand dollar suits and awaiting their multimillion dollar end of the year payouts. Many people in this country have been griping about the high salaries of the workers at the US car plants, but hell, they don't even come close to what these upper level guys are raking in. So, what should the leadership give up if they are bailed out? I say it should be the obscene perks they get, the huge salaries, the over the top comp packages when they leave, the private jets, the meetings at exotic locations.....they have not earned them. They screwed up. It is the leadership who decided what types of vehicles to produce and they made the wrong decision.
BTW, I also believe that American people are responsible as well. They loved their gas guzzlers and bought them by the millions, even when most of the world had gotten smart. Gas prices went up, and people turned their backs on the US carmakers, saying they were behind the times. Sheesh.
Weeklycigar said 11/19, 09:44 AM
There is a major flaw in your argument so I will change the debate - should there be a bailout of the auto industry? I say ABSOLUTELY NOT. If Detroit produced cars that the market wanted at prices they were willing to pay then they would not be in this position. Restructure, reorganize, merge or simply go away...there are plenty of foreign owned car companies that would offer jobs. Call it punishment for excessive executive compensation or Union greed or whatever, the truth is that these companies have long fought to succeed with an unworkable business model. Giving a failed business more cash or trying to have government (the most inefficient and wasteful organization in the country) try to run a business is completely wrong headed. I am, however, tired of the constant bashing of executive compensation. True, if your business isn't doing well then why would these guys get a bonus, however the private market place is valuing these employees and the last thing we need is the government getting involved in that. Come on! No more government in business. That is what caused all of these problems in the first place!!!
Proud 2 b liberal said 11/19, 10:00 AM
Ok, so you do not want to argue this but replied anyway. Interesting. These guys have been paid and compensated up the arse and they should be punished for greed and stupidity. There is chapter 11 that won't work. Would you buy a new car from a bankrupt company? What about service contracts and spare parts and the like? It just doesn't work. So you are saying get rid of the US car market. There goes 3 million jobs, from that auto industry to all the supporting businesses. There is not job growth now so all these people who are out of work end up on public support anyway. More houses are foreclosed on. Big losses even for huge corporations like BASF or 3M, who make a lot of the chemicals and coatings that go into automobiles. They lay off too. So lets give all of our auto business to Asia.
Had the government been in business and pushed the big three into reducing emmissions years ago, we would not have had half these problems we do now. But no, it was great to own an extended bed pickup and a hummer and a caddy. It was the American way. We are in part responsible for this, but conservatives are not willing to see any fault but the corporations and their workers.
Weeklycigar said 11/19, 10:32 AM
The auto industry issues have very little to do with fuel economy. Most of the vehicles produced by Ford and GM, for example, equal or out perform those produced by the Japanese and Korean companies (which are also mostly produced here). The CEO compensation would be going overseas but the jobs would stay here. The problem is two fold. 1 - the auto companies have to charge several thousand more dollars per vehicle to fund these failed and outdated pension and health programs and 2 - that the unions have successfully fought modernization of plants. This problem is much bigger than adjusting gas mileage standards one year ago. This problem has been developing for forty years. Three million jobs could be easily replaced by the new start up companies and existing foreign companies which are dying to get a bigger piece of the US auto industry. Another bailout, and continued bailouts of other companies, are very dangerous and give the government undue influence over private industry. An industry that fails to modernize will go to dust and rightly should.
Proud 2 b liberal said 11/19, 10:47 AM
You are right, it is a multipart breakdown. You are wrong however about most vehicles equaling or outperforming the Japanese. There are now a couple of models which equal Toyota and Honda, but for the most part, the US cars are too big, and consume too much fuel in part due to the fact that they are so heavy. We are not talking about adjusting was mileage standards a year ago, we are talking about adjusting them in the 80's and 90's.
Do you really believe that the majority of cars will be made here? Sure they have opened a few plants but with the Japanese economy hurting, they are much more interested in keeping their people employed than ours. One reason they opened plants here was to convince the American people to buy Japanese instead of American. With the death of the US auto industry, why should they build higher capacity here where the workforce is more expensive.
Hopefully we will have sensible health coverage for all soon which will lower the costs for all industries in this country.
I am not sure we should do this bailout, but getting back to my original statement, if we do bail them out, we should hit the CEO's hard first. They should not be making millions
Weeklycigar said 11/19, 11:25 AM
Again, the market place has and will continue to determine what private businesses pay individuals. The government should have no say about this. Second, you said in your last argument that increasing fuel standards a year ago would have prevented this. Thank you for conceding that you are incorrect in this statement. Finally, if the foreign companies don't want to do it there will be other opportunities. There always are if people are reasonably motivated. The truth is that, if the government does nothing, the big auto manufacturers will likely be bought up, at a large discount, buy other investors...there is too much in a name for private business to let them go. In the short term, this will mean a loss of jobs but, as always, this is cyclical and the jobs will return (though maybe not in the same positions). It is an outdated principle to believe that one can expect to do the exact same job from high school through retirement and this is a good thing in the long run. If we are smart, we will take on a tact of increased replacement training such as was successful for displaced steel workers.
Comments
Add Your Comment
Again, the market place has and will continue to determine what private businesses pay individuals. The government should have no say about this. Second, you said in your last argument that increasing fuel standards a year ago would have prevented this. Thank you for conceding that you are incorrect in this statement. Finally, if the foreign companies don't want to do it there will be other opportunities. There always are if people are reasonably motivated. The truth is that, if the government does nothing, the big auto manufacturers will likely be bought up, at a large discount, buy other investors...there is too much in a name for private business to let them go. In the short term, this will mean a loss of jobs but, as always, this is cyclical and the jobs will return (though maybe not in the same positions). It is an outdated principle to believe that one can expect to do the exact same job from high school through retirement and this is a good thing in the long run. If we are smart, we will take on a tact of increased replacement training such as was successful for displaced steel workers.
Weeklycigar | 11/19/08
Report Offensive Comment
I said years ago, not a year ago. Read it more carefully please.
Proud 2 b liberal | 11/19/08
Report Offensive Comment
point taken, you did say years. My point remains, there are plenty of affordable fuel efficient vehicles made by the big 3.
Weeklycigar | 11/19/08
Report Offensive Comment
Wow...I wish all of these conservatives were here before the election.
thegreatnate001 | 11/19/08
Report Offensive Comment
Well, I believe that the execs should pay a price. They chose not to focus on their fuel efficient models, whether they had them or not. The only commericals I was seeing before the fuel price skyrocket had to do with size, comfort and power. The big 3 had to get past their reputation from the 90's of building crap. They did little to address how well they could compete in the smaller car market. It was the decision of the execs to build what they built, market as the did etc, and the idea that they will walk away with millions of dollars pisses me off royally.
Texasdonkey | 11/19/08
Report Offensive Comment
You pulled a Palin cigar, you answered the question you wanted to, not the one that was asked (or you mentioned it in passing but didn't much argue it at all). The question is, should they be penalized if they get bailed out.? I do not want any of my money going into their pockets. That 25billion is taxpayer money and I know that these guys will give themselves nice big paychecks and bonusses with it. Not my money pal. If it can save some jobs fine, but not paying these morons.
crusty one | 11/19/08
Report Offensive Comment
I was just reading a fascinating report about China's interest in buying out at least one of the big 3 (probably Chrysler). A take-over of a large overseas auto maker would fit perfectly into China's plans. As reported before, China has realized that its export chances are slim without unfettered access to foreign technology. The brand cachet of Chinese cars abroad is, shall we say, challenged. The Chinese could easily export Made-in-China VWs, Toyotas, Buicks. If their joint venture partner would let them. The solution: Buy the joint venture partner. Especially, when he's in deep trouble. The chinese have plenty of cash. Of course legislators could block the sale. (This assumes they have the fortitude to stare down the Chinese, who currently hold a whopping portion of US debt, and deny them something they really want). But in doing so, and at the same time refusing a bridge loan to the automakers, they are basically legislating the destruction of the Big 3. They will be forcing them to stiff all their creditors and stockholders and tear up their union contracts by refusing to let the "free market" they love to bang on about step in and assume the company's legitimate debts.
Proud 2 b liberal | 11/19/08
Report Offensive Comment
That is fascinating, liberal. What you are missing is that this so called bridge loan, which exceeds the operating budget of all three companies combined, is not a free market solution. It is a very broad interpretation of the constitution to try and justify the government bailing out these companies. Let the big three fall, reorganize, modernize and reform their work force. Then we may see a solution. The current state of business by GM, Ford and Chrysler is not sustainable bridge loan or no. Maybe the unions will get some religion and reform as well, thereby securing their future under the new big three, or two, or whatever. And now, responding to crusty one, these guys do get big paychecks and perks we couldn't imagine. Should they be penalized? Sure - the company oughta fire them for getting into this situation. If they broke the law, prosecute them. Otherwise, it is none of your business crusty.
Weeklycigar | 11/19/08
Report Offensive Comment
weekly, why did you go off on this tangent? It seems... silly? I mean, if someone created a debate about one thing, isn't it very rude to change the topic? I would much rather have heard about people debating perks for CEOs, because that is what I was expecting...
Your God(ess) | 11/19/08
Report Offensive Comment
Thanks god(ess), but as crusty said, he pulled a Palin.
Proud 2 b liberal | 11/19/08
Report Offensive Comment
And weekly, at the moment the free market is not functional, or you could say the free market is in free fall. We bailed out white collar America, but somehow it is time to scream when one thinks of bailing out blue collar America. But in your last response you backed my original premise. These guys should be penalized and lose their perks. Thanks so much.
Proud 2 b liberal | 11/19/08
Report Offensive Comment
The government is promising that we will make money off of all these bad loans. I say nationalize them, but not in the fashion. Maybe someone with better knowledge of the market could correct me. Would it be feasible for the government to buy up majority stock in each of the big three? If a good system was in place these companies could be retooled to reflect the needs of the people. CNG, Hybrid, Biodiesel cars by the tens of millions. Something drastic has to be done about our automotive problem. 2/3 of all oil consumption in America is for transportation. Someone must take radical steps. I would love for some companies to take the place of the big 3 that actual reflect the needs of the people and new environmental restrictions. It just does not seem like that will happen soon enough. Drastic action is needed and I say since we have a leader who is intelligent and carries a great sense of integrity, maybe its time for radical action to decrease pollution, dependance on foreign oil and bolster the economy. Nationalization of energy companies is a must.
ReVoluTionNow! | 11/19/08
Report Offensive Comment
Its not just Detroit P2B. I'm a CEO and I have given up 1/2 my salary to keep my people paid.
JustBlue | 11/19/08
Report Offensive Comment
The last thing we want is government owning any private businesses. Get the government out of my life. That is why I am currently investing in assault rifles and 50 caliber sniper rifles. When they get banned the prices go up. And if there is a revolution, I am ready - with a 7400 yard effective range and sub MOA accuracy out to 1000 yards. Nice. Look Goddess, I make the terms, period. If I want to move a debate topic, I will do it and no one can stop me. Ha! Look how you are all focusing now on me. You guys are pathetic.
Weeklycigar | 11/21/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
Photos: The Hajj Goes High-Tech
Advances in infrastructure and security improve the experience of Islam's holiest pilgrimage
( )
Athens in Flames
A massive student protest against proposed government reforms of state universities developed into major rioting in the streets of the Greek capital following the shooting of a teenage boy by riot police.
(Louisa Gouliamaki / AFP / Getty)
Again, the market place has and will continue to determine what private businesses pay individuals. The government should have no say about this. Second, you said in your last argument that increasing fuel standards a year ago would have prevented this. Thank you for conceding that you are incorrect in this statement. Finally, if the foreign companies don't want to do it there will be other opportunities. There always are if people are reasonably motivated. The truth is that, if the government does nothing, the big auto manufacturers will likely be bought up, at a large discount, buy other investors...there is too much in a name for private business to let them go. In the short term, this will mean a loss of jobs but, as always, this is cyclical and the jobs will return (though maybe not in the same positions). It is an outdated principle to believe that one can expect to do the exact same job from high school through retirement and this is a good thing in the long run. If we are smart, we will take on a tact of increased replacement training such as was successful for displaced steel workers.
Weeklycigar | 11/19/08
Report Offensive Comment