Everytime I hear someone talk about how bad the economy is, I think about the lines at the local Starbucks. 3 dollar a gallon gas..........bottled water at 8.00 a gallon, 30.00 a gallon coffee???
Everytime I hear someone talk about how bad the economy is, I think about the lines at the local Starbucks. 3 dollar a gallon gas..........bottled water at 8.00 a gallon, 30.00 a gallon coffee???
Yea, real bad.
Gene
Even during the Great Depression, there were people with money. There will always be people who have plenty of money regardless of how good or bad the economy gets.
If you're unemployed, the economy is in the crapper. If you're wealthy, I guess it's doing pretty good. That doesn't really look at the big picture, though. Neither does using Starbuck's as a leading economic indicator.
Originally posted by Formula88: Even during the Great Depression, there were people with money. There will always be people who have plenty of money regardless of how good or bad the economy gets.
If you're unemployed, the economy is in the crapper. If you're wealthy, I guess it's doing pretty good. That doesn't really look at the big picture, though. Neither does using Starbuck's as a leading economic indicator.
exactly. "the economy" means something different to every person. depends on what kind of business you do, or what kind of work you do. overall - the bubble from the Clinton years has popped. but, it was Reagan that blew that bubble. Clinton popped it. and Bush gets to eat the results. now, add the money cannons shooting our wealth offshore in trade, war, reconstruction & police actions.
the economy cant be to bad - we are spending $200,000 a minute on reconstruction. I myself think building stuff locally would be more effective - but - I'm not an economic genius...
Originally posted by fierobear: Well, there is $1500 shower curtains and there is financial security. Again, would you turn down a million dollars?
If it meant selling out my employees, no I wouldn't. Now if you want to hand me 1 million for no particular reason, I would be glad to accept it
again, $$ isn't everything to me
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: No, you don't have to respect them other than doing your job as you are directed to do.
OK, let me approach this a different way. Where would you say you are in that company on the pay scale? In other words, are you the lowest paid? Middle? Or ??
I'm in the upper pay scale. Probably the top 20%. I have no complaints about my salary.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: You sound like a person of good character. Have you ever thought about starting your own business, and running it your way?
thank you for the compliment. Prior to this job I was a foreman and to be honest, managing isn't the job for me. I really don't have the personality for it.
My only concern with my job (and other american jobs for that matter) is that our company (a healthy company that has exceed it's budget for quite some time now) is obviously looking abroad to save a buck. They're setting up shop elsewhere and ultimately will go with the cheapest labor leaving hundreds of devoted employees jobless...all in the name of greed.
My only concern with my job (and other american jobs for that matter) is that our company (a healthy company that has exceed it's budget for quite some time now) is obviously looking abroad to save a buck. They're setting up shop elsewhere and ultimately will go with the cheapest labor leaving hundreds of devoted employees jobless...all in the name of greed.
All in the name of survival. Our politicians have been selling us out for a century. A combination of greed,taking the easy road and lying to get re-elected pretty much puts our country where it is now. No power. No value. No base. As a populace we have done everything our country's creators warned us not to do.
Originally posted by pokeyfiero: As a populace we have done everything our country's creators warned us not to do.
heavy stuff
I'd go a little further, and say "done everything every wise man in history warned us not to do" but - then I'd stop and ask for specific examples, discredit them, and then continue down my decadant path of ruin.
I'd go a little further, and say "done everything every wise man in history warned us not to do" but - then I'd stop and ask for specific examples, discredit them, and then continue down my decadant path of ruin.
My observation is that the economy is great for the top 10% and declining for the bottom 90%. This is an inherent part of polarization of wealth as money and assets shift up from the bottom majority to the top minority, and nobody disputes that this polarization is happening and has been happening in this country for years now.
JazzMan
The statistics disagree with you:
According to economist Edward Wolff of New York University the wealthiest 1% of the population has lost .4% of their hold on the total wealth of the nation from 1983-2001 whereas the middle class has increased their percentage of ownership of the nation's wealth by 3.5%.
And if you are just measuring Financial Wealth (as opposed to total wealth) the top 1% wealthiest people have lost 3.2% in the same time frame and the middle class has increased 3.1%.
I'm not trying to hijack the thread here, but I have a question: What are the long term prospects for a heavily industrialized economy? The United States was once the most capable producer of steel, automobiles, and airplanes in the world. This was largely because our industrial base was not destroyed in WW 2. With the rise of Japan as an industrial power beginning in the ' 60s, and now China and India, to some extent, beginning to displace Japan as producers of hard goods, what kind of future does producing things have here in the US? We are not going to live like the Chinese and we don't have sense of responsibility to the corporation that once characterized Japan. We no longer take a long view of anything here. We ask, " Not five year or ten year, but what are a company's quarterly profits?" As the rest of the world becomes industrialized and our production costs will not allow us to compete with people who will work for $5.00 a week or less, what do we do for an economic base? We can't stop the rest of the world from competing with us.
Japanese cars were once laughed off as junk. Now Hondas are the most reliable cars you can buy. The Chinese will eventually get to that point. So, what do we do? We aren't going back to the days when we built everything within our borders.
but don't forget what has replaced that heavy industry. We're the most tech advanced society on the planet. We've moved from farm to industry to information/tech.
AMD/Intel are both US companies
The big 3.. well they have tried to pull their head out of their ass.. but they have 80yrs of Union labor and old school thinking to overcome.
Case in point.. they can't think/evolve. The Ford Taurus was launched in 1986.. the platform remained unchanged // barring cosmetic changes for 20 years Look at the Camry launched in 80 has evolved and updated almost every 2 yrs and had a higher build quality.. (hmm something 123 won't agree with) and built in the states after 94
but don't forget what has replaced that heavy industry. We're the most tech advanced society on the planet. We've moved from farm to industry to information/tech.
AMD/Intel are both US companies
The big 3.. well they have tried to pull their head out of their ass.. but they have 80yrs of Union labor and old school thinking to overcome.
Case in point.. they can't think/evolve. The Ford Taurus was launched in 1986.. the platform remained unchanged // barring cosmetic changes for 20 years Look at the Camry launched in 80 has evolved and updated almost every 2 yrs and had a higher build quality.. (hmm something 123 won't agree with) and built in the states after 94
I have said all along that the whole problem with the big 3 is management, management made the decisions about when to build or redesign the models.
I have never said anything different.
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't. Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
I have said all along that the whole problem with the big 3 is management, management made the decisions about when to build or redesign the models.
I have never said anything different.
You missed the part of Uanna describing the Union Labor problem. Kinda puts a bit of a weight on your research and development department's leg (less dollars) when your trying to constantly deal with blood sucking UAW Union Monkeys hampering your progress. BTW, on track with this thread......
My opinion is that the economy is doing just fine. Low unemployment and inflation. Good interest rates for a mortgage. Housing market sucks, but there's a bigtime correction going on in the market. My stocks are doing well. What's not to like about the economy?
[This message has been edited by aceman (edited 08-04-2007).]
5.00 for a gallon of milk 3.00 for a gallon of gas 2.00 for a loaf of bread
Yeah, the economy is doing great.
Hmmmm,
It's $3/gallon for milk here It's hovered around that price for years It's $2.70/gallon for gas here. Still lower than it was in the 70s when you factor in inflation. It's $1 for bread here.
Yeah, the economy is doing great.
. BTW, bad examples to put forth to someone in the farming area. Milk has gone up about 50 cents in the past few months. Farmers are getting a better price for their dairy products. That may just reduce the dairy subsidies that the federal government pays them for their dairy products. Gas prices are skyrocketting. Corn prices are too. Farmers are taking their CRP acres out of CRP and planting corn. That'll reduce the CRP subsidies the federal government is paying farmers to NOT plant crops. Bread hasn't changed that much in price over the past 15 years.
[This message has been edited by aceman (edited 08-04-2007).]
You missed the part of Uanna describing the Union Labor problem. Kinda puts a bit of a weight on your research and development department's leg (less dollars) when your trying to constantly deal with blood sucking UAW Union Monkeys hampering your progress. BTW, on track with this thread......
My opinion is that the economy is doing just fine. Low unemployment and inflation. Good interest rates for a mortgage. Housing market sucks, but there's a bigtime correction going on in the market. My stocks are doing well. What's not to like about the economy?
So it is the unions fault the management are morons?
Keep blaming the unions. They are not the reason the auto companies are going down the tubes, it is managements inability to change from trucks to cars, or more fuel efficient vehicles period.
When they were selling trucks hand over fist they were making huge profits with union labor.
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't. Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
but don't forget what has replaced that heavy industry. We're the most tech advanced society on the planet. We've moved from farm to industry to information/tech.
AMD/Intel are both US companies
The big 3.. well they have tried to pull their head out of their ass.. but they have 80yrs of Union labor and old school thinking to overcome.
Case in point.. they can't think/evolve. The Ford Taurus was launched in 1986.. the platform remained unchanged // barring cosmetic changes for 20 years Look at the Camry launched in 80 has evolved and updated almost every 2 yrs and had a higher build quality.. (hmm something 123 won't agree with) and built in the states after 94
What does the union have to do with development of cars? You tell the monkey to stop bolting on this panel and bolt this one on instead.
The problem is with upper management. They would rather fly the company jet to vagas for the week to burn off some of that 3000 dollars per hr. than spend it on developing a good solid car. America has the knowledge, it has the will, it has the expertise but it just doesnt have THE MONEY and it had ZERO to do with wages or unionized workers... It does if you want to use the union as an easily bastardized scapegoat.. then it make ssense.
quote
December 20, 2005 Toyota -- now nipping at the heels of the world's largest auto company, GM -- built one of its first U.S. plants in Kentucky, where it started producing cars in 1988. Renee Brown works assembling the Camry -- the nation's best-selling car. She puts in seat belts and cup holders at Toyota's plant in Kentucky horse country. Brown grew up in Beattyville, a tiny, struggling town in the state's Appalachian coalfields. The town doesn't have many good jobs today. Brown previously worked as an assistant manager at Dairy Queen, where she made $20,000 annually. Six years ago, she got a job at Toyota.
Now, Brown makes $70,000 a year -- more than twice the average manufacturing wage in the area.
Leonard Habermehl is a skilled repairman and makes up to $85,000 per year. When he came to Toyota in 1990, he didn't see why he needed a union. But after years of service in which he says he has seen people injured and forced out of their jobs, he now believes the plant should unionize.
[quote]
So brown is a non union workermaking the same wage as a unionized worker.
So it is the unions fault the management are morons?
Keep blaming the unions. They are not the reason the auto companies are going down the tubes, it is managements inability to change from trucks to cars, or more fuel efficient vehicles period.
When they were selling trucks hand over fist they were making huge profits with union labor.
Hmmmm, I seem to recall that the truck is where Ford and even GM have their worldwide stronghold yet. Toyota has been marketing the sh!t out of their trucks to knock GM and Ford out of that market. Toyota just can't get there yet.
It's $2.70/gallon for gas here. Still lower than it was in the 70s when you factor in inflation.
People say that, but they're comparing today's prices to the highest gas prices since 1918. Not really a good baseline for comparison.
Adjusted to 2007 dollars, gas has stayed under $2.50 a gallon from 1942 until 1979. In 1979 the prices went from about $2 to over $3 during the "Energy Crisis." That price spike wasn't considered normal supply and demand. It was in the wake of the Iranian Revolution following the fall of the Shah of Iran. The price started falling again around '82 or '83 and continued falling until 2000.
So if you want to consider the '79 Energy Crisis a good economy, then today's gas prices are fine. Judging by prices since 1918, adjusted for inflation, a reasonable price for gasoline would probably be between $2.00 and $2.50.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 08-04-2007).]
You really do belong in management ace. Or a politician.
You can turn anything to your advantage.
As I said in the post.
quote
Originally posted by 84fiero123: it is managements inability to change from trucks to cars, or more fuel efficient vehicles period. WHEN they were selling trucks hand over fist they were making huge profits with union labor.
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't. Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
84fiero123, GM and Ford didn't really need to change from building their trucks to fuel efficient cars. In the global scheme of things, the trucks are are what is keeping Ford and GM afloat. On the radio, I heard that Ford turned a profit on their sales overseas. It was all due to their truck sales because Europe and the Far East can't/won't produce the larger trucks. They have that niche that no one can knock them out of. Why stop concentrating your efforts in an area when you're making a profit in it?
It wasn't Ford and GM's inability to switch to more fuel economy cars at all. You're thinking of yourself and just those in the USA again, Steve. GLOBAL ECONOMY AND MARKET. GLOBAL ECONOMY AND MARKET.
Pay for top executives soars CEO pay continues to set new records. According to Business Week’s annual survey of executive pay, compensation for CEOs of major U.S. corporations averaged $12.4 million in 1999, having increased sixfold since 1990. Last year alone, executive compensation rose an average of 17 percent. The average worker, in contrast, received a 3.5 percent pay increase. The chart at left shows how recent pay increases for top executives compare with those going to the average worker.
Sources for Chart: "Worker increase" is based on the wage and salary component of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Employment Cost Index for all civilian workers. "CEO increase" is drawn from Business Week surveys of executive compensation.
More reliance on stock options The composition of executive pay has changed markedly in the past two decades. In 1979, Lee Iacocca became the first prominent executive to receive a major portion of his pay in the form of stock options. Since that time, and especially over the past 15 years, the use of stock options has exploded. Long-term compensation (primarily in the form of stock options) accounted for 81 percent of average 1999 pay for the CEOs of the top 365 U.S. companies, according to Business Week.
Does "at risk" pay improve performance? Shareholder activists and groups concerned with corporate governance have generally favored stock options and other mechanisms intended to link executive pay to company performance. By putting a larger portion of pay "at risk," they argue, top executives will have an incentive to increase the returns on shareholders’ investment.
One problem with this argument is that much "at risk" pay is not actually at very much risk at all. The typical grant of stock options will pay off even if it is a general bull market, rather than exceptional performance by the company itself, that boosts the value of the stock. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, among others, has advocated indexing options so that a stock would have to outperform the market or a peer index in order for the options to have value. The practice of repricing options when a company’s stock falls further weakens the relationship between executive pay and company performance.
Big raises for job-cutters There are other problems with the use of performance-based pay to spur corporate executives. The measures used to gauge performance are typically short term, raising the danger that executives will be encouraged to pursue short-term gains at the expense of the workforce – and of the company’s long-term performance. In fact, it’s not unusual for CEOs to receive big pay increases while their companies are laying off frontline workers. For example, American Express fired 3,300 workers in 1997. That same year, its CEO’s compensation package soared 224 percent, to $33.4 million. That figure includes $27 million from the exercise of previously-granted stock options.
Executive pay fuels income inequality The pay of the average worker has not increased at nearly the same rate as pay for those at the top, fueling the trend toward greater income inequality. A worker making $25,000 a year in 1994 would have earned $107,513 in 1999 if his or her pay had grown at the same rate as pay for CEOs. Had the minimum wage grown as fast as executive pay since 1994, it would be more than $18 an hour instead of its current level of $5.15.
U.S. out of step with rest of world CEO pay is much higher in the United States than in other countries. That’s true both in absolute dollar terms, and relative to pay for the average worker. According to Business Week, an American CEO earns 475 times as much as an average blue-collar worker. German CEOs make, on average, just 13 times as much as a typical manufacturing worker. The ratio in Japan is 11 to 1. The chart at left shows how pay for U.S. CEOs compares with that of their peers in other countries.
Statistics in Brief
High Performance Work Systems
Productivity and Growth
Executive Compensation
Employment in Major UAW Industries
Employment Situation
U.S. Light Vehicle Sales
Consumer Prices
International Trade
SEC Website
Noteworthy News
Sources: Business Week "Executive Compensation Scoreboard" (April 17, 2000 and past years); New York Times, "Report on Executive Pay: In the Options Age, Rising Pay (and Risk)" (April 2, 2000); AFL-CIO, Executive Pay Watch (www.aflcio.org/paywatch)
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 08-04-2007).]
Thanks for the link, Bill. Surprising to see that wage when I'd bet 9 out of 10 articles show Toyota workers making $20-30,000 less a year.
Do you have any links to articles mentioning the $20-30,000 discrepancy? Since Bill's article mentions the $70k was more than twice the average mfg. salary, that would put the average under $35k a year. So your articles should be saying Toyota pays, what, $5,000 - 15,000 per year?
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070...uaw_toyota.html?.v=3 While GM has about 432,000 U.S. retirees, Toyota has only a handful. As a result, GM's average labor cost is $73.26 an hour, compared with $47.60 at Toyota.
Do you have any links to articles mentioning the $20-30,000 discrepancy? Since Bill's article mentions the $70k was more than twice the average mfg. salary, that would put the average under $35k a year. So your articles should be saying Toyota pays, what, $5,000 - 15,000 per year?
Twice the MANUFACTURING salary, but not twice the AUTO MANUFACTURING salary. One of Bill's links above show another Toyota worker making $29/hr.....$58,000 a year. We've seen many links in other threads showing UAW workers average $35/hr and around $77/hr with all benefits and legacy costs worked in. If Toyota has an average cost of $47/hr per employee. That would mean that the average Toyota worker earns an hourly wage of round $25/hr. The other $22/hr is benefits and legacy costs.
From 2005. Shows Toyota workers making $27/hr (Including a year-end bonus) and UAW Union Monkeys making $31/hr (Figure includes monkeys getting paid to sit on their asses in a breakroom doing nothing)
Hmmmmmm...... Non-union employees getting bonuses for helping the company make a profit and increase productivity. Union employees getting paid to do nothing in a job bank. 84fiero123, care to create another great union thread. That's a pretty significant statement, isn't it???
We need to get off this union subject and back on the economy subject. Unions are just part of the economic picture.
[This message has been edited by aceman (edited 08-04-2007).]
"U.S. bankruptcy filings were 38 percent higher last month than in July 2006 and are 50 percent higher for all 2007 than they were a year ago, according to data complied by the private research company Jupiter eSource LLC.
Almost 307,000 bankruptcies were filed in the first seven months of this year, the company said Friday, citing U.S. Bankruptcy Court records obtained online.
Business reorganizations accounted for 3,400 filings, a 20 percent rise from the same period in 2006 for corporate Chapter 11 cases. Individual bankruptcies accounted for most of the rest.
The 50 percent growth this year is partly a result of a low rate of filings in early 2006 under a new, more restrictive law. Bankruptcies first rose as individuals rushed to beat the October 2005 deadline, then dropped. They rose steadily in 2006.
If this year's pace continues, new bankruptcies in 2007 will total almost 790,000, 34 percent more than last year."
Originally posted by aceman: We need to get off this union subject and back on the economy subject. Unions are just part of the economic picture.
Unions are a SMALL part. I beleive 84fiero123 was stating that. Atleast that what I read. Uaana seemd to think developments were stifiled by unions and union pay...
It isnt, It's the top end. Which is why I posted the ratio CEO to worker pay.
1 The worker has no buying power. 2. theres no money to expand, encourage or spur groth in the company because the money simply isnt there, it's going to the top end, then from there directly into the stock market in market funds, stocks, bonds, etc.. It's "locked up" in the system and not free flowing liquid. A diabetic with poor circulation stands a great chance of loosing their legs...
Unions are a SMALL part. I beleive 84fiero123 was stating that. Atleast that what I read. Uaana seemd to think developments were stifiled by unions and union pay...
It isnt, It's the top end. Which is why I posted the ratio CEO to worker pay.
1 The worker has no buying power. 2. theres no money to expand, encourage or spur groth in the company because the money simply isnt there, it's going to the top end, then from there directly into the stock market in market funds, stocks, bonds, etc.. It's "locked up" in the system and not free flowing liquid. A diabetic with poor circulation stands a great chance of loosing their legs...
But who is stopping people from Un-Locking this flow of money for themselves?
Sorry got a little sidelined.. the unions are only one of the problems with the big 3.
Back on to the main topic, yes there were a rise in bankruptcys, mostly from people buying too much house and morgtage companies luring them in with questionable lending practices. ARMs are killing most of these people, blame goes to both not just the lenders but pply buying way out of their means.
Bankruptcies being up is not really a measure of the economy, more a measure of stupid people.
Some of you need to take a step back and look at the big picture, not your microcosm. The economy is pretty damn healthy considering we've got a war we're funding and a congress/senate on a spending spree.
Another great year for me. Made tons of easy money. Im raking in all i can now....just in case demos win this time. Then if they do I can retire on that instead of starve trying to make a living. lol.
They provided a little picture for you to look at. It's called a graph. It shows that unemployment is about .6% different than before 9/11.
Now, if we brought EVERYBODY home....servicemembers and contractors, that would be about 250,000 people. At least 150,000 of those people already were working for the government as a contractor or a servicemember. Another 50,0000 go back to a job that no one was filling their void when they left. A good amount of them are probably college students that don't count in the numbers. When we add 150,000 jobs per month it makes our percentage go down by less than .5%.
You keep trying though, Steve. Even a blind squirrel will find a nut every once and a while.
Originally posted by aceman: Another 50,0000 go back to a job that no one was filling their void when they left.
Thats incorrect...
That position is being filled by another individual who will be LAID OFF pending the return of the soldier which the company must provide a similar job to.
Then lets consider the Military Industrial COmplex that no longer needs to pump out or refurbish military hardware, software, weapons and make lead bullets. The unemployment rate combined with the money loss would be extreme. Congress tried to cut back spending on this not long ago but the unmentiond interesting FACT of the matter is they cant.. it would effectivly kill the economy.
