What are your thoughts on the NAFTA HWY

TroyD

Ron, let's use GM for an example. What is the % of payroll that is blue collar vs. white collar? While I agree that CEO salaries and compensation packages are obscene, in the grand scheme, it's a literal DROP IN THE BUCKET. It's statistically insignifigant. Do you honestly believe that if you cut the salary of the CEO of GM that would solve anything? In reality, no, it wouldn't. The fact is indisputable that the vast majority of labor costs are rank and file.

Ok, so what about this CEO. IF he is able to negotiate a certain deal with a company for a certain amount, what's so inherently evil about that? If a guy is willing to work hard, etc etc and rises to that level, why should he not be allowed to negotiate his compensation? The company can always not hire him and hire someone who will work for less.

You don't seem to have a problem with the union doing it and in so doing, assume NO responsibility for the conduct/profitability of the company. If you are willing to assume NO risk, why would you be entitled to the same slice of the pie.

If you boil it down, Ron, you don't feel that the average person is empowered to affect change in thier own life. I disagree. I believe that our destiny is within (for the most part) our own control. You don't. You feel that everyone is a victim of a society setup to conspire against you and it's a crock. Opportunity exists, if you aren't willing to persue it, fine, but why despise those that do?

Also, you say that the workers deserve a raise? What about the folks, investors, who captialize the company? If they assume the risk, are they not entitled to the profit? If you remove the profit, you remove the incentive to invest. You remove the capital, there is no product for the union to produce. It is THAT simple. So, when the capital dries up and the investors take thier money elsewhere WHAT WILL THE UAW DO FOR THE WORKER THEN? The investors (ie owners of the company) have either gone broke or taken thier money elsewhere. Whose balls are you going to squeeze then? If you want an idea, think about the American steel industry. I'll bet you that in hindsight, a lot of those steelworkers would tell you that a lower paying job would have been better than no job.

BDT

reeltrouble1

Does anyone believe our Government should be run for profit??

RT1

TroyD

No, not at all.

My point is that the inherent design of the gov't renders it incapable of achieving certain things. In most (not all) but MOST cases a free market can and will be the most fair venue to solve most issues.

I look at it this way. The gov't should exist to provide our security and protect our basic liberties as set forth in the Constitution. There are SOME things that the private sector is not the best avenue for. Case in point, fire departments. There was a time when there were private fire departments. What you did was basically buy fire insurance and along with that came a private Fire Department. Well, that just didn't work out for number of reasons.....this is a true story, happened in the city of Charleston. That's just one example. The military is another.

What I don't think the gov't has any business doing is, beyone setting minimum standards of conduct and regulating national fiscal policy, meddling in the conduct of free commerce.

Also, I DON'T advocate an unrestricted free market. I DO believe that gov't exists to secure basic protections. I also believe that there are GOOD labor unions and that in the past unions did a very valuable service.

BDT

DAGLJAM6

BTW, south of Virginia it's "Nekkid" ..... thank you....please continue.

rskarvan

Troy,

I don't believe that the obscene executive salaries is neglible. In principle alone, they are destroying the moral of the rank and file. Executive salaries need to be sliced by a factor of ten. When the executives reduce their total compensation to say... less than $200k annually, then I'll believe what they have to say. Until then, they are the enemy.... for stealing more than they are worth. The stockholders should fire the executives. The problem is that nobody is accountable for results at the executive and board level.

TroyD

Do you know what the average tenure for a CEO is? It's actually pretty small.

So, basically, someone is making more money that you think they should and that pisses you off and it's the root of ills of society. Ron, that's so absurd as to not warrant comment.

You have still YET to refute the obvious fact that CEO salaries are a drop in the bucket of total labor costs. Outrageous? Yes. An impediment to the overal financial health of the company? Not even close.

Sorry Ron, you are long on misguided ideas, irrational hatred and zero factual basis. I'm out as you haven't offered one idea that has any sort of factual basis. All you can do when presented with facts rooted in logic is offer hate filled rants about folks that you deem as unworthy of what they are paid (on a voluntary basis by thier employer no less) I mean, it's ok for you to squeeze the teat for as much as you can but it pisses you off when someone can do it more successfully? That's insane.

Successful utopia? NOT!
Meaningful UN oversight? NOT!
CEO salaries a serious financial burden? NOPE!

Viva La France!!!



BDT

rskarvan

Isn't it true that the CEO pay of Japanese auto companies is far less than American auto companies? Perhaps that has something to do with the success of Toyata, Honda, etc.

TroyD

It is true, however, if you think that is the reason that Toyota has overtaken GM than you are so far out in left field it's not even funny.

Again, Ron, just because it personally irritates you does not mean it has any bearing on anything.

BDT

TroyD

Here are some more facts to chew on.

GM produces/sells roughly 10 million cars per year. The CEO, according to Forbes makes around 8.5M per year (not too shabby!). That's less than a dollar per unit.

According to various sources, overall labor costs per unit are 2,500 per car. So, Ron, statisically speaking, we fire the CEO, we can save ourselves, what, a buck on a new Chevy? Yeah, that'll help.

Here is some good reading. Some of it is pretty lopsided but it makes good food for thought.

http://www.mises.org/story/2124

BDT

W WALDECKER

TroyD wrote: »

Here are some more facts to chew on.

GM produces/sells roughly 10 million cars per year. The CEO, according to Forbes makes around 8.5M per year (not too shabby!). That's less than a dollar per unit.

According to various sources, overall labor costs per unit are 2,500 per car. So, Ron, statisically speaking, we fire the CEO, we can save ourselves, what, a buck on a new Chevy? Yeah, that'll help.

Here is some good reading. Some of it is pretty lopsided but it makes good food for thought.

http://www.mises.org/story/2124

BDT

Hey Troy, i met you at Marks house during the Baltimore Polkfest and you are a really good guy. i try to stay out of Politics on this website because if you do not subscribe to the views of the far right you are demonized and called a Liberal. i am far from liberal but that is besides the point. it is a tactic used in an attempt to discredit views that are not in lockstep with the conservative view.the link that you provided is right wing propaganda. from statistics that i have seen the average worker makes around the same as they did in the 1980's when adjusted for inflation while the Average CEO pulls in roughly 500% more than they did since the 1980's. pure Capitalism is as dangerous as Marxism and if the current trends continue the United States could become the Largest third World country on the planet. the middle class is shrinking at a rapid rate. over time it could disappear.thanks....WCW III

TroyD

William,

Bro, I got no issues with anyone who disagrees with me. I, generally, don't take it personally.

I realize what the link I posted says and I don't agree with all of it. Nor am I a right wing schill. However, that facts are unimpeachable. ESPECIALLY at GM. The are hemoraging cash. As I've said, and this is easily verifyable, that the CEO's price tag is about .85 cents a car. It was reported that on the average, a UAW worker costs about 75 bucks an hour. It requires GM 32 hours per car to make a car. Do the math (remember, the stats in that article were from other sources, they just drew thier own conclusions). It's about 2500 per car. So, in REALITY the CEO salary, while exorbitant, is a drop in the bucket. Not to mention, he serves at the pleasure of the board and can be canned at any time.

As far as the whole wage thing goes, I don't particularly buy it...but, whatever. It is irrelevant. If you aren't happy with what you make, find another job, go back to school whatever....improve your lot and life but please, do NOT piss and moan to me about someone else that did just that.

Unrestricted capatilism has inherent dangers. That's why we don't practice it. Just like we don't practice pure democracy.

However, what IS irrefutable is that in PRACTICE captitalist societies (ie the USA) has a higher standard of living, accross the board, than any other system in existence. Furthermore, Socialist and Communist societies have been an utter and abject failure at nearly every level. Parse the details and anecdotal bits of information anyway you like but the above statements are utterly and 100% unimpeachable in any way shape or form.

BDT

rskarvan

PROBLEM:
Exploding CEO pay is a relatively recent phenomenon in U.S. history. For example, in the 1960s, the average CEO earned around 40 times what the rank-and-file workers earned. Today the average CEO makes over 500 times what the average worker earns. And the gap continues to widen, year by year.

SOLUTION:
MOVE THE DECIMAL POINT DOWN ON CEO PAY!

American CEOs in general have long raked in vastly higher pay packages than their overseas counterparts. U.S. CEOs make, on average, 22 times what their counterparts make in Japan and 17 times what their counterparts earn in Europe.

TroyD

Ron,

Ok, we get it. CEO's make a lot of coin. Be honest though, it is COMPLETELY irrelevant in the financial health of the company.

As I've said, IF you fire the CEO. Screw cutting his salary. You think he is a complete detriment to the company. If you were King for a day and eliminated the CEO. POOF!

In reality, what have you solved? Be honest. What is saving 8.5 million when the company is hemmoraging BILLIONS? GM LOSES 1,200 bucks a car. That 8.5 million brings it down to 1,199 and change. It SOLVES NOTHING.

Hell, let's say you fire the CEO and divide his salary (8.5M) EQUALLY among the 330,000 employees at GM. A very benevolent ideal. Know what that equates to? 25.75, roughly, per employee. Would you like that lump sum or per hour? Enough for a six pack and a pizza per employee. Whooptee-freakin-doo.

Therein lies the problem. You want to blame a few people's salaries that while disgusting, have little to do with the problem at hand.

BDT

jdhdiggs

First note: The NAFTA superhighway already exists. All this does would be to tell the teamsters union to eff off. At least that's the position of someon who's done a lot more research than anyone here.

MBBL: You had to have some attraction to the lifestyle the debt made. You lived with it. If you have an EE degree you should be making a lot more money. EE's are typically hired at $60K/yr straight from school.... for a 2.8 GPA... You've had some really bad luck in the job market. BTW, I designed HVAC's for my first job graduating school but thank's for the info. The more you explain, the more inconsistant you become, why is that?

Do white collar jobs need to change? Absolutely, they need to fight for their livelihoods as well. The difference is that they already do this where the typical blue coller person does not have this mentality.

My question on the 40 hours was nailed by Troy: Do you keep to our current work standards even if it means destroying our country? Personally, the gov't saying 20 hours or 120 hrs or anything in between as a standard work week is BS. We should do what is needed to compete in the world makret. Anything less is will lead to the isolation of our country and its downfall. Simple.

A false conception someone stated: To hire a foreign national in the US you have to prove that they are making more than the average American in the same position and experience in order to keep companies from.

Sucks: Don't read it then, simple. If you knew anything of my backgrounf you'd understand my position.

Ron: Where did I write anything that you've stated that I've said or believe? All I've said is that unions cause workers to be paid more than they are worth and cause a net loss to the workforce. That's all. Wheres the rest of your BS written? Can you ever back up anything with something similar to a fact or reasonable logic? France? Socialism? Slave wages in the US? Really? That's all you got?

Slo: The entitlement arguments are for MBBL and Ron's benifit as they seem to believe that everyone should get all the benifits and protections of our government and economic system regardless of skillset or work ethic.

Troy and POG: Keep knocking them out of the park. Maybe, just maybe they will realize the truth.

Out...

rskarvan

Troy, you don't get it. CEO compensation is not irrelevant. It is excruciatingly relevant. The fact is that these CEO salaries increased dramatically while the company's performance in the market decreased. This means that the CEO compensation is completely unrelated to the company performance. As long as that condition exists, the company performance simply doesn't matter.

Here is the other very important message. CEO's can not credibly discuss market based wages when their own wage is not market based. The CEO of Ford makes a lot more than the CEO of Toyota. Until they have approximately equal wage scales, they have no right at all to discuss the relative wages of the UAW vs. Toyota. Do as I say and not as I do is not a recipe for success.

The fact of the matter is that the board of directors of these companies are indeed very corrupt. And, a corrput CEO coupled with a corrupt board will yield an unsuccessful company.

It disgusts the rank and file that there is no accountability in upper management with regard to their compensation and they seek to simultaneously "save the company" by breaking union contracts in pseudo-false bankruptcy proceedings (i.e. Delphi). At Ford, they pursue "competitive operating agreements" to change the union contract. I ask one question.... where is the CEO competitive operating agreement? It doesn't exist because there is no accountability in the stratosphere of management.

The fact is that unions make about as much as they did when they were tremendously successful. The fact is that the CEO's make dramatically more. Unions aren't the problem. The problem is a complete lack of management responsibility. But, of course, why should management be responsible? Its unrelated to their compensation!

TroyD

Ron,

Examine where the money goes.

First, I agree that piss poor leadership has a LOT to do with the woes of the American auto industry. No argument. However, the salary has ZERO to do with it. Would Slick Rick be any more effective at half salary? No, but it's NOT THE POINT.

BDT

jdhdiggs

No accountability? They get fired and/or sent to jail. I'd qualify that as accountability. If you want to get rid of something, get rid of the Golden parachutes, which CEO's negotiated based on Union contracts. Karma's a **** eh run?

rskarvan

Tell me the last time an over-priced CEO went to jail strictly because of bad management?

jdhdiggs

Isn't it bad managment to cook the books and make employees believe their doing a great job? That has sent several to prison.

When the last time a union employee got fired for doing a poor job?

mrbigbluelight

jdhdiggs wrote:

MBBL: You had to have some attraction to the lifestyle the debt made. You lived with it. If you have an EE degree you should be making a lot more money. EE's are typically hired at $60K/yr straight from school.... for a 2.8 GPA... You've had some really bad luck in the job market.

Uh .... no, I had no attraction whatsoever to the lifestyle the debt made.
Sending money/etc to a 51-year old Canadian on disability that one met on Party Poker ? Nope.
Ditto for some coke-head in Barcelona, Spain.
Enjoy "talking" on the 2nd cellphone (first service from Verizon cancelled due to non-payment) while enjoying pay-per-view movies with a "friend" .....uhm..
...no, can't say there was any attraction there.
Mentioned the car incident already .... no attraction there.
Missing the daughter wedding shower/wedding preps because I had to give "friends" rides home from work ? Don't think so.

Attempted to stop the freight train along the way, but when push came to ultimate shove, I watched the barrel go over the waterfall.
And moved on.

EE's might be hired at $60K/yr straight from school but if you read my previous post, I did mention that I had an Associate's Degree in EE.
There is a difference between an Associate's and a Bachelor's degree.

I've actually had no problems in the job market. I've always been hired for any job I've applied for. If I get fired from one of my jobs tomorrow, I can get another decent paying job within a couple of weeks (decent being $25+/hour). Plop me down in any city in the US, and I can do the same within a month (and that takes into account me being lazy). Worse comes to worse, grab the gauges and do residential AC.

jdhdiggs wrote:

The more you explain, the more inconsistant you become, why is that?

Uhm ... well, it has to be one of two things:
1. I'm not explaining stuff worth a hoot.
2. Someone's getting confused by the facts, facts that might disrupt
someone's preconceived/biased/prejudiced notions about the working class.

jdhdiggs wrote:

Do white collar jobs need to change? Absolutely, they need to fight for their livelihoods as well. The difference is that they already do this where the typical blue coller person does not have this mentality.

So the typical blue collar person does not have this mentality ?
I do see this lack in some of the blue collars around me; I also see this in lack in some of the white collars around me.

Unfortunately, if you have 4 janitors with a sorry work ethic, some areas of the work place get dirty.
If you have 4 white collar personnel (CEO, CFO, a Director, and a Manager) with the same sorry work ethic, the ship is in extreme danger of sinking.

Know why TQM systems generally fail ?
It's because management sees the "total quality from top to bottom" system that requires TOTAL involvement from top to bottom as a threat to their authority/"fiefdoms".

Ford is a good example of white collar management protecting their fiefdoms.
Divisions in Ford were extremely reluctant to share design methods/parts/etc between each other.
The Japanese did it for years.
The average Joe on the shop floor was well aware of this potential cost saving; so was management.
Why didn't it occur ? Was it because of opposition from the UAW ?
No. For years, even the head(s) of Ford couldn't get the heads of the divisions to work out these simple measures.
(at least until an ex-Boeing exec took over; the verdict is still out on that, but promising).
One example of white collar management positions, fighting over deck chairs while the Titanic sinks because they held the notion that the Titanic was unsinkable.

jdhdiggs wrote:

Slo: The entitlement arguments are for MBBL and Ron's benifit as they seem to believe that everyone should get all the benifits and protections of our government and economic system regardless of skillset or work ethic.

I do believe that everyone should get all the benefits and protections of our government and economic system regardless of skillset or work ethic.

I guess you can call me crazy for believing in that concept.

jdhdiggs wrote:

Troy and POG: Keep knocking them out of the park. Maybe, just maybe they will realize the truth.

I, for one, enjoy hearing their views although I daresay that we differ greatly on the viewpoints of unions.
I enjoy their views because the views they express are what they truly believe, not what is most economically advantageous to them.

rskarvan

"I, for one, enjoy hearing their views although I daresay that we differ greatly on the viewpoints of unions.
I enjoy their views because the views they express are what they truly believe, not what is most economically advantageous to them."

VERY WELL SAID!

rskarvan

Yeppers... Fraud and Cooking the books is illegal. But, the CEO's don't take the fall for that. Generally, its an underling that goes down and the CEO claim's "plausible deniability".

The fact is that the executive leadership of many very large corporations is totally broken.

By and large, the vast majority of union workers try do a good job every day under the system that management provides. A fair day's work for a fair day's pay is exactly what management isn't providing themselves.

The golden parachutes are individual contracts negotiated by executives for executives. DUH! Its kind of like Congress voting themselves a raise. There is little or no oversight. All the executives need to do is "hit the numbers just once" to achieve a bonus that will provide for them for their entire lives.

When management starts running a company rather than running for a bonus, I'll become a republican. Until then, I'm going to look after myself exclusively because I know that is exactly what the executives do. Management has truly lead by example as they always do.

TroyD

Google the Enron thing, Ron. It would appear to me that some of the folks you despise DID take the fall. It doesn't make what happened any less awful and tragic but, ultimately, the heads did roll on top. As a side note, plausible deniability is a term I believe made famous by Al Gore. One of your guys.

Ron, we get that you hate management (largely because they are more successful in doing what you advocate than you are). But, you have yet to even come close to tying the logic to cutting CEO salaries to improving the financial health of the company. All it would do is make YOU feel better. It STILL doesn't address the hemmoraging cash issue.

Another ancilliary note about executive pay. A lot of it is in stock options. Which means that if the stock goes UP (which means the company is more profitable) they get paid more. So, how do you get off saying there is no incentive for them?

BTW, here is a bio on the GM ceo. Has some interesting points. Doesn't seem that the UAW was very accepting of measures trying to control costs.

Could your logic be any more backwards?

BDT

jdhdiggs

MBBL: Do you think my viewpoint is most economically advantages to me? No, not really, but rather it is the most economically advantages to most, if not all Americans. Yes, I would get goods and services at a lower price, but I am also asking more and more Americans to directly compete for my own job which means my wages would drop and/or my position would be given to someone else. That's the whole point of my argument: Our culture has made it virtually impossible to compete globally. On the other hand, we are still kicking but in the innovation and design arena. Unfortunately we don't have enough brain power in the US to keep up so we are hiring foreigners thus losing our competitive advantage in that arena. My position is to hand off the jobs we are going to lose anyways now and focus on how to get those who lost their jobs into the other types of jobs that we keep giving to foreigners. Can you give me any reason why we shouldn't do this?

By the way, you are the only one who keeps bringing up their personal position on this. I find it interesting that the person who has no issue running through his jobs, experience, dragging the wife through the mud, etc, is the one claiming someone else's position is the purely selfish one. Like I said, not much consitent in your position. From you rhetoric, you should be fighting Ron tooth and nail since you are agreeing with me on most points.

The interesting thing is that you think you agree with Ron when you are the prime example why his way of thinking is wrong and that the American workforce should follow more of your example.

I have to ask you though, if a kid drops out of high school his freshman year and lives in a friends basement his whole life, it's the governments job to protect his financial future? Sorry, not buying it. The governments roles in our economic livelihoods should be limited to a temporary safety net and to provide to those who can not provide for themselves. That's it. Why do we have a system that punishes someone for making the correct decisions and working hard and rewarding those who don't? Isn't that moronic? Or are you actually an advocate of Marxism? "To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities" Oh wait, that would imply that the worker actually works to the level of their abilities.

Ron: The Golden parachutes came about because of buyout clauses in union contracts. Notice how they look remarkably similar? CEO's used the position that if it was good for the employees to get that protection, then management should get it as well. Can you give any example where a union HELPED a company survive rather than bringing it to its knees?

Fair days work for a fair days pay? Um, not really as it is the union that decided what a fair days work and a fair days pay is and not and agreement between management and the workers. You can play the "they can just get rid of the union" card all you want and you and I both know it's a bunch of BS. No company can just boot the union one day and bring in other workers. They have tried but it usually results in violence initiated by the union workers. Union tactics are bullying at its worst. Or are you going to deny that this happens?

TroyD

I didn't have time yesterday to debunk this in it's entirety (and while this is tedious for everyone else, i do enjoy it)

OK, first and foremost, we need to identify the problem. The American auto industry is and has been in decline for the better part of two generations. This is irrefutable. Second, we have to identify the underlying problems. The major problems are an antiquated system that is largely unresponsive to market demands and spiraling costs. I think that's fairly obvious.

Now, on the surface, changing the structure of GM should be an simpler task, however, in practice (and it has been tried) efforts have been hampered by UAW strikes and shutdowns. As far as the costs go, the most controllable SHOULD be labor. Again, what would appear to be the case is not either.

This means that the CEO compensation is completely unrelated to the company performance.

Ron, you said it yourself. CEO compensation IS completely unrelated to company performance. So you HAVE to agree that if you can the CEO, it is NO guarantee of a change in company performance.

CEO's can not credibly discuss market based wages when their own wage is not market based

Actually, this is untrue as well. CEO's are a represent a different labor market. Just like Doctors are a different labor market than nurses or janitors.

Let's accept your premise that equal pay for equal work. OK, why should GM workers on the line make MORE than Ford or Toyota? I mean, it's your logic, defend it. No, by your own admissions, people should be able to negotiate the best deal for themselves. Right? Or is it only the people YOU deem deserving? It's a crock. The logic isn't applied consistently. THAT is where you fail. You are inconsistent.

The fact of the matter is that the board of directors of these companies are indeed very corrupt. And, a corrput CEO coupled with a corrupt board will yield an unsuccessful company

You are a LOT short on proof here. Be that as it may. However, we'll take it at face value. What does the corruption (and btw, the UAW calling ANYONE corrupt is a bit strange?) have to do with making the company profitable. IF that is the goal, you have to essentially MAKE more than you SPEND. OK, fine. Answer me this, where does more money go? Who represents a higher burden in REAL DOLLARS? The CEO or the rank and file? It's simple math, Ron.

You keep harping that CEO's don't have accountability. It's BS. IF they don't produce....they go elsewhere. It happens. Remember, the board is comprised of people who have a financial stake in the profitability of the company (ie STOCKHOLDERS) as a stockholder, if someone is running the company in the ground why would they NOT hold him accountable? You think that the stockholders are PURPOSEFULLY trying to lose money just to screw you, Ron? That's so bitter and convoluted, I can't believe that you would even consider it.

The fact is that unions make about as much as they did when they were tremendously successful. The fact is that the CEO's make dramatically more. Unions aren't the problem. The problem is a complete lack of management responsibility. But, of course, why should management be responsible? Its unrelated to their compensation

This is utter horsepoop too. The average employee hasn't had a raise in thirty years? Sell that someplace else because it just ain't true. CEO's make more? So, because some people have been wildly successful outside of your paradigm, they are evil? Sounds like sour grapes to me. IF the conduct of the company WAS completely the control of the CEO, I would agree. It isn't though, is it? Strikes? Shutdowns? A company , thanks to federal legislation, can't just break the union....no, that legislation guarantees unions have a say in the direction of the company. However YOU don't want to hold the UAW responsible now, do you?

See, Ron, the reason that going yard on you is so pathetically easy is your points aren't logically sound. While I agree that CEO's make a HELL of a lot of money and that it IS disproportionate...in real terms, it has little to no bearing on why the auto industry is failing. It is failing because employee costs are spiraling out of control....and the 8.5M that the CEO makes is chump change as compared to the costs in real dollars that GM is paying out to UAW members. Sooner or later, something has to give. Either those costs have to be reeled in or the company will either go bust (in which all those promises are null and void) or (more likely) the tab is going to be handed to the American taxpayer who likely does NOT have as sweet a deal....now, is THAT fair?
BDT

sucks2beme

While were on the subject of free enterprise and what's good for the country,
why are they proposing a "highway"?????
Why not de-regulate the railroads and allow some real development.
Rail is cheaper and safer than loading the roadways with foriegn trucks.
Build a better rail, with no crossings so they can go faster than 15mph.
It would save fuel, and the increased productivity of rail would kill off
interstate trucking. Think of the reduced traffic and road wear and tear.
All trucking would be from rail hubs within a state. No more dead tired
long haul truckers. Safer, cheaper, better. The days of the rail barons are long gone. Let's do this as an improved infrastructure. This would also allow better and cheaper EXPORTING.

jdhdiggs

sucks2beme wrote: »

While were on the subject of free enterprise and what's good for the country,
why are they proposing a "highway"?????
Why not de-regulate the railroads and allow some real development.
Rail is cheaper and safer than loading the roadways with foriegn trucks.
Build a better rail, with no crossings so they can go faster than 15mph.
It would save fuel, and the increased productivity of rail would kill off
interstate trucking. Think of the reduced traffic and road wear and tear.
All trucking would be from rail hubs within a state. No more dead tired
long haul truckers. Safer, cheaper, better. The days of the rail barons are long gone. Let's do this as an improved infrastructure. This would also allow better and cheaper EXPORTING.

I'd go for this! However: The one issue for rail is it isn't timely or flexible. A truck delivery can be forecasted to a 2 hour window while a train deliveries window is typically measured in weeks. Second problem: Building the raillines to where they are needed.

As for the highway, the point is to do what you're talking about. The NAFTA superhighway exists, just not as a big road. Currently trucks are coming up from Mexico, dropping their trailers across the border where a teamster truck takes it the rest of the way. The only proposed change is that Mexican Trucks that pass customs and DOT inspections and have certified drivers would be able to drive the truck to it's final destination elimintating the handoff. The second part is that the superhighway would move the big rigs from our public roads to private ones. The bigger picture is to have a privately funded superhighway system for trucks only.

PolkWannabie

rskarvan wrote: »

PROBLEM:
Exploding CEO pay is a relatively recent phenomenon in U.S. history. For example, in the 1960s, the average CEO earned around 40 times what the rank-and-file workers earned. Today the average CEO makes over 500 times what the average worker earns. And the gap continues to widen, year by year.

I suggest you look back to the period of the industrial revolution when the earnings of the Rockefeller's and others could be measured as an INTEGER plus percentage of the GNP ... By comparison in todays world Bill Gates' earnings are nowhere close to 1% of GNP ...

sucks2beme

jdhdiggs wrote: »

I'd go for this! However: The one issue for rail is it isn't timely or flexible. A truck delivery can be forecasted to a 2 hour window while a train deliveries window is typically measured in weeks. Second problem: Building the raillines to where they are needed.

As for the highway, the point is to do what you're talking about. The NAFTA superhighway exists, just not as a big road. Currently trucks are coming up from Mexico, dropping their trailers across the border where a teamster truck takes it the rest of the way. The only proposed change is that Mexican Trucks that pass customs and DOT inspections and have certified drivers would be able to drive the truck to it's final destination elimintating the handoff. The second part is that the superhighway would move the big rigs from our public roads to private ones. The bigger picture is to have a privately funded superhighway system for trucks only.

That's the point. There is no reason trains couldn't get that precise in delivery. Or better. The current rail system is in a state of disarray.
Trains on the average run much slower now than in the past.
That's because of bad track conditions and RR crossing safety.
Build overpasses and speed it up. Build a hub and spoke system.
It will crush interstate trucking. Rail is the system of the future.
You can run it on any fuel. There's a lot less ramp up for alternate fuels
for trains than the millions of trucks out there.

rskarvan

TroyD, I can't argue with you. All I can do is build the best cars and trucks that I can and hope that the system that management has put into place provides me a living that includes fair/just compensation.

I know I'm doing my part. I'm not so certaint that the obscenely compensated CEO is doing his. I'm not going to get a raise this year. Nobody in my department will get a raise. I'm pretty certain that the CEO will get a bonus. This just doesn't sit well with me. But, I am supposed to "trust the system" that I need to suffer because the company just doesn't have the coinage to give me a small increase in my wage.

I want a union because I want SOME ELEMENT OF CONTROL over my situation. As an employee, I have no control over my compensation. All I can do is "leave and go elsewhere". Forgive me, but I just don't like that option very well as my family has acclimated to my community.