What about these gifts to Toyota

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:08:56 -0800 (PST), gpsman cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:


>>
>> So, you're saying they are too dumb to do anything better?
>
> Perhaps. Perhaps unable to qualify for higher education. Everybody
> can't go to college, if only because there isn't room for everybody at
> colleges.

Well then - that's no reason to argue for inappropriate amounts of pay,
just because they do mind-numbing work.


>>
>> It's not a skill of endurance. *There is no such thing.
>
> Any Drill Sergeant would beg to differ.

Having served under one, I can assure you that you are wrong. Endurance is
a quality, not a skill.

>
>> Nor is
>> "sacrificing your health" a skill - as if such a thing even existed. *Your
>> arguments are laughable.
>
> Any combat soldier would beg to differ.
>

Having been there done that, I can also assure you that you are incorrect
again.

>>> Take any automotive executive and require them to perform the duties
>>> of an assembly line worker for a week and they'd call in sick
>>> Wednesday... with a note from a doctor from the Mayo Clinic stating
>>> the work was detrimental to their health.
>>
>> Why should they? *They invested their energies in preparing themselves for
>> a life that did not require this type of work of them, and for jobs that
>> paid better.
>
> Spurious conclusion; many if not most were born with silver spoons,
> and paid, with Daddy's money, to have their book reports written for
> them by the more industrious.

Many maybe - most, not likely. Most took out student loans, applied
themselves and made their way, only to be resented by those too lazy to do
the same thing.

>
>> Spurious conclusion: *Believing that a missed attempt at defending the
>> baseless cry for compassion for mind-numbing repetitive labors, was
>> actually worth the time spent drafting it. *
>
> Not compassion; compensation. Mind-numbing repetitive labor extracts
> a cost, both of the performer and their progeny. And it produces
> something.

It pays more than it is worth now. You have yet to produce an argument for
even the current level of pay. Little to no real skill deserves little to
no pay. Attempting to justify high levels of pay based on such arguments
as mind-numbing just don't cut it.

>
> I think it would be quite a challenge to find someone who couldn't run
> any car company into the ground.

What in the hell is that supposed to mean?


--

-Mike-

On Dec 16, 11:16*pm, Mike Marlow > wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:08:56 -0800 (PST), gpsman cast forth these pearls of
> wisdom...:
>
>
>
> >> So, you're saying they are too dumb to do anything better?
>
> > Perhaps. *Perhaps unable to qualify for higher education. *Everybody
> > can't go to college, if only because there isn't room for everybody at
> > colleges.
>
> Well then - that's no reason to argue for inappropriate amounts of pay,
> just because they do mind-numbing work.

What is "appropriate" is completely subjective.

> >> It's not a skill of endurance. *There is no such thing.
>
> > Any Drill Sergeant would beg to differ.
>
> Having served under one, I can assure you that you are wrong. *Endurance is
> a quality, not a skill.

So what's a skill?

> >> Nor is
> >> "sacrificing your health" a skill - as if such a thing even existed. *Your
> >> arguments are laughable.
>
> > Any combat soldier would beg to differ.
>
> Having been there done that, I can also assure you that you are incorrect
> again.

Really? What of your health did you sacrifice? Do you feel fairly
compensated?

> >>> Take any automotive executive and require them to perform the duties
> >>> of an assembly line worker for a week and they'd call in sick
> >>> Wednesday... with a note from a doctor from the Mayo Clinic stating
> >>> the work was detrimental to their health.
>
> >> Why should they? *They invested their energies in preparing themselves for
> >> a life that did not require this type of work of them, and for jobs that
> >> paid better.
>
> > Spurious conclusion; many if not most were born with silver spoons,
> > and paid, with Daddy's money, to have their book reports written for
> > them by the more industrious.
>
> Many maybe - most, not likely. *Most took out student loans, applied
> themselves and made their way, only to be resented by those too lazy to do
> the same thing.

It is my experience and opinion that to reach higher levels of
management who you know is more important than what you know, or what
you have previously accomplished.

The most egregious example of this would be the moron who currently
occupies the White House.

> It pays more than it is worth now.

That's merely your opinion.

> You have yet to produce an argument for
> even the current level of pay.

You have yet to produce an argument current compensation is excessive,
and you can't.

I favor compensation based solely on measurable performance. I think
in that case assembly workers might be found to be underpaid and most
if not all US automotive executives would be found to owe the
shareholders money at EOY.

> Little to no real skill deserves little to
> no pay. *Attempting to justify high levels of pay based on such arguments
> as mind-numbing just don't cut it.

Well, next year you might find yourself on the long skinny end of a
Mexican backhoe, and more or less happy to be there, and I think that
might adjust your perspective.

The prosperity of the most comfortable and this nation is largely
supported by the efforts of the least comfortable.

They deserve to be more comfortable. Their efforts deserve to be
compensated to a degree where they don't have to live month-to-month,
to enjoy a little more fruit for their labor.

As "the system" is currently configured the rich get richer and the
poor get poorer, and more people are joining the ranks of the poor due
to circumstances largely beyond their control.

I see nothing wrong with efforts to adjust these inequities.

I guess at this point I should admit that, although I am not "rich", I
did manage to retire to a modest level of comfort 4 years ago at age
50.

> > I think it would be quite a challenge to find someone who couldn't run
> > any car company into the ground.
>
> What in the hell is that supposed to mean?

"(The) Little to no real (demonstrated) skill (by auto execs) deserves
little to no pay."
-----

- gpsman

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:44:35 -0800 (PST), gpsman cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:


>
> It is my experience and opinion that to reach higher levels of
> management who you know is more important than what you know, or what
> you have previously accomplished.
>
> The most egregious example of this would be the moron who currently
> occupies the White House.

This is a wholey different point. Has nothing to do with your silver spoon
assertion. That said - we could probably agree more than disagree on this
point. Being a function of the human nature though, it is not limited to
the management ranks.


>
> Well, next year you might find yourself on the long skinny end of a
> Mexican backhoe, and more or less happy to be there, and I think that
> might adjust your perspective.

I've been there. I've gone from high pay to on-the-street, and happy to
get anything that would contribute to paying the bills. I'm afraid you
don't know much about the person you're debating with.


>
> They deserve to be more comfortable. Their efforts deserve to be
> compensated to a degree where they don't have to live month-to-month,
> to enjoy a little more fruit for their labor.

No autoworker has had to live hand to mouth unless it was because of their
own mismanagement of their resources. Completely irrelevant.


>
> I guess at this point I should admit that, although I am not "rich", I
> did manage to retire to a modest level of comfort 4 years ago at age
> 50.

Hats off to you. I had a similar target (55), but I've hit that point and
still haven't retired. Kept assuming more things that were worthwhile to
support, and now I keep working to support those initiatives - almost like
combining a hobby with the requirement to work.


--

-Mike-

On Dec 17, 8:00 am, Mike Marlow > wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:44:35 -0800 (PST), gpsman cast forth these pearls of
> wisdom...:
>
>
>
> > It is my experience and opinion that to reach higher levels of
> > management who you know is more important than what you know, or what
> > you have previously accomplished.
>
> > The most egregious example of this would be the moron who currently
> > occupies the White House.
>
> This is a wholey different point. Has nothing to do with your silver spoon
> assertion.

Yeah, I couldn't support that assertion if my life depended on it.
It's more a perception of experience.

> That said - we could probably agree more than disagree on this
> point. Being a function of the human nature though, it is not limited to
> the management ranks.

No, it is not. It does illustrate that initiative and education and
hard work and good judgment are unlikely to catapult one to the upper
level of middle class.

> > Well, next year you might find yourself on the long skinny end of a
> > Mexican backhoe, and more or less happy to be there, and I think that
> > might adjust your perspective.
>
> I've been there. I've gone from high pay to on-the-street, and happy to
> get anything that would contribute to paying the bills. I'm afraid you
> don't know much about the person you're debating with.

So... did you feel adequately compensated? Had you been injured did
you save enough money to go to college?

> > They deserve to be more comfortable. Their efforts deserve to be
> > compensated to a degree where they don't have to live month-to-month,
> > to enjoy a little more fruit for their labor.
>
> No autoworker has had to live hand to mouth unless it was because of their
> own mismanagement of their resources. Completely irrelevant.

Ok, then. Are they sufficiently compensated to live more or less
comfortably, invest adequately for retirement, accumulate an emergency
nest-egg, put a couple kids through college, cover the cost of elder
care for their parents and prepared for the cost of their own (husband
& wife) health care after retirement?

ISTM UAW members are not so much over-compensated as the greatest
number of non-members are under-compensated.

It's difficult for me to tell what is "fact"; I've heard numbers
ranging from about $30 hr. to over $100.

ISTM an average man ought to be able to afford to comfortably support
his family, prepare for retirement and allow his wife to provide
primary care for the children.

Instead... well, you know what we now have instead. A ****load of
insufficiently supervised and parented children.
-----

- gpsman

News wrote:
>
>
> Mark A wrote:
>
>> While you are tracking subsidies for a business moving to a city, or
>> for not moving away, don't forget the professional sports franchises.
>> The subsidies (and blackmail) for the sports teams dwarfs anything
>> given to other businesses, and is of questionable economic benefit.
>
>
> Quite true. Quite excessive. Quite a waste.

Don't get me started.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:48:59 -0500, Tim wrote:

> News wrote:
>>
>>
>> Mark A wrote:
>>
>>> While you are tracking subsidies for a business moving to a city, or
>>> for not moving away, don't forget the professional sports franchises.
>>> The subsidies (and blackmail) for the sports teams dwarfs anything
>>> given to other businesses, and is of questionable economic benefit.
>>
>>
>> Quite true. Quite excessive. Quite a waste.
>
> Don't get me started.

Yer starter busted?

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:03:33 -0800 (PST), gpsman cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:


>>
>> I've been there. I've gone from high pay to on-the-street, and happy to
>> get anything that would contribute to paying the bills. I'm afraid you
>> don't know much about the person you're debating with.
>
> So... did you feel adequately compensated? Had you been injured did
> you save enough money to go to college?

I've attended college. My career has been in the professional ranks, and
it has experienced a few turmoil periods where companies folded up,
divisions were eliminated, etc. Found myself on the street. Where I live,
it is not possible to find the kind of job and compensation that I was
accustomed to, working for local companies. Therefore, you look for the
positions where being remote is not a hinderance. As age progresses, that
becomes the bigger hinderance. Not that any company will admit to that
though. During those periods, I resorted to things I could do to earn
income while on the street. I did electrical wiring, snow plowing, retail
sales, auto body work - whatever I could do to raise money. We tightened
down our belts of course, but no amount of that will offset a loss of
income. Alas - I ramble.

Was I adequately compensated? Yes. In my professional position, I've
always been handsomely compensated. On the street and making my way, yes I
was adequately compensated for the task I performed. Not to the levels I
was used to, but to the task I performed. The point being that not all
jobs are worth the same compensation.


>
> Ok, then. Are they sufficiently compensated to live more or less
> comfortably, invest adequately for retirement, accumulate an emergency
> nest-egg, put a couple kids through college, cover the cost of elder
> care for their parents and prepared for the cost of their own (husband
> & wife) health care after retirement?

I believe they are adequately compensated for these things. Not to the
point that they can build a million dollar 401K maybe, but that's part of
taking the short cut and not getting an education to enable jobs that do
pay better.

>
> ISTM UAW members are not so much over-compensated as the greatest
> number of non-members are under-compensated.

Not from my experience. But that is a limited experience. Compensation is
relative to the worth of the job and the value of the labor. If it is
commodity labor that anyone can do, then it's not going to pay as much as
labor that demands some higher level of knowledge, skill, risk, etc.

>
> It's difficult for me to tell what is "fact"; I've heard numbers
> ranging from about $30 hr. to over $100.

I've heard those also. I dismiss the higher numbers as those seem to be
the loaded cost for labor.

>
> ISTM an average man ought to be able to afford to comfortably support
> his family, prepare for retirement and allow his wife to provide
> primary care for the children.

I agree. The problem comes in when people want bass boats, new trucks,
beers out every night, flat screen TV's, etc. The average auto worker -
union or non-union, makes enough to satsify your vision above... if he
manages his money well. If he wants all the toys and pleasures, and wants
what you suggest, then he needs to make himself marketable to higher paying
jobs.

>
> Instead... well, you know what we now have instead. A ****load of
> insufficiently supervised and parented children.

Agreed. Across the ranks. Watching the new breed of management rising up
through the ranks is a scarey sight. No sense of anything except what they
want.



--

-Mike-

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:56:53 -0500, Mike Marlow
> wrote Re What about these gifts to
Toyota:

>I've attended college. My career has been in the professional ranks, and
>it has experienced a few turmoil periods where companies folded up,
>divisions were eliminated, etc. Found myself on the street. Where I live,
>it is not possible to find the kind of job and compensation that I was
>accustomed to, working for local companies. Therefore, you look for the
>positions where being remote is not a hinderance. As age progresses, that
>becomes the bigger hinderance. Not that any company will admit to that
>though. During those periods, I resorted to things I could do to earn
>income while on the street. I did electrical wiring, snow plowing, retail
>sales, auto body work - whatever I could do to raise money. We tightened
>down our belts of course, but no amount of that will offset a loss of
>income.

This is precisely the scenario that UAW workers want to avoid: having
to earn a living on their own personal abilities and merits. They
prefer to hid behind UAW (former) muscle and the addictions of the
American consumer.

Mike Marlow wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:03:33 -0800 (PST), gpsman cast forth these pearls of
> wisdom...:
>
>
>>> I've been there. I've gone from high pay to on-the-street, and happy to
>>> get anything that would contribute to paying the bills. I'm afraid you
>>> don't know much about the person you're debating with.
>> So... did you feel adequately compensated? Had you been injured did
>> you save enough money to go to college?
>
> I've attended college. My career has been in the professional ranks, and
> it has experienced a few turmoil periods where companies folded up,
> divisions were eliminated, etc. Found myself on the street. Where I live,
> it is not possible to find the kind of job and compensation that I was
> accustomed to, working for local companies. Therefore, you look for the
> positions where being remote is not a hinderance. As age progresses, that
> becomes the bigger hinderance. Not that any company will admit to that
> though. During those periods, I resorted to things I could do to earn
> income while on the street. I did electrical wiring, snow plowing, retail
> sales, auto body work - whatever I could do to raise money. We tightened
> down our belts of course, but no amount of that will offset a loss of
> income. Alas - I ramble.
>
> Was I adequately compensated? Yes. In my professional position, I've
> always been handsomely compensated. On the street and making my way, yes I
> was adequately compensated for the task I performed. Not to the levels I
> was used to, but to the task I performed. The point being that not all
> jobs are worth the same compensation.

You do realize that you're replying to the gpstard, right? I'm not
surprised that he'd take an irrational position on this subject -
there's plenty of precedent.

Oh, and well said.


>> Ok, then. Are they sufficiently compensated to live more or less
>> comfortably, invest adequately for retirement, accumulate an emergency
>> nest-egg, put a couple kids through college, cover the cost of elder
>> care for their parents and prepared for the cost of their own (husband
>> & wife) health care after retirement?
>
> I believe they are adequately compensated for these things. Not to the
> point that they can build a million dollar 401K maybe, but that's part of
> taking the short cut and not getting an education to enable jobs that do
> pay better.

Hell, at a 10% annual rate of growth (as opposed to a 40% hit, let's not
talk about that) if one can't build a million dollar 401(k) on 80K a
year one is not trying very hard.

>
>> ISTM UAW members are not so much over-compensated as the greatest
>> number of non-members are under-compensated.
>
> Not from my experience. But that is a limited experience. Compensation is
> relative to the worth of the job and the value of the labor. If it is
> commodity labor that anyone can do, then it's not going to pay as much as
> labor that demands some higher level of knowledge, skill, risk, etc.
>

Indeed.

>> It's difficult for me to tell what is "fact"; I've heard numbers
>> ranging from about $30 hr. to over $100.
>
> I've heard those also. I dismiss the higher numbers as those seem to be
> the loaded cost for labor.
>
>> ISTM an average man ought to be able to afford to comfortably support
>> his family, prepare for retirement and allow his wife to provide
>> primary care for the children.
>
> I agree. The problem comes in when people want bass boats, new trucks,
> beers out every night, flat screen TV's, etc. The average auto worker -
> union or non-union, makes enough to satsify your vision above... if he
> manages his money well. If he wants all the toys and pleasures, and wants
> what you suggest, then he needs to make himself marketable to higher paying
> jobs.
>
>> Instead... well, you know what we now have instead. A ****load of
>> insufficiently supervised and parented children.
>
> Agreed. Across the ranks. Watching the new breed of management rising up
> through the ranks is a scarey sight. No sense of anything except what they
> want.

IMHO we need fewer MBAs and more upwardly mobile engineers and
technicians in management position. (I'm lucky, my boss is an ex-tech.)

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 07:20:02 -0800, larry moe 'n curly wrote:

>
>
> Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:06:24 -0500, News wrote:
>
>> > The "race to the bottom" is a general theme. Applies widely, outside
>> > the auto industry. You see it everywhere outsourcing is involved. You
>> > see it when New Jersey subsidizes the move of Wall Street jobs across
>> > the river.
>> >
>> > Howe about YOUR job? Is it immune?
>>
>> Yup! I fix what the Chinese screw up.
>
> Board swapping != fixing


Here's a though: when you bring your car in to get fixed, do you call the
guy who fixes it a parts swapper?

Same idea...