2741

This is truth, but the sad thing is that many/most Republicans can’t see it at all. Believe me, I’ve tried explaining it to people like my father and father-in-law, but they refuse to admit that the party has changed. They also remain certain that Republicans in power = no deficits no matter how often I show them the data from the Clinton and Bush II administrations.

Frankly, I think the reason for this blindness is a character trait common to most people. Once someone picks a side in arenas that matter (politics, religion, ethics, whatever), a certain amount of emotional investment and identification results. To later switch sides is an uncomfortable process because it requires the admission that “your” team either changed or was wrong from the start. It’s easier to just keep voting or believing the same way you always have.

The saddest thing is that intelligence is not guaranteed protection from this trait. My father-in-law is a truly brilliant man with a wide-ranging and finely honed intellect, but it’s an intellect that just turns off whenever I criticize Republicans. They’ve been his team his whole life and nothing’s going to change that–in his eyes, they believe in the things he wants them to believe in no matter what the reality is.

2742

Woha. That’s a great find.

As someone who lives in Michigan, the auto industry is pretty big here. Love my Chevy Volt.

2743

I’ve got to hand it to the Obama campaign guys (and I am assuming that they are the ones orchestrating all this despite having no evidence) – Getting the Romney-as-school-bully story out there on the same day that Obama came out as supporting gay marriage (or vice-versa) was genius. It meant that Romney was effectively unable to capitalize on Obama’s statement, and instead had to play defense all day.

Incidentally, Romney is really starting to look like a complete and utter douche. I mean, even in the beginning I doubt many people ever thought they would like to hang out and grab a brew with the guy (like you probably wouldn’t want to sit on a barstool next to an aloof boss) – but between his pathetic attempts to appear normal (“I know a lot a NASCAR owners”), this story about bullying classmates, and the dog-on-the-roof story that just won’t go away… well, he’s starting to look like a guy you wouldn’t want as your aloof boss to begin with.

None of that would make him a bad president (where you probably need a little innate asshattery, if you get right down to it), but voters do respond to whether they personally like someone or not, especially for turn-out. It’s not that these stories would likely flip a voter from Red to Blue, but there are folks that will stay home rather than go out an pull the lever for a guy they don’t like too much.

2744

He handled that bully story like such a bonehead. He could have scored some points if he had just said “I do remember that. It was a long time ago, and I know now that how I behaved was wrong. People shouldn’t act like that.” But no, it has to be the old Er, um, I can’t recall that specific, um, incident (pull on collar, grimace).

2745

You know the interesting thing about that is that when you factor out the health care paid for those who have retired, the cost of union labor wasn’t a problem for the auto industry.

Now, the cost of union labor was (and alway will be) a talking point, but the real problem is/was the cost of escalating health care.

2746

Yeah, every other auto producer somehow gets away with unionized labor.

2747

. . . except the #1 producer in the world, Toyota. Who also has some of the best wages and retention as well. And products. Unions are sometimes necessary and sometimes beneficial, it’s not comprehensive by any means.

Edit: Now that I look it up, most foreign makers are non-union. They also happen to make the top 9 out of 10 cars based on quality. I don’t think you have a leg to stand on when it comes to carmakers and unions.

2748

Ya, blaming GM’s problems solely on the unions is as bad as blaming them solely on other things.

Ford has the same unions providing their work force. They didn’t implode.

Old union contracts which are outdated in today’s work environment certainly don’t help GM, but to suggest that they are the sole source of GM’s problems is mistaken.

If I had to pick a single thing to say “This is the single largest cause of GM’s problems” then I lay it at the feet of their management. They did a craptacular job of understanding where their market and their industry was headed. They no longer make good products.

If you make poor products, then you fail.

Don’t get me wrong though… not having unions definitely gives companies like Honda a non-trivial advantage in their production of products… And, based on everything I’ve heard from folks who work for Honda, they treat their employees extremely well.

2749

All of the Japanese producers have unions in Japan and have had for decades, so I’m not sure what you mean. Same for Germany.

This has some information on Germany.

In their US plants they don’t, though.

2750

Well there you go. Unions work in Japan but not the U.S.

2751

That’s uh, one way to look at it.

2752

You know I have to provide counterpoint to your pure-left stances, Jason. That, and I’m soured on the whole union thing from having actually worked in union shops.

H.

p.s. It was tongue-in-cheek, but the silly point remains.

2753

Agreed the unions were necessary, but the pendulum swings both ways. In many areas unions became too powerful and instead of working to just improve the workers lives became instruments that controlled. Just look at the power the teachers and prison guard unions have in California.

It is a two way street though. Someone had to grant them the power they have, but that shouldn’t have been done by government.

2754

Biggest problem in the US today, at least in my humble opinion.

2755

I sure wanted to weigh in here with how different the Japanese unions are, as my experience and my wife’s family experience with the UAW has been enough for them to earn my unbridled passionate hate forever.

However, the limited data I have on the JAW belies any ideas that they are less demanding. While some of them have suspending their pay-scale increases in favor of some seniority demands, and have made relatively low demands overall, they do include in their demands things like annual bonuses for their workers (this is Toyota) of 5 months pay plus about $400-500.

On the other hand, the Japanese auto management and unions are often hand in hand on issues. For example, they both told the Japanese government, lower the Yen, or we’re moving our operations out of Japan. In a manner that exceeds what is “normal” for such demands in Japan.

2756

Sometimes unions are good, some aren’t; I’m just responding to the comments below about unionized contracts and wages being a significant explanation.

My pet, mostly uninformed, theory is that US management and US unions in the auto industry are in a dysfunctional relationship and are a lot more focused on screwing each other than winning. I think that’s a sideshow to the crushing pension burden (which has nothing to do with unions, and everything to do with the terrible US health care system) and the completely insane historical behavior of management, however.

A random bit: if I recall correctly the first plants opened by the Japanese were to get around the US quota on imports, not to take advantage of cheap labor.

2757

Keep in mind that Japanese CEO’s have the lowest CEO-to-regular employee pay ratio in the first-world at 11-to-1. American CEO’s have the highest at 475-to-1. I can imagine that the relationship with CEOs earning pay amounts much more comparable to what employees make is less hostile.

If this PBS presentation with numbers sourced to The Economist is correct, not only are American CEOs better paid than Japanese CEO’s they are paid 8-10 times more than any of the other CEOs on the planet. Japan 11-to-1, Germany 12-to-1, Canada, Italy, and Britain around 20-to-1. 475-to-1 seems way out of whack.

2758

While I have defended high CEO pay in the past, I would agree that in many companies they are paid a ridiculous amount. While they are often accountable for the success or failure of a company and can make the difference between a company flourishing and thus hiring more people, paying more, etc. they can also screw a company up so bad it literally goes out of business. And - they are never held financially accountable for their disasters.

The global corporation I worked for, for over 20 years, had a CEO take the helm and within a couple of years he made some deals that brought the company to the brink of bankruptcy - no exaggeration - and lost billions in market cap. He signed a deal, due to his greed and arrogance, that most of us would have been summarily fired for signing, that had no out clause for the company. It was so bad that he tried to get out of the deal by having the lawyers argue that if the judge forced them to close the deal, both companies would go under. The judge’s response was that there was no legal reason to void the deal, and the judge actually said that a CEO’s ineptitude was not a legal reason to cancel a legal deal. As a result, the CEO fired massive numbers of employees and sold off two profitable divisions for a pittance, just to get enough cash to keep from going under.

His punishment by the Board the following spring? A total comp package for the year of around $9 Million.

The company I went to after I left them had a CEO that was just incredibly incompetent. A joke in the industry. He was given the CEO role of a company that was a small spin off, with enormous potential. They had over 50% market share worldwide in their market. Only about 700 employees, but they had over $300 million in cash when he was given the company.

His annual salary/comp was about $6 million. For a company that wasn’t very big at all. His incompetence has driven that company under. I heard a guy who runs another company in the industry call him the CEO that killed the golden goose.

Oh - btw - he is still CEO. His last comp package was around 8.3 million.

I am blessed to work for an owner/CEO who is business savvy, intelligent, highly respected throughout the industry, treats his employees like family, and has a reputation for integrity. He is the kind of guy that people really, really want to work for.

He isn’t poor by any means, as he owns the company and is CEO, but it is telling that he told us (his executive staff) that we were getting to an earnings level where we needed to decide what to do with the extra profit. He stated “We (that is, he and his two nephews who are also owners and VPs in the company, and very much like him) don’t need more money. We get more than enough from the company, so when we get to this earnings level, that money needs to go somewhere else.” They already give a big chunk of what they earn to charity. We are discussing the money going back to employees in some form of profit sharing, as well as upping the 401K match.

I don’t know if there is any learning there at all. So FWIW

2759

That last guy sounds like a person who understands the concept of noblesse oblige. We could stand to have more of those people in the U.S. (and everywhere else, for that matter).

2760

It’s funny, because it almost sounds like, “It’s a bad idea, but maybe we can give it back to the employees . . .” He seems like a great guy but it’s almost the pervasive assumption that it’s the wrong thing to do. What’s the worst that could happen? You set expectations too high?