I wrote up this blog post for the company blog I manage and sent out the link in our Christmas e-mail card.
Check it out, 10 Holiday Video Clips to Get You in the Mood.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
My Dad is Mr. Letter to the Editor
There's something revolutionary in writing a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.
Last quarter, I took History of American Journalism and heard lecture upon lecture on how the opinion pages of newspapers thrived as dialogue between editorial boards and community members.
In the end, this is what will probably save newspapers through the convenience of commenting on Web editions and on blogs. Heck, I get that same feeling when writing this blog that I'm sure revolutionists got in the early years of the American press and civil right activists got during the time of the black press.
Sometimes I feel like James Franklin only with a computer. It doesn't bother me if I get zero hits, just being out hear makes me think I'm contributing to a necessary public forum.
My dad, who has recently embraced the digital replacement form of letter to the editor in the company blog I manage, loves to write into local papers.
Here's his latest gem with a crafty pull quote, pasted from The Youngstown Vindicator's site.
This ran in print on Sunday Dec. 21. I'll just copy paste it for your reading pleasure.
EDITOR:
This time last year Johnson Rubber in Middlefield filed for bankruptcy. The company’s roots went back to 1895, predating GM. Their business was 70 percent auto related and much of their workforce came from the Trumbull County area. About 500 employees lost their jobs. Creditors lost millions, including my company. It was my decision, my risk, and ultimately my bad.
Rightly or wrongly nobody much cared about these people. Where was Governor Ted, Senator George, or Timmy Ryan? I don’t recall any editorial outrage or sympathy from the local talking radioheads. Not even a peep from Jim Graham.
Now with the shoe on the other foot we’re all supposed to rally around the GM/UAW flagpole. This combo has managed to lose $15 billion in the past two years or so. Now they want the taxpayers to give them a “loan” not supported with collateral or any guarantee that it will be paid back. Those against the loan are called names for being anti-labor. Personally, I’m anti-stupid. Some point to the financial industry bailout as precedent yet fail to see the difference. The financial mess was caused by our government and all those that run it. Of course they are going to cover their rears.
We have become a country that rewards incompetence. Our system re-elects leaders that don’t lead. We bail out the losers and tax the winners. Some motivation.
The fact is that GM has been bankrupt in all but name for years. The solutions to their problems need to come from within. Henry Ford knew he had to make a car people could afford to survive. My guess is that if GM/UAW and the retirees get down to it and made a $10,000 Cobalt you’d have these shifts humming along 24/7. And maybe some of the forgotten Johnson Rubber people could land a job.
TIMOTHY RYAN
Newton Falls
Last quarter, I took History of American Journalism and heard lecture upon lecture on how the opinion pages of newspapers thrived as dialogue between editorial boards and community members.
In the end, this is what will probably save newspapers through the convenience of commenting on Web editions and on blogs. Heck, I get that same feeling when writing this blog that I'm sure revolutionists got in the early years of the American press and civil right activists got during the time of the black press.
Sometimes I feel like James Franklin only with a computer. It doesn't bother me if I get zero hits, just being out hear makes me think I'm contributing to a necessary public forum.
My dad, who has recently embraced the digital replacement form of letter to the editor in the company blog I manage, loves to write into local papers.
Here's his latest gem with a crafty pull quote, pasted from The Youngstown Vindicator's site.
This ran in print on Sunday Dec. 21. I'll just copy paste it for your reading pleasure.
EDITOR:
This time last year Johnson Rubber in Middlefield filed for bankruptcy. The company’s roots went back to 1895, predating GM. Their business was 70 percent auto related and much of their workforce came from the Trumbull County area. About 500 employees lost their jobs. Creditors lost millions, including my company. It was my decision, my risk, and ultimately my bad.
Rightly or wrongly nobody much cared about these people. Where was Governor Ted, Senator George, or Timmy Ryan? I don’t recall any editorial outrage or sympathy from the local talking radioheads. Not even a peep from Jim Graham.
Those against the loan are called names for being anti-labor. Personally, I’m anti-stupid.
Now with the shoe on the other foot we’re all supposed to rally around the GM/UAW flagpole. This combo has managed to lose $15 billion in the past two years or so. Now they want the taxpayers to give them a “loan” not supported with collateral or any guarantee that it will be paid back. Those against the loan are called names for being anti-labor. Personally, I’m anti-stupid. Some point to the financial industry bailout as precedent yet fail to see the difference. The financial mess was caused by our government and all those that run it. Of course they are going to cover their rears.
We have become a country that rewards incompetence. Our system re-elects leaders that don’t lead. We bail out the losers and tax the winners. Some motivation.
The fact is that GM has been bankrupt in all but name for years. The solutions to their problems need to come from within. Henry Ford knew he had to make a car people could afford to survive. My guess is that if GM/UAW and the retirees get down to it and made a $10,000 Cobalt you’d have these shifts humming along 24/7. And maybe some of the forgotten Johnson Rubber people could land a job.
TIMOTHY RYAN
Newton Falls
Friday, December 5, 2008
Come On Stewart, Do Two Wrongs Make A Right?
I love the Daily Show and will continue to watch it no matter what Jon Stewart says or does.
If he goes out and says he is pro-Cancer, it won't change my opinion that he's funny because the two would be completely unrelated.
But he said something stupid last night and I feel the need to comment. Here's the clip:
He's not the first to make the argument that we should bailout Detroit because we bailed out Wall Street. But he's probably the one you were most likely to listen to (and I don't blame you for that).
Sure, GM's proposal sounds good. All three CEO's pledged to cut their salaries to $1 per year. They'll be in the poor house for sure after that, according to Slate's new baby The Big Money.
I posted earlier that the UAW concessions are a step towards this bailout working.
But I posted before digesting the details.
According to a New York Times article I also linked to two paragraphs ago, the Big Three spend an average of $78/hour per employee when you consider all the benefits.
Plus, retired workers get a lot of those same health care benefits, even though they don't work.
(Quick note off topic: In my opinion, I don't think the government should control retirement planning at all. I think we should be given our full pay check and deal with planning ourselves. That means give me back social security and give me what my employer puts into everything and let me manage my own money.)
Sure, the salary for an auto worker is only an average of around $30 an hour. But the issue is what it costs the employer. (After four years of college, I won't make anywhere close to that for years after I finish if I stay in journalism. Cue the violins and Justin Timberlake's "Cry Me A River")
WSJ.com's Evan Newmark broke down the GM plan brilliantly and I wish I would have just read this rather than everything else.
It took me a solid 15 minutes to track that post back down so enjoy this pull quote as well:
Which provides a good transition to my last link to a recent statement by Rep. Barney Frank (D, Mass.) who says an automotive bailout would negatively affect the credit crisis.
I'm a little upset that I can't find out how this would negatively affect the credit crisis, other than the obvious, if more people are unemployed then there will be less spending. (And we all know spending and racking up credit card bills is the answer rather than saving.)
But shouldn't bankruptcy be less expensive to the government than this bailout? Seriously, I'm not a bankruptcy expert so if I'm wrong, let me know.
To close, here's Bill O'Reilly giving it to Frank. I don't watch the O'Reilly factor and I think he's a little to Republican for my taste, but at least he's entertaining and a true economic conservative. Enjoy the clip:
If he goes out and says he is pro-Cancer, it won't change my opinion that he's funny because the two would be completely unrelated.
But he said something stupid last night and I feel the need to comment. Here's the clip:
He's not the first to make the argument that we should bailout Detroit because we bailed out Wall Street. But he's probably the one you were most likely to listen to (and I don't blame you for that).
Sure, GM's proposal sounds good. All three CEO's pledged to cut their salaries to $1 per year. They'll be in the poor house for sure after that, according to Slate's new baby The Big Money.
I posted earlier that the UAW concessions are a step towards this bailout working.
But I posted before digesting the details.
According to a New York Times article I also linked to two paragraphs ago, the Big Three spend an average of $78/hour per employee when you consider all the benefits.
Plus, retired workers get a lot of those same health care benefits, even though they don't work.
(Quick note off topic: In my opinion, I don't think the government should control retirement planning at all. I think we should be given our full pay check and deal with planning ourselves. That means give me back social security and give me what my employer puts into everything and let me manage my own money.)
Sure, the salary for an auto worker is only an average of around $30 an hour. But the issue is what it costs the employer. (After four years of college, I won't make anywhere close to that for years after I finish if I stay in journalism. Cue the violins and Justin Timberlake's "Cry Me A River")
WSJ.com's Evan Newmark broke down the GM plan brilliantly and I wish I would have just read this rather than everything else.
It took me a solid 15 minutes to track that post back down so enjoy this pull quote as well:
The U.S. car industry has been a credit junkie that now has to go cold turkey.
Which provides a good transition to my last link to a recent statement by Rep. Barney Frank (D, Mass.) who says an automotive bailout would negatively affect the credit crisis.
I'm a little upset that I can't find out how this would negatively affect the credit crisis, other than the obvious, if more people are unemployed then there will be less spending. (And we all know spending and racking up credit card bills is the answer rather than saving.)
But shouldn't bankruptcy be less expensive to the government than this bailout? Seriously, I'm not a bankruptcy expert so if I'm wrong, let me know.
To close, here's Bill O'Reilly giving it to Frank. I don't watch the O'Reilly factor and I think he's a little to Republican for my taste, but at least he's entertaining and a true economic conservative. Enjoy the clip:
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Hookers And Adultery? I'm Still Listening
The following contents are comments to a recent story on Slate regarding the federal bailout written by former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer.
The first comments come from someone else and the second is mine. Then I'll paste the story. Enjoy.
Spitzer is an IDIOT
by Dean Scholes
12/04/2008, 8:44 AM #
Rate this topic Favorites Reply
Hey Slate, I've never visited your site before, nor did I read this article. I discovered your partnership with a criminal, an adulterer, a liar and a bully from another source and couldn't resist submitting this post.
I am a Republican who voted for Spitzer, and I am discusted with the S.O.B. for what he did with my vote and the millions of others who put faith in his promises and opinions. Screw you Spitzer, and you too Slate. Now neither one of you should be considered as reliable sources of credibilty.
Spitzer, you need to spend more time underneath the heaping, steaming dung pile you covered yourself with before sharing anything you have to say in a public forum. No one cares about you, or what you think, except you.
Dean Scholes
Angelica, New York
Re: Spitzer is an IDIOT
by Corey_Ryan
12/04/2008, 9:06 AM #
Delete Favorites Reply
Wow, what blatant ignorance to the topic at hand. So if someone is an adulterer, then you're just going to completely ignore them no matter what?
If someone came up with the cure for cancer, but he or she had an affair, even though the two topics are completely unrelated (cancer and sex), you wouldn't want that cure?
If you are a conservative, than you have to love Spitzer's commentary. I picked up on this story from The Cheat Sheet (pretty aptly named for a link to Spitzer, I suppose) and I'm glad I went to it. I'm going to share it on Facebook and comment on it in my blog.
Spitzer has the Wall Street credentials and illustrates a very good point.
YOUR TAX DOLLARS ARE PAYING FOR THESE HUGE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO GET BIGGER!
Right here in Northeast Ohio, PNC received bailout money to purchase National City, making it a bigger, stronger bank. Spitzer points out that bigger and stronger was the problem in first place.
Reading and agreeing with Spitzer's article doesn't mean you are pro-adult[e]ry just as being friends with someone who has had an abortion doesn't make you pro-choice.
But ignoring a valid opinion just because something unrelated to the topic happened with the author puts you underneath the heaping dung pile.
--
the best policy
Too Big Not To Fail
We need to stop using the bailouts to rebuild gigantic financial institutions.
By Eliot Spitzer
Posted Wednesday, Dec. 3, 2008, at 5:59 PM ET
Last month, as the financial crisis and the government rescue plan dominated headlines, almost everyone overlooked a news item that could have enormous long-term impact: GE Capital announced the acquisition of five mid-size airplanes—with an option to buy 20 more—produced by CACC, a new, Chinese-government-sponsored airline manufacturer.
Why is that so significant? Two reasons: First, just as small steps signaled the Asian entry into our now essentially bankrupt auto sector 50 years ago, so the GE acquisition signals Asia's entry into one of our few remaining dominant manufacturing sectors. Boeing is still the world's leading commercial aviation company. CACC's emergence—and its particular advantage selling to Asian markets—means that Boeing now faces the rigors of an entirely new competitive playing field and that our commercial airplane sector is likely to suffer enormously over the coming decades.
But the second implication is even bigger. The CACC story highlights the risk that current bailouts—a remarkable $7.8 trillion in equity, loans, and guarantees so far—may merely perpetuate a fundamentally flawed status quo. So far, at least, we are simply rebuilding the same edifice that just collapsed. None of the investments has even begun to address the underlying structural problems that are causing economic power to shift away from the United States, sector by sector:
* Our trade deficit has ballooned from about $100 billion to more than $700 billion annually in the past decade, and our federal deficit now approaches $1 trillion. These twin deficits leave us at the mercy of foreign-capital inflows that may diminish as Asian nations, in particular, invest increasingly at home.
* Our household savings rate has been close to zero—and even negative in some years—not permitting the long-term capital accumulation required for the investments we need; China's savings rate, by comparison, is an astonishing 30 percent of household income.
* U.S. middle class income has stagnated over the past decade, while the middle class in China—granted, starting from a lower base—has seen its income growing at about 10 percent annually.
* Our intellectual advantage could soon turn into a new "third deficit," as hundreds of thousands of engineers are being created annually in China.
* We are realizing that the service sector—all the lawyers, investment bankers, advertising agencies, and accountants—follows its clients and wealth creation. This, not over-regulation, is the reason investment-banking activity has begun to migrate overseas.
The great irony is that our new place in the global economy is a direct consequence of our grand victory over the past 60 years. We have, indeed, converted virtually the entire world into one integrated capitalist economy, and we must now bear the brunt of serious and vigorous competition. In the immediate aftermath of World War II, the United States was essentially the only nation with financial capital, intellectual capital, skilled labor, a growing middle class generating consumer demand, and a rule of law permitting safe investment. Now we are one of many nations with these critical advantages.
This long-term change frames the question we should be asking ourselves: What are we getting for the trillions of dollars in rescue funds? If we are merely extending a fatally flawed status quo, we should invest those dollars elsewhere. Nobody disputes that radical action was needed to forestall total collapse. But we are creating the significant systemic risk not just of rewarding imprudent behavior by private actors but of preventing, through bailouts and subsidies, the process of creative destruction that capitalism depends on.
A more sensible approach would focus not just on rescuing pre-existing financial institutions but, instead, on creating a structure for more contained and competitive ones. For years, we have accepted a theory of financial concentration—not only across all lines of previously differentiated sectors (insurance, commercial banking, investment banking, retail brokerage, etc.) but in terms of sheer size. The theory was that capital depth would permit the various entities, dubbed financial supermarkets, to compete and provide full service to customers while cross-marketing various products. That model has failed. The failure shows in gargantuan losses, bloated overhead, enormous inefficiencies, dramatic and outsized risk taken to generate returns large enough to justify the scale of the organizations, ethical abuses in cross-marketing in violation of fiduciary obligations, and now the need for major taxpayer-financed capital support for virtually every major financial institution.
But even more important, from a structural perspective, our dependence on entities of this size ensured that we would fall prey to a "too big to fail" argument in favor of bailouts.
Two responses are possible: One is to accept the need for gigantic financial institutions and the impossibility of failure—and hence the reality of explicit government guarantees, such as Fannie and Freddie now have—but then to regulate the entities so heavily that they essentially become extensions of the government. To do so could risk the nimbleness we want from economic actors.
The better policy is to return to an era of vibrant competition among multiple, smaller entities—none so essential to the entire structure that it is indispensable.
The concentration of power—political as well as economic—that resided in these few institutions has made it impossible so far for this crisis to be used as an evolutionary step in confronting the true economic issues before us. But imagine if instead of merging more and more banks together, we had broken them apart and forced them to compete in a genuine manner. Or, alternatively, imagine if we had never placed ourselves in a position in which so many institutions were too big to fail. The bailouts might have been unnecessary.
In that case, vast sums now being spent on rescue packages might have been available to increase the intellectual capabilities of the next generation, or to support basic research and development that could give us true competitive advantage, or to restructure our bloated health care sector, or to build the type of physical infrastructure we need to be competitive.
It is time we permitted the market to work: This means true competition with winners and losers; companies that disappear; shareholders and CEOs who can lose as well as win; and government investment in the long-range competitiveness of our nation, not in a failed business model of financial concentration and failed risk management that holds nobody accountable.
This point will be all too well driven home when the remaining investment bankers in New York board a CACC jet to fly to Washington to negotiate the terms of a government bailout of yet another U.S. financial institution that was deemed too big to fail.
Eliot Spitzer is the former governor of the state of New York.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2205995/
Copyright 2008 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC
The first comments come from someone else and the second is mine. Then I'll paste the story. Enjoy.
Spitzer is an IDIOT
by Dean Scholes
12/04/2008, 8:44 AM #
Rate this topic Favorites Reply
Hey Slate, I've never visited your site before, nor did I read this article. I discovered your partnership with a criminal, an adulterer, a liar and a bully from another source and couldn't resist submitting this post.
I am a Republican who voted for Spitzer, and I am discusted with the S.O.B. for what he did with my vote and the millions of others who put faith in his promises and opinions. Screw you Spitzer, and you too Slate. Now neither one of you should be considered as reliable sources of credibilty.
Spitzer, you need to spend more time underneath the heaping, steaming dung pile you covered yourself with before sharing anything you have to say in a public forum. No one cares about you, or what you think, except you.
Dean Scholes
Angelica, New York
Re: Spitzer is an IDIOT
by Corey_Ryan
12/04/2008, 9:06 AM #
Delete Favorites Reply
Wow, what blatant ignorance to the topic at hand. So if someone is an adulterer, then you're just going to completely ignore them no matter what?
If someone came up with the cure for cancer, but he or she had an affair, even though the two topics are completely unrelated (cancer and sex), you wouldn't want that cure?
If you are a conservative, than you have to love Spitzer's commentary. I picked up on this story from The Cheat Sheet (pretty aptly named for a link to Spitzer, I suppose) and I'm glad I went to it. I'm going to share it on Facebook and comment on it in my blog.
Spitzer has the Wall Street credentials and illustrates a very good point.
YOUR TAX DOLLARS ARE PAYING FOR THESE HUGE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO GET BIGGER!
Right here in Northeast Ohio, PNC received bailout money to purchase National City, making it a bigger, stronger bank. Spitzer points out that bigger and stronger was the problem in first place.
Reading and agreeing with Spitzer's article doesn't mean you are pro-adult[e]ry just as being friends with someone who has had an abortion doesn't make you pro-choice.
But ignoring a valid opinion just because something unrelated to the topic happened with the author puts you underneath the heaping dung pile.
--
the best policy
Too Big Not To Fail
We need to stop using the bailouts to rebuild gigantic financial institutions.
By Eliot Spitzer
Posted Wednesday, Dec. 3, 2008, at 5:59 PM ET
Last month, as the financial crisis and the government rescue plan dominated headlines, almost everyone overlooked a news item that could have enormous long-term impact: GE Capital announced the acquisition of five mid-size airplanes—with an option to buy 20 more—produced by CACC, a new, Chinese-government-sponsored airline manufacturer.
Why is that so significant? Two reasons: First, just as small steps signaled the Asian entry into our now essentially bankrupt auto sector 50 years ago, so the GE acquisition signals Asia's entry into one of our few remaining dominant manufacturing sectors. Boeing is still the world's leading commercial aviation company. CACC's emergence—and its particular advantage selling to Asian markets—means that Boeing now faces the rigors of an entirely new competitive playing field and that our commercial airplane sector is likely to suffer enormously over the coming decades.
But the second implication is even bigger. The CACC story highlights the risk that current bailouts—a remarkable $7.8 trillion in equity, loans, and guarantees so far—may merely perpetuate a fundamentally flawed status quo. So far, at least, we are simply rebuilding the same edifice that just collapsed. None of the investments has even begun to address the underlying structural problems that are causing economic power to shift away from the United States, sector by sector:
* Our trade deficit has ballooned from about $100 billion to more than $700 billion annually in the past decade, and our federal deficit now approaches $1 trillion. These twin deficits leave us at the mercy of foreign-capital inflows that may diminish as Asian nations, in particular, invest increasingly at home.
* Our household savings rate has been close to zero—and even negative in some years—not permitting the long-term capital accumulation required for the investments we need; China's savings rate, by comparison, is an astonishing 30 percent of household income.
* U.S. middle class income has stagnated over the past decade, while the middle class in China—granted, starting from a lower base—has seen its income growing at about 10 percent annually.
* Our intellectual advantage could soon turn into a new "third deficit," as hundreds of thousands of engineers are being created annually in China.
* We are realizing that the service sector—all the lawyers, investment bankers, advertising agencies, and accountants—follows its clients and wealth creation. This, not over-regulation, is the reason investment-banking activity has begun to migrate overseas.
The great irony is that our new place in the global economy is a direct consequence of our grand victory over the past 60 years. We have, indeed, converted virtually the entire world into one integrated capitalist economy, and we must now bear the brunt of serious and vigorous competition. In the immediate aftermath of World War II, the United States was essentially the only nation with financial capital, intellectual capital, skilled labor, a growing middle class generating consumer demand, and a rule of law permitting safe investment. Now we are one of many nations with these critical advantages.
This long-term change frames the question we should be asking ourselves: What are we getting for the trillions of dollars in rescue funds? If we are merely extending a fatally flawed status quo, we should invest those dollars elsewhere. Nobody disputes that radical action was needed to forestall total collapse. But we are creating the significant systemic risk not just of rewarding imprudent behavior by private actors but of preventing, through bailouts and subsidies, the process of creative destruction that capitalism depends on.
A more sensible approach would focus not just on rescuing pre-existing financial institutions but, instead, on creating a structure for more contained and competitive ones. For years, we have accepted a theory of financial concentration—not only across all lines of previously differentiated sectors (insurance, commercial banking, investment banking, retail brokerage, etc.) but in terms of sheer size. The theory was that capital depth would permit the various entities, dubbed financial supermarkets, to compete and provide full service to customers while cross-marketing various products. That model has failed. The failure shows in gargantuan losses, bloated overhead, enormous inefficiencies, dramatic and outsized risk taken to generate returns large enough to justify the scale of the organizations, ethical abuses in cross-marketing in violation of fiduciary obligations, and now the need for major taxpayer-financed capital support for virtually every major financial institution.
But even more important, from a structural perspective, our dependence on entities of this size ensured that we would fall prey to a "too big to fail" argument in favor of bailouts.
Two responses are possible: One is to accept the need for gigantic financial institutions and the impossibility of failure—and hence the reality of explicit government guarantees, such as Fannie and Freddie now have—but then to regulate the entities so heavily that they essentially become extensions of the government. To do so could risk the nimbleness we want from economic actors.
The better policy is to return to an era of vibrant competition among multiple, smaller entities—none so essential to the entire structure that it is indispensable.
The concentration of power—political as well as economic—that resided in these few institutions has made it impossible so far for this crisis to be used as an evolutionary step in confronting the true economic issues before us. But imagine if instead of merging more and more banks together, we had broken them apart and forced them to compete in a genuine manner. Or, alternatively, imagine if we had never placed ourselves in a position in which so many institutions were too big to fail. The bailouts might have been unnecessary.
In that case, vast sums now being spent on rescue packages might have been available to increase the intellectual capabilities of the next generation, or to support basic research and development that could give us true competitive advantage, or to restructure our bloated health care sector, or to build the type of physical infrastructure we need to be competitive.
It is time we permitted the market to work: This means true competition with winners and losers; companies that disappear; shareholders and CEOs who can lose as well as win; and government investment in the long-range competitiveness of our nation, not in a failed business model of financial concentration and failed risk management that holds nobody accountable.
This point will be all too well driven home when the remaining investment bankers in New York board a CACC jet to fly to Washington to negotiate the terms of a government bailout of yet another U.S. financial institution that was deemed too big to fail.
Eliot Spitzer is the former governor of the state of New York.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2205995/
Copyright 2008 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Renegotiate With UAW And I May Be OK
So my dad recently engaged in a dialogue with a certain future professor of mine (he teaches a required course I need to take in the spring) after said professor wrote a Plain Dealer column (and apparently in the Dispatch as well) promoting the Detroit bailout.
That's my dad's thing, you see, reading newspapers and writing to them. He keeps his published Letters to the Editor tucked away in his room in the family basement like trophies. He loves to argue and to push the economic conservative agenda.
And he loves to attack unions.
He worked for U.S. Gypsum Steel back in the 80s and there was some sort of union action (I don't know if it was a strike/lockout or a threat of strike/lockout), but he once told me a crowd of union workers ended up at his house and threw paint at it.
The point of all that is not that my dad has a personal vendetta with unions. I mean to point out that he has had experience with unions from both sides (he worked labor in steel mills through college). He knows what he's talking about when he argues against them.
Because I can only attest a knowledge of the basic when it comes to labor unions (a group of employees of a certain occupation or industry who come together to collectively negotiate wages, benefits, etc.), I usually defer to him on such topics.
Plus, I am pretty much against anything that pins one group squarely against another unless it's sports or a superhero battle. (the Superman image came from here.)
One could argue that automotive industry is completely different from steel, but apparently the comparison can be easily made.
Now that steel has been reformed and broken up into smaller companies, we actually produce more of it. This .pdf from the American Iron and Steel Institute brings in the facts.
Notably, that document states that in 2006 we could produce one ton of steel per two man hours as opposed to one ton per 10.1 man hours in the 1980s.
So where am I going with all of this?
It's hard to argue against my dad ( or with Professor Suddes) because there is clearly a problem with the UAW's contract.
But I may be okay with some sort of Detroit bailout if the the automakers can negotiate with the UAW. This is what sparked the mid-day post, so here's the article from the Wall Street Journal pasted below.
I also embedded a video off WSJ.com because I'm curious what you think of their videos.
As for those who came hoping to read something of a lighter note, I apologize. I'm working on my Photoshop skills for a series of regular posts where I manipulate photos of America's finest. Currently I'm working on an image of GM CEO Richard Wagoner taking it from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, but it's taking me a minute.
Cheers!
Auto Union Open to Changes in Contract
DECEMBER 3, 2008, 3:48 P.M. ET
by Sharon Terlap
WSJ.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122832097499675993.html?mod=igoogle_wsj_gadgv1&
That's my dad's thing, you see, reading newspapers and writing to them. He keeps his published Letters to the Editor tucked away in his room in the family basement like trophies. He loves to argue and to push the economic conservative agenda.
And he loves to attack unions.
He worked for U.S. Gypsum Steel back in the 80s and there was some sort of union action (I don't know if it was a strike/lockout or a threat of strike/lockout), but he once told me a crowd of union workers ended up at his house and threw paint at it.
The point of all that is not that my dad has a personal vendetta with unions. I mean to point out that he has had experience with unions from both sides (he worked labor in steel mills through college). He knows what he's talking about when he argues against them.
Because I can only attest a knowledge of the basic when it comes to labor unions (a group of employees of a certain occupation or industry who come together to collectively negotiate wages, benefits, etc.), I usually defer to him on such topics.
Plus, I am pretty much against anything that pins one group squarely against another unless it's sports or a superhero battle. (the Superman image came from here.)
One could argue that automotive industry is completely different from steel, but apparently the comparison can be easily made.
Now that steel has been reformed and broken up into smaller companies, we actually produce more of it. This .pdf from the American Iron and Steel Institute brings in the facts.
Notably, that document states that in 2006 we could produce one ton of steel per two man hours as opposed to one ton per 10.1 man hours in the 1980s.
So where am I going with all of this?
It's hard to argue against my dad ( or with Professor Suddes) because there is clearly a problem with the UAW's contract.
But I may be okay with some sort of Detroit bailout if the the automakers can negotiate with the UAW. This is what sparked the mid-day post, so here's the article from the Wall Street Journal pasted below.
I also embedded a video off WSJ.com because I'm curious what you think of their videos.
As for those who came hoping to read something of a lighter note, I apologize. I'm working on my Photoshop skills for a series of regular posts where I manipulate photos of America's finest. Currently I'm working on an image of GM CEO Richard Wagoner taking it from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, but it's taking me a minute.
Cheers!
Auto Union Open to Changes in Contract
DECEMBER 3, 2008, 3:48 P.M. ET
by Sharon Terlap
WSJ.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122832097499675993.html?mod=igoogle_wsj_gadgv1&
DETROIT -- The United Auto Workers will allow U.S. auto makers to delay payments into a massive health-care trust and suspend the controversial jobs bank program for laid-off workers, part of an effort to help Detroit's struggling auto makers secure emergency federal loans.
The UAW will modify the contracts reached last year with the Detroit Three to help cut costs as the companies try to convince Congress they can survive if given a federal bailout. Modification will require the UAW to assemble bargaining committees and commence negotiations with the companies.
"'Concessions," I used to cringe at that word. But now, why hide from it? That's what we did," Mr. Gettelfinger said.
His comments came one day after General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC submitted wide-ranging restructuring blueprints to Congress in the hopes of qualifying for a combined $34 billion in low-interest federal loans. GM and Chrysler say they both need money immediately to avoid collapse, while Ford says it would hope not to have to draw from any credit line.
Cutting Costs
The auto makers are hoping to negotiate concessions from the UAW to bring the cost structures of the Detroit Three more in line with those of foreign auto makers in the U.S.
The health-care trust, commonly referred to as VEBA, was supposed to begin paying benefits to retirees starting Jan. 1, 2010, and is considered a key component of the companies' efforts to reduce labor obligations. However, the auto makers are running short of liquidity and likely unable to come up with the billions of dollars needed to initially fund the trust.
U.S. auto makers are burning through cash at an alarming pace as auto sales in the U.S. and abroad plunge. On Tuesday, Ford reported a 30% decline in its U.S. sales in November versus the year-ago period, while GM and Chrysler each saw their sales drop more than 40%.
As for the jobs bank program, which provides many laid-off workers with most of their pay and benefits, Mr. Gettelfinger said the program has shrunk dramatically, but remains a "lightning rod" for critics of the domestic auto industry.
"Jobs bank has become a sound byte that people use to beat us up," he said. GM and Ford have reduced their jobs banks by nearly 80,000 workers in recent years. The Detroit Three auto makers currently have 3,500 workers in the jobs bank.
'Change With The Times'
Mr. Gettelfinger made the case that a failure of one of Detroit's auto makers would trigger a collapse of at least one of the other auto makers along with suppliers, auto dealers and other companies that depend on GM, Ford and Chrysler for business.
Auto makers made similar statements in the letters sent to Congress on Tuesday.
The UAW will drive that point with an ad campaign that asks for help for Main Street and reminds Congress that the auto industry is not the banking system, which just received a $700 billion federal bailout.
"If Wall Street can get help so should Main Street," one spot will say.
Mr. Gettelfinger also emphasized that the auto makers are presenting a detailed plan that promises to repay the loans. He also noted that other nations are being asked to extend support to their auto industries.
Hundreds of local UAW officials convened for Wednesday's meeting, which Mr. Gettelfinger described as an "unprecedented" gathering of officials representing workers from all three auto makers.
Several said they believe members would grudgingly support the concessions, though some said they planned to oppose further givebacks.
"We're in a fight for survival," said Doug Rice, president of UAW Local 122, representing Chrysler workers. "We're going to have to look at how we do things so we can live today to survive tomorrow."
Rory Gamble, a regional UAW director for Ford, said union leaders have to present a plan that's fair and appropriate for members.
"I'm pretty sure they'll accept that," he said. "You've got to change with the times," he added, noting that the union will look for guarantees down the road when the companies rebound.
GM shares were down 1% at $4.80 in mid-afternoon trading, while Ford shares were up 6.6% at $2.88. Chrysler, owned by investment group Cerberus, doesn't have publicly traded shares.
Write to Sharon Terlep at sharon.terlep@dowjones.com
Monday, December 1, 2008
Politics Make Good Conversation, If The Conversers Have A Buffer Zone
Has your family left yet?
By now, you should be home. Or maybe you never left, butUncle Benny who drinks too much just went back to Western Pennsylvania.
All the left over turkey is either gone or way too dry to consume (I recommend using some mustard to soften it up if you must finish it).
I had a quite dinner with the immediate family and our Kimmy Gibbler-like neighbor after a mid-day nap and a morning tackle football game. (the Gibbler link takes you to where I got the photo)
But the next day, I had a conversation with my mom that led me to an interesting hypothesis.
I don't know if it's because she doesn't get to talk about current events or politics with anyone, but she seems to relish in the opportunity to show off her strong Republican sentiments. And I think this is how most families are.
If you are the kind of family or group of friends that gets to see each other everyday, conversation tends to be limited to water cooler "Did you believe what Michael Scott did last night?" But what changes with those people you only see three times a year?
People take political ideology very seriously and we love to express our ideals whenever possible (this could be because it makes us feel knowledgeable or because we just inherently want to piss each other off, I don't know). When conflicting serious political ideals clash, people get angry. Therefore, we talk about politics only during holidays and scheduled get-togethers because of the buffer zone.
A buffer zone, as defined by Seinfeld, is the comfort zone between a child from his parents. The greater the buffer zone, the more comfort (Del Boca Vista to Manhattan being the ideal buffer zone). I think this applies to friends as well.
Remember that football game I mentioned earlier? My friends from high school and I play in a game every year. We've done this for seven years. The only time anyone mentioned Washington is when I have worn my Redskins Deon Sanders jersey for the game (here's where I got that photo).
Everyone started talking about Obama. I had to ask how other campuses reacted to the results.
It may be important to note that nothing got heated in this discussion, probably because we started playing football. And it was like 30 degrees outside.
I just know we grew up in different families and we go to different schools. Some of us care more about politics than others. If we would have been in a more suitable setting, someone's face would have gotten flushed with rage.
So the question that arises from my hypothesis is this. Why do we only want to piss off those close family and friends we take time to visit with on select special occasions?
After a weekend of watching my sister harass my mom about her weird dance moves that she performs miles away from traditional dance floors and my dad bringing up every embarrassing moment from my childhood (wouldn't you like to know), I realized something.
Pissing each other off is the foundation of family. Aren't you glad it's the holidays?
By now, you should be home. Or maybe you never left, butUncle Benny who drinks too much just went back to Western Pennsylvania.
All the left over turkey is either gone or way too dry to consume (I recommend using some mustard to soften it up if you must finish it).
I had a quite dinner with the immediate family and our Kimmy Gibbler-like neighbor after a mid-day nap and a morning tackle football game. (the Gibbler link takes you to where I got the photo)
But the next day, I had a conversation with my mom that led me to an interesting hypothesis.I don't know if it's because she doesn't get to talk about current events or politics with anyone, but she seems to relish in the opportunity to show off her strong Republican sentiments. And I think this is how most families are.
If you are the kind of family or group of friends that gets to see each other everyday, conversation tends to be limited to water cooler "Did you believe what Michael Scott did last night?" But what changes with those people you only see three times a year?
People take political ideology very seriously and we love to express our ideals whenever possible (this could be because it makes us feel knowledgeable or because we just inherently want to piss each other off, I don't know). When conflicting serious political ideals clash, people get angry. Therefore, we talk about politics only during holidays and scheduled get-togethers because of the buffer zone.
A buffer zone, as defined by Seinfeld, is the comfort zone between a child from his parents. The greater the buffer zone, the more comfort (Del Boca Vista to Manhattan being the ideal buffer zone). I think this applies to friends as well.
Remember that football game I mentioned earlier? My friends from high school and I play in a game every year. We've done this for seven years. The only time anyone mentioned Washington is when I have worn my Redskins Deon Sanders jersey for the game (here's where I got that photo).Everyone started talking about Obama. I had to ask how other campuses reacted to the results.
It may be important to note that nothing got heated in this discussion, probably because we started playing football. And it was like 30 degrees outside.
I just know we grew up in different families and we go to different schools. Some of us care more about politics than others. If we would have been in a more suitable setting, someone's face would have gotten flushed with rage.
So the question that arises from my hypothesis is this. Why do we only want to piss off those close family and friends we take time to visit with on select special occasions?
After a weekend of watching my sister harass my mom about her weird dance moves that she performs miles away from traditional dance floors and my dad bringing up every embarrassing moment from my childhood (wouldn't you like to know), I realized something.
Pissing each other off is the foundation of family. Aren't you glad it's the holidays?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
