Big 3 Bailout - The Senate Bails On It- Page 4

[KrissySim]

Posted: 12/17/08 at 1:58pm

I think JustAGuy got my point, Phyllis Rogers Stone. To live the "American dream" now, to own a home, drive a decent car, raise a family and educate them, you now need a minimum of $36. hr. whether one earns it or two parents earn that together. If two need to work to earn that, children are left alone or in "day care" centers away from a parent during a crucial time of their development.

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 12/17/08 at 2:54pm

"I think JustAGuy got my point, Phyllis Rogers Stone."

No...I did not get your point..I think your "point" is preposterous, ludicrous and unrealistic. There are people that are "living the American Dream." on less than $36 dollars an hour. It may not be your "American Dream", they may not own the house or drive the car that you would want to, but you can certainly do both for less than $74K a year. No one is owed or promised the "American Dream", you work for it. I've never heard of the "American Dream" as being something that you are entitled to.

So...if you think the pizza delivery person should make $36 an hour, how much do you think the college educated, highly skilled, professional should make? Or should we all just earn the same? That would certainly be an incentive to achieve wouldn't it?

"Yes, Miss Sim, I know you just created the first car to run on recycled plastic bags...no you cannot have a raise, I'm sorry, you only get paid $36 an hour, the same as the pizza delivery boy...now get back to work."

Updated On: 12/17/08 at 02:54 PM

[KrissySim]

Posted: 12/17/08 at 5:17pm

OK you missed my point, but actually I was referring to your statement about the war.
Never did I say someone should make $36. hr without working for it. But if you look at the real estate prices - at least where I live and on much of the west coast- the "American dream" is lost to many Americans.

Making a living is not something that should be available only to people with a higher eduction or the privileged.

Perhaps you don't mind that many American veterans are homeless today. Perhaps you don't mind seeing the mentally ill being thrown out on the streets to live.

So I disagree with you.

Ironically it was the Reagan Administration that closed the mental institutions and put the patients out on the streets. The mental institutions were poorly managed, but homelessness skyrocketed under the Reagan Administration. But Ronald Reagan was himself mentally ill. He was suffering the effects of alzheimers and dementia while he was still in office, but apparently his formula for others was not good enough for himself.


Updated On: 12/17/08 at 05:17 PM

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 12/17/08 at 5:32pm

"Never did I say someone should make $36. hr without working for it. But if you look at the real estate prices - at least where I live and on much of the west coast- the "American dream" is lost to many Americans."

There is no guarantee that the "American Dream" gets to come true for everyone...I think that's why it's called a dream. I have no doubt that there are some who are earning $74K or above who feel that the "American Dream" hasn't come true for them either...it's all relative.

"Making a living is not something that should be available only to people with a higher eduction or the privileged."

I don't believe I said that it was...you continue to make these statements as if someone actually said those things. So far I haven't seen anyone in this thread say any such thing.


"Perhaps you don't mind that many American veterans are homeless today. Perhaps you don't mind seeing the mentally ill being thrown out on the streets to live."

Which has nothing to do with a $36 per hour minimum wage. There are veterans and mentally ill who are not homeless and not being thrown out on the streets as well. What the hell are you talking about. You're bouncing all over the place.

[KrissySim]

Posted: 12/17/08 at 5:43pm

Connect the dots. Yes there are mentally ill and veterans who are homeless today. You should be aware of that. I didn't say that all of them were.

I simply believe that everyone has a right to a home. Everyone also has the right to earn a living. It's not too difficult to grasp. American society lets people crash and I think there should be a safety net.

You do make some good points here. I don't think I entirely agree with you. It is a complex subject and an internet chat in spare time isn't really the solution. It does leave gaps in the discussion. "bouncing all over the place"

Anyway, I've just been called in to work. We're filming. Gotta go.

[Jack King]

Posted: 12/17/08 at 7:10pm

It's not just the unions. It's not just the greed of the companies. It is a COMPLETELY FLAWED AND OBSOLETE SYSTEM THAT CAN'T BE FIXED.

It will quickly dawn on the car-buying public that they have been had over and over and over again by being made to think that they NEED a new car, on the average, every three years. That is the bull**** people have been fed. The garage mechanics know this and will tell you to keep your car until it won't run at all or until it needs so many repairs that it is cost-effective to buy a car. And they'll tell you to buy a used car.

That is the crux of the whole greed invested auto industry.

The related scam of this is the pressure from others who have bought new cars. Ah! And you are supposed to be green from envy. And so you might give in. Thus if the bull**** ads won't wear down your common sense and native intelligence, your "friends and neighbors" will.

So let Deeee-troit bend their cars parts into plougshares and go do some work that will benefit humanity.

Just on the news, I was most heartened to see Chrysler is essentialy in the toilet. I recall crock-a-dile crock-of-**** tears from Lee Iocucko some years ago. He who behind the CEO cloak beat his wife and was a drunk. He got big bux from the government=you and me. And now retribution. Ain't no more Chrysler.

And any fed lawmaker who votes to give money to these losers should be tarred and feathered and sent to Iran.

NOTE that the missing, deleted work was--and I have sort of coded it, yet here it is, below.

**** = s*h*i*t.

A common word. Something we do every day, ideally. :)

Updated On: 12/17/08 at 07:10 PM

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 12/17/08 at 8:00pm

"Connect the dots. Yes there are mentally ill and veterans who are homeless today. You should be aware of that. I didn't say that all of them were."

Oh believe me, I'm trying to connect the dots. I can't however connect how a $36 per hour minimum wage will somehow end homelessness for the mentally ill, or for homeless vets. How exactly does that work, when probably both the mentally ill and the homeless vet are not working? Raising the minimum wage to $100 an hour is not going to eliminate the problem of homelessness, because as the minimum wage goes up...so will the cost of everything else...including HOUSING.

I believe that the minimum wage should be tied to the cost of living and be raised accordingly every year.

"I simply believe that everyone has a right to a home."

Define home. Is it something you own? Is it something you rent? Is it an apartment, a house, a room in a SRO? Is it a place you live alone, or do you share?

"Everyone also has the right to earn a living."

The operative word in that sentence is EARN. You have yet to give a cogent argument as to why the delivery person should be paid the same as an entry level attorney. It can't be simply because he's working, can it?

"American society lets people crash and I think there should be a safety net."

There are many safety nets...some work better than others, but they are definitely are in place. There is welfare, medicaid, homeless shelters, free clinics, food pantries, and mental health services just to name a few. It's the bureaucracy that gets in the way of helping those who need it.

[KrissySim]

Posted: 12/17/08 at 11:08pm

Let's stop deliveries for a month, then the next month stop all entry level attornies from working for the month. You'll see which one society needs the most.

We need safety nets, whether for the mentaly ill and those who can't work, or for workers who perform vital functions on sub-living wages. Different specifics, same principle. If it's bureaucracy that gets in the way from making it happen .... the net has holes and it ain't working, is it?

"I believe that the minimum wage should be tied to the cost of living and be raised accordingly every year."

I agree, but we don't agree on where that level should be set.

And where are these $36./hr attornies? The last lawyer I hired was over 10 times that.

Dots enough?

I'm surprised you even bothered to continue this thread.

(Our shoot was called off, temp was too high for what we needed to do, not that anyone is wondering.)

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 12/17/08 at 11:27pm

Let's stop deliveries for a month, then the next month stop all entry level attornies from working for the month. You'll see which one society needs the most.

Seriously, that's your response? You must really love your pizza. I can walk to the pizza parlor and get mine, I can't however do a legal brief.

"If it's bureaucracy that gets in the way from making it happen .... the net has holes and it ain't working, is it?"

It's working better than if there were no safetyy net at all.
You seem to think that a $36 per hour minimum wage is a panacea for all of society's ills. But it isn't...there will always be homeless...unemployed...and mentally ill. The minimum wage isn't going to change that.

You've still not answered the most vital question...where is the money coming from to raise the minimum wage to $36 per hour? Small business certainly can't afford it. Large business will absolutely balk at it. The government is so far in debt that it will take years and years to get the budget balanced. Who is going to pay these workers that salary?

"And where are these $36./hr attornies? The last lawyer I hired was over 10 times that."

They are in the law libraries researching for the lawyer that you paid $360 to.

[Yawper]

Posted: 12/18/08 at 2:12am

Deliveries for a month isn't just pizza - it's Fedex and UPS, too. It's food, medical supplies and even organs for transplant. It's all trucking and shipping. It's a major component of what makes the economy run. Entry level lawyers? Won't be missed.

JK, when Iaccoca negotiated the loans for Chrysler years ago it was at no cost to taxpayers - both the government and the lending institutions made money on the deal.

As far as everyone buying new cars every three years, they don't. There are over 202 million registered driver in the US. The standard auto market in the US in a good year sells less than 17 million units. For 2008 the number will probably be around 13 million sold with fourth quarter sales absolutely in the sewer at what would be an annual rate of 10-11 million sold.

There is tremendous competition in the US auto market. In November the sales leader, GM, captured just under 21% of sales. The Big 3 plus the three major Japanese company groups (Toyota, Honda, Nissan) captured only 83% of sales. The remaining 17% was split between 11 different companies (and these are majors, not extremes or exotics)!

In November market share order:

Top 6 - 83%
GM (Buick,Cadillac,Chevy,GMC,Hummer,Pontiac,Saab,Saturn)
Toyota (Toyota,Lexus)
Ford (Ford,Mercury,Lincoln)
Chrysler (Chrysler,Dodge,Jeep)
Honda (Honda,Acura)
Nissan (Nissan,Infiniti)

The remainder - 17%
BMW (BMW,Mini)
Hyundai
Kia
VW
Mercedes(tie)
Mazda(tie)
Subaru
Audi
Mitsubishi
Suzuki
Porsche

[Q]

Posted: 12/18/08 at 2:22am

"Making a living is not something that should be available only to people with a higher eduction or the privileged."

It isn't. It's just that the concept of what constitutes a 'living' has been so bastardized by our culture, that there is no perspective.

And frankly, if you think everyone is entitled to the same rewards as those who spend their time and money getting higher education, then you have a bit of a skewed perspective.

[Yawper]

Posted: 12/18/08 at 2:34am

yet athletes and performing arts stars make a killing

[Q]

Posted: 12/18/08 at 2:37am

Athletes and performing arts stars are part of industries that generate the kind of funds that lead to those incomes.

You're either for capitalism, or you're against it.

[KrissySim]

Posted: 12/18/08 at 3:21am

if you think everyone is entitled to the same rewards as those who spend their time and money getting higher education, then you have a bit of a skewed perspective

I never said that. But it is more complex than this. It depends on what the higher education is and how it applies in society's scheme of things.

For the record, I am an entrepreneur. I own businesses and I hire and employ people.

"You've still not answered the most vital question..."

Are you really expecting me to give a simple answer that can be posted in a few seconds on a BWW internet message board? Do I, you or anyone else here really have that answer or the answer to the problems I brought up? Tackling these problems isn't so easy. But prolonging wars like the ones we are now in doesn't seem to be the answer either.

In the months ahead, expect to see new waves of homeless and more people needing food, clothing & assistance with other essentials in America. Some will be out of work, some will be working with insufficient pay.

This will not be Obama's fault.

[Q]

Posted: 12/18/08 at 3:28am

The 'vital question' he asked is the one that most of us are wondering about - where IS this money supposedly coming from?

Right now, what we're seeing is the influx of huge international capital. What that means remains to be seen - but it is absolutely going to be the element that shapes our future.

And Krissy, your prophesy of what we can look forward to is probably right on target. But you know what? WE created this scenario, and everything unfolding is a direct result of OUR choices. I have a hard time feeling like we should feel victimized because of it.

[Yawper]

Posted: 12/18/08 at 3:40am

"Athletes and performing arts stars are part of industries that generate the kind of funds that lead to those incomes."

Yet tax dollars are building stadia.

"The 'vital question' he asked is the one that most of us are wondering about - where IS this money supposedly coming from?"

I'll be happy as hell to see the overpriced coastal areas, driven mostly by Wall Street greed, fall flat on their faces as the fundamental, core industries of national economic strength are no longer neglected by the Federal administration.

That is to say, as the upward redistribution of wealth stops.
Updated On: 12/18/08 at 03:40 AM

[Q]

Posted: 12/18/08 at 3:58am

"the overpriced coastal areas, driven mostly by Wall Street greed"

I'm sorry, Yawper, but you've got to be kidding with this. I generally appreciate your viewpoint and perspective - hell, I'm about to spend the holidays in central Michigan, so I have at least some awareness.

But honestly, to deny the development of this country's economics based on the appeal of the coasts is just ludicrous. Yes, manufacturing played a part in this contry's development - up to a point. But the distribution and control has never been centerted in those locations.

I've been reading what you have to say, and I do think we need to be aware of what we have to 'produce'. BUT, the world's needs have changed, and we haven't changed with them. I'm not sure your old paradigm of idnustrial product will win the day.
Updated On: 12/18/08 at 03:58 AM

[Q]

Posted: 12/18/08 at 4:21am

"In the months ahead, expect to see new waves of homeless and more people needing food, clothing & assistance"

New waves HERE, you mean - because those conditions have existed world-wide for quite some time.

Welcome to the 21st Century, where the world is becoming one entity. We here in the US have lived too high with too little for too long - and it's biting us in the ass as we type.

I live in a household that is proscribed by a teacher's retirement salary and some meager investments - and we are STILL statistically within the top 5% of wealth on the PLANET.

It is time for the US mentality to have a reality check - and all the pathetic whining will be seen as just that, pathetic.

Are we going to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps and find the way to move forward? Remains to be seen. Frankly, I don't have as much faith in the incoming regime as some do - but who knows.

But I DO know that carrying on about the same old same old like we've done in our entitled myopia will lead nowhere at all - except to debtor's prison to the rest of the world.

Who are pissed off, by the way - and with good reason.

[Yawper]

Posted: 12/18/08 at 5:26am

Here you go, Q, defend this bullsh*t

This and all its highend trickle down is where, among a handfull of other places, the money needs to be redistributed from.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/business/18pay.html?hp

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 12/18/08 at 9:54am

"Deliveries for a month isn't just pizza - it's Fedex and UPS, too. It's food, medical supplies and even organs for transplant. It's all trucking and shipping. It's a major component of what makes the economy run. Entry level lawyers? Won't be missed."

And the people that drive those trucks and make those deliveries are not working for minimum wage either. Most are probably Teamsters.

We were specifically speaking about minimum wage earners...such as Pizza Delivery or Grocery Delivery people...NOT long haul big rig drivers. There's a huge difference between the two, not only in skill set but also in necessity. Which is why they get paid more.

I frankly, can get along without either the pizza delivery person, or the entry level attorney. But that doesn't change the fact the the entry level attorney is more skilled than the delivery person, and as such can demand a higher salary.

No one has yet been able to justify why the delivery person should be paid as much as the entry level attorney or how the cost would be offset by doing so. Which was basically what Krissy and I were discussing.

[Yawper]

Posted: 12/18/08 at 10:08am

"And the people that drive those trucks and make those deliveries are not working for minimum wage either. Most are probably Teamsters."

Nope, especially not now that Mexican trucks are allowed to run in the US.

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 12/18/08 at 11:22am

"Nope, especially not now that Mexican trucks are allowed to run in the US."

What I replied to was this:

"Deliveries for a month isn't just pizza - it's Fedex and UPS, too. It's food, medical supplies and even organs for transplant. It's all trucking and shipping. It's a major component of what makes the economy run. Entry level lawyers? Won't be missed."

My response was specifically aimed at your comment re: FEDEX and UPS...not Mexican truckers.

UPS drivers are members of the Teamsters. Most of Fedex isn't now...but the Teamsters are making inroads and they will probably all be unionized sooner rather than later. Currently FedEx uses what they call independent contractors who own their own trucks and they are paid a salary that is well over minimum wage, plus a percentage on the mileage.

[Jack King]

Posted: 12/18/08 at 11:47am

"Wouldn't you really rather have a Buick?
A Buick? A Buick?"

{from an old adsong}

"Put on your old gray bonnet
with all the frills upon it.
And we'll hitch old Dobbin
to the sleigh."

{old song that applies to these new times}

[javero]

Posted: 12/18/08 at 2:40pm

Q et al,

I have to step in and assist Yawper somewhat because he's onto something that is often glossed over in these discussions. The US as a nation can simply not thrive without a solid manufacturing base transporting finished goods to PORT CITIES for EXPORT. Some years back while in grad school, I gave a presentation on the economic impact of the US port cities on the national economy. In short, kill the ports and we have no nation to speak of.

When the US was a very young Republic, commerce gravitated toward port cities first because shipping was (and still is) a relatively cheap means of transporting finished goods to far away destinations. Forget about Wall Street, if the Port of NY-NJ didn't exist NY today would be nothing to write home about. Shipping facilitated the earliest form of interstate-commerce in our nascent nation long before interstate highways and railways were laid, both along the coastline and along the Mississippi River.

Furthermore, our earliest railways often terminated at a major port. One of the reasons the Port of Baltimore has taken a beating at the hands of the Ports of Philadelphia and NJ-NY is that the latter have much deeper channels permitting larger freight. Grain from the Midwest is still hauled by trucks to rail depots for further transport to ports. It is also no coincidence that Amtrak services the major port cities since the railway was already laid prior to startup.

What is really disturbing now is that we have deficit in foreign sea freight tonnage via the major US ports. See the link below. Scoff at the source at your peril because the stats correlate to those available at the Dept of Labor. One could infer that this is due to our trade deficit with major players such as China and my dad’s persistent suggestion that the only things we make domestically are salon products and bad movies.

So, I for one agree with Yawyper who suggests that the bi-coastal real estate bubbles are partly to blame for the pickle which we find ourselves in economically, but only partly. There's a historical reason that land in the port cities comes at a premium.

That said, I encourage Yawyper to revisit the ugly history of passenger trains in the US as it relates to "ORGANIZED LABOR", "interstate commerce commission" and "competition from automobiles & planes". Then it will be painfully obvious that we’ve come full circle. Despite all this bullsh*t about the new post-industrial economy, I’m not quite ready to write off the mechanized one.

Finally, not everyone is pleased with Richard Nixon’s little experiment that became Amtrak either. In fact many fiscal conservatives still suggest that Amtrak should get off the public dole.

Sorry for the treatise.
List of ports in the US

[KrissySim]

Posted: 12/18/08 at 8:08pm

But that doesn't change the fact the the entry level attorney is more skilled than the delivery person, and as such can demand a higher salary.

It has more to do with market demand and market supply than level of skill alone. There are jobs with a high level of skill that are in low demand. Coopers used to apprentice for 14 years before they went on their own. Where are they now?

The lower the level of skill the more the potential supply of the service but the lower the pay for that job the fewer good domestic people you have wanting it. Then come the foreign and illegals.

Perhaps the pizza delivery will follow the wake of the door-to-door milkman or ice man of an earlier time. Or the newspaper delivery boy (at least in some places this is a thing of the past).

I did not come up with the $36./hr. on my own. One of my accountants did that. She basically said that a household needs to earn this at a minimum to qualify for what has been considered the middle class. A friend in real estate concurred. This could be from one or more earners and this is for the region I live in. So what about a single mom with 3 young children?

I thought it would be interesting to bring that $36./minimum to this forum and see what people thought about it. It has generated some interesting and at times passionate discussions at other places I have brought this up.

Don't look to me for answers.