What Toyota knows that GM doesn’t

[Dan Gould]

A lot of people starting over find something to rent rather than purchase a new home.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

A lot of people starting over find something to rent rather than purchase a new home.

Oh, I do agree, and have done that myself. But if you have no mortgage on your existing home...

Don't get me wrong; in general I don't agree with government handouts to ailing businesses. But when the alternative is a local/regional catastrophe, particularly when there would be a viable supply chain that could, in time redirect itself towards more profitable prime manufacturers, as in the case of the car industry, I can see a rationale for closely regulated intervention.

You can see the results of the alternative. The US has still not been able to sort out the social and economic problems that arose from the flight of manufacturing from the inner cities thirty-forty years ago. OK, there's been a certain amount of racism involved, too...

MG

[Guy Berger]

From a liberal who doesn't object to spendiing gov't money but does object to wasting it -

The best policy would be to give current Big 3 employees a guarantee for their current salary up to $60K over the next 2-3 years, regardless of whatever happens to the company. In addition, offer $15K a year for retraining, education, whatever. After that, the salary payment goes down by $20K a year. I'd rather have these guys sitting idle collecting a paycheck rather than wasting valuable resources producing cr@ppy products. Screw shareholders, bondholders, executives.

Unfortunately that is not on the table... Second-best would be to subsidize companies that actually turn a profit to hire the laid off workers, with workers paid to relocate out of their current location if necessary.

And unfortunately that is not on the table either.

Guy

[Big Wheel]

From a liberal who doesn't object to spendiing gov't money but does object to wasting it -

The best policy would be to give current Big 3 employees a guarantee for their current salary up to $60K over the next 2-3 years, regardless of whatever happens to the company. In addition, offer $15K a year for retraining, education, whatever. After that, the salary payment goes down by $20K a year. I'd rather have these guys sitting idle collecting a paycheck rather than wasting valuable resources producing cr@ppy products. Screw shareholders, bondholders, executives.

Unfortunately that is not on the table... Second-best would be to subsidize companies that actually turn a profit to hire the laid off workers, with workers paid to relocate out of their current location if necessary.

And unfortunately that is not on the table either.

Guy

What about all the related industries, though? Should we also be helping out the workers of the parts companies that depend on the Big 3, and will likely go kaput with them? The Big 3 are clearly dinosaurs that have a hot date with the K-T boundary, but is it possible for us to support the 1.5 million (conservative estimate) potential extra people who'd be thrown out of work?

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

From a liberal who doesn't object to spendiing gov't money but does object to wasting it -

The best policy would be to give current Big 3 employees a guarantee for their current salary up to $60K over the next 2-3 years, regardless of whatever happens to the company. In addition, offer $15K a year for retraining, education, whatever. After that, the salary payment goes down by $20K a year. I'd rather have these guys sitting idle collecting a paycheck rather than wasting valuable resources producing cr@ppy products. Screw shareholders, bondholders, executives.

Unfortunately that is not on the table... Second-best would be to subsidize companies that actually turn a profit to hire the laid off workers, with workers paid to relocate out of their current location if necessary.

And unfortunately that is not on the table either.

Guy

What about all the related industries, though? Should we also be helping out the workers of the parts companies that depend on the Big 3, and will likely go kaput with them? The Big 3 are clearly dinosaurs that have a hot date with the K-T boundary, but is it possible for us to support the 1.5 million (conservative estimate) potential extra people who'd be thrown out of work?

Quite right. The suply chain is a LOT more flexible and viable than the manufacturers themselves. But it needs time to change. And the easiest and cheapest way to secure that time is to support the big 3 for a limited period and with strict terms on what can and must be done.

MG

[Larry Kart]

Some important points made here, I think:

"Advantages of Corporate Bankruptcy Shrink":

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/business...ptcy&st=nyt

[Larry Kart]

Perhaps it's a point that's been made before here, but look at this third letter to the editor (Betsey Britton's) in today's NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/opinion/l20detroit.html

I also recall reading recently that if you subtracted worker's health care costs from GM's bottom line, the company would be profitable right now, even as screwed up as its other policies are.

[ejp626]

Perhaps it's a point that's been made before here, but look at this third letter to the editor (Betsey Britton's) in today's NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/opinion/l20detroit.html

I also recall reading recently that if you subtracted worker's health care costs from GM's bottom line, the company would be profitable right now, even as screwed up as its other policies are.

I imagine that is possible, but with all these execs crying for loans, I think it is worth asking everyone of them if they were willing to do any heavy lifting when Clinton made the big push for health care expansion early in his tenure. There is no question it was an overly complex plan and that it could have been made better if Hillary had been more open to genuine debate on the topic, but the business elites turned against Hillarycare with a vengeance rather than finding a better solution that would move us toward universal health care (or even a mixed system). Pretty short sighted if you ask me. So I don't feel too sorry for them. I feel sorry for retirees who had been promised benefits and now find themselves powerless as these decisions are being made. Clearly "times are different" and few if any new workers get pensions, but business contracts are more or less inviable, but the contracts made between an employer and the former employees are worthless. And so after these seniors get screwed, they'll end up relying more on the federal government. Rather than having a decent support network in the first place, like many European countries, we just have a total neoliberal patchwork system that lets tens of thousands of people fall through the cracks. And yet if my fears are correct*, the US will end up paying more in its half-assed efforts to prop up this group of people, then this one, as they get media attention, than if we just bit the bullet and put together a meaningful safety net. (* While this is about Italy and postwar hardships, I find myself thinking that US retirees will be following in the path of Umberto D sooner than anyone thinks.)

[JSngry]

Ok, so subtract the health care costs and they'd be profitable right now.

Subtract my living expenses & I'd have a lot more moiney in the bank as well, so what does that prove, really?

A more salient question might be this - how much revenue would they need now to maintain those health care costs & still remain profitable? And would such revenue be a possibility if the products were better/more in line with consumer demands? Because gee, if you don't want a pickup or a bigass SUV, what the hell do you want from the Big 3?

Beware of union-busting tactics under the guise of "reorganization". In spite of the frothy rhetoric being heard in some quarters, out-of-sync union contracts/etc are only a part of the problem these guys are facing, not the whole thing, or even the major part of it. But anybody with have a brain knows that there is a business/political faction that is drooling at the possibility of using this "crisis" as a way to bust the union.

Proceed with caution. "Union" need not be a dirty word. "Scapegoat", however, is.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Proceed with caution. "Union" need not be a dirty word. "Scapegoat", however, is.

(Nods sagely, then spills tea on shoe.)

MG

[Hot Ptah]

Those are really good points, Jim.

When I wanted to buy a mid size sedan auto a few years ago, there were no real good choices from the Big 3, in terms of quality and price. It really came down to whether I wanted a Toyota or a Honda. That has to change, as the SUV era must be coming to an end.

[Jim Alfredson]

The short-term, only thinking about the next quarter era must come to an end. They have no long-term plans. Everything is about the upcoming quarter and pleasing the shareholders. You have to have a long-term plan and stick to it, despite the ups and downs.

Anyone remember the big announcement of a new electric platform by GM back in... oh, 2003 or so? I worked the NAIAS that year (North American International Auto Show) in Detroit and they made a big hubbub about it. They had spent billions on this project. It was a platform for electric vehicles, several of which were built on the same frame. A few months later they had a big media blitz and I saw a long interview on 60 Minutes with Wagoner and Dan Rather where Rather actually drove one of the test vehicles. Wagoner was talking about how this was the future and the technology was sound and ready, blah blah blah.

A few months later, the entire project was scrapped, no explanation. It was just completely dumped. All that money down the drain. Hey, they were raking in the money hand over fist from SUV sales! Why waste resources on developing new technologies?

I have no sympathy for the Big 3, at all.

[RDK]

That has to change, as the SUV era must be coming to an end.

It has nothing to do with SUVs per se - it's having huge, gas-guzzling cars when you don't need one. What do you propose for a family of 5 or more? SUVs are very practical and even efficient in some circumstances - such as mine at the moment. I currently have a family of six to deal with (the in-laws have moved in) and it now takes us two cars to get anywhere together. We currently have a Forester (just barely an SUV in any case) and are looking for something bigger. I just hate this "all SUVs are evil" argument that gets tossed around. They're very practical for some - just not for my idiot brother-in-law who lives alone and drives a Hummer.

[Chalupa]

Proceed with caution. "Union" need not be a dirty word. "Scapegoat", however, is.

WORD.

Be careful of laying this all on the UAW. Some would do well to remember the old saying,"“A fish rots from the head and not from the tail." Yeah, the health care costs are hurting the bottom line but who gave the unions those benefits? Who gave the unions their generous pension plans?? Who gave the workers the enviable hourly wage? And who has been foisting crappy products on the consumer for the past 30+ years? Well what about the bloated compensation for the GM executives? Why isn't that a part of this discussion? The management doesn't get it and probably never will. I mean they fly in their own private jets to D.C. to beg for a bail out?? WTF?

Bankruptcy or bail out? I was originally for the bail out plan but now I'm starting to think the opposite. Those jobs will be lost either way. If the Big 3 survive they're not going to move the jobs to "right to work" states in the South. That's a pipe dream. They're going to move the jobs out of the country. GM just opened a new manufacturing plant in Russia and they are spending $1 Billion to build a new plant in Brazil. The bail out will just help finance their moving their production out of the US. So maybe we should let them go into receivership. It would save the taxpayers a lot of cash.

Edited November 20, 2008 by J.H. Deeley

[Jim Alfredson]

The union is certainly not faultless in the equation. Not by a long shot.

From a post on another board I frequent, by a fellow Lansing resident:

I worked at Buick in Flint, MI a few months before being drafted way back when. Three of us from high school started the same day, and, like we were raised to do, we started out trying to work hard, do a good job, and impress our boss. After about a week of that, a couple old hands took us aside to explain "that's not how we do it here." Soured me so much I never even considered going back there even though they would have hired me back with accumulated seniority after military service. I'm sure things are different in the plants now.

That describes EXACTLY my dad's experience with the unions and working in factories. Don't work too hard or you'll make the others look bad and they don't like that.

The unions got greedy. Both the management and the unions are at fault here.

[Aggie87]

I just hate this "all SUVs are evil" argument that gets tossed around. They're very practical for some - just not for my idiot brother-in-law who lives alone and drives a Hummer.

I agree with this. I have a mid-size SUV, and it was because I needed the space. Problem is, I don't need that space every day, but when I do need it, I need it. It's perfect for travelling with my kids to see relatives. Typically our drives are 3-4 hrs away and between suitcases, sleeping bags, the (evil) cat and her litter box and food, dvd player for the kids, etc., it fills up rather quickly. I really don't see it being any different functionally than a station wagon.

However, since I can't afford two car payments, the SUV is also my every day drive-to-work car. It's more space than I need for that.

Prior to this I had a VW Passat, which was a blast to drive, but simply didn't cut it for travelling.

[Joe G]

Those are really good points, Jim.

When I wanted to buy a mid size sedan auto a few years ago, there were no real good choices from the Big 3, in terms of quality and price. It really came down to whether I wanted a Toyota or a Honda. That has to change, as the SUV era must be coming to an end.

Not just SUVs, according to J. Kunstler:

A case in point: the car industry. The Big Three, all functionally bankrupt, are now lined up for bail-outs from the treasury's bottomless checking account. Personally, I believe the age of Happy Motoring is over. Many Americans have already bought their last car -- they just don't know it yet. The current low-ish price of oil is a total fake-out, having to do much more with asset-dumping in the paper markets than the true resource supply-demand equation. Most of the world (the media for sure) has ignored preliminary leaks from the International Energy Agency's (IEA) forthcoming report which forecasts global oil depletion to be 9.1 percent in 2009. This is a staggering figure, very likely to offset whatever slack we see in global demand from the worldwide economic crisis. In fact, the global oil markets are poised for the most severe dislocations ever seen, meaning it's a toss-up what happens first in the USA: a major leg back up in oil prices, or shortages, hoarding, and rationing.

[Larry Kart]

Ok, so subtract the health care costs and they'd be profitable right now.

Subtract my living expenses & I'd have a lot more moiney in the bank as well, so what does that prove, really?

A more salient question might be this - how much revenue would they need now to maintain those health care costs & still remain profitable? And would such revenue be a possibility if the products were better/more in line with consumer demands? Because gee, if you don't want a pickup or a bigass SUV, what the hell do you want from the Big 3?

Beware of union-busting tactics under the guise of "reorganization". In spite of the frothy rhetoric being heard in some quarters, out-of-sync union contracts/etc are only a part of the problem these guys are facing, not the whole thing, or even the major part of it. But anybody with have a brain knows that there is a business/political faction that is drooling at the possibility of using this "crisis" as a way to bust the union.

Proceed with caution. "Union" need not be a dirty word. "Scapegoat", however, is.

The letter writer's point is that we typically don't think (granting the Big 3's stupidities) about the fact that the Big 3's chief competitors are based in countries where there is universal health care; thus their competitors' employee health care costs don't end up on those companies' bottom lines. Yes, in the short term (which may be the only term that matters for the Big 3's survival) Jim's "Subtract my living expenses & I'd have a lot more money in the bank as well, so what does that prove, really? A more salient question might be this - how much revenue would they need now to maintain those health care costs & still remain profitable?" makes sense. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't wonder why Japan, Germany, France, and a lot of other countries have universal health care, and we don't. Those countries can afford it, and we can't?

Also, I've heard "That's not how we do it here" stories like Jim A's before and tended to discount them because I assumed that union-busting might be at work. When it comes from Jim A., though, by way of his father, I have no doubts that the problems lie on both sides.

I'm trying to think of my own direct working experiences, particularly in the newspaper business. Yes, there were drones and even some sabotuers around, but the degree to which you could count on almost everyone to do whatever it took to make things work was very high -- so much so that you almost didn't think about it. In part that had to do with the fact that some of us had our actual names attached to what we were doing, but it was essentially esprit de corps. You knew that the person next to you probably was darned good, and you wouldn't dream of letting him or her down if you could help it. On the other hand, this didn't mean that we regarded the highest higher ups there with awe or even deference, because we were in a position to know, often enough, when they were clothed and when they were pants-less. Rather, bonds of loyalty, team-identity, whatever, extended sideways and only as far up as it made sense for them to go -- and at one time that was far enough.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Ok, so subtract the health care costs and they'd be profitable right now.

Subtract my living expenses & I'd have a lot more moiney in the bank as well, so what does that prove, really?

A more salient question might be this - how much revenue would they need now to maintain those health care costs & still remain profitable? And would such revenue be a possibility if the products were better/more in line with consumer demands? Because gee, if you don't want a pickup or a bigass SUV, what the hell do you want from the Big 3?

Beware of union-busting tactics under the guise of "reorganization". In spite of the frothy rhetoric being heard in some quarters, out-of-sync union contracts/etc are only a part of the problem these guys are facing, not the whole thing, or even the major part of it. But anybody with have a brain knows that there is a business/political faction that is drooling at the possibility of using this "crisis" as a way to bust the union.

Proceed with caution. "Union" need not be a dirty word. "Scapegoat", however, is.

The letter writer's point is that we typically don't think (granting the Big 3's stupidities) about the fact that the Big 3's chief competitors are based in countries where there is universal health care; thus their competitors' employee health care costs don't end up on those companies' bottom lines. Yes, in the short term (which may be the only term that matters for the Big 3's survival) Jim's "Subtract my living expenses & I'd have a lot more money in the bank as well, so what does that prove, really? A more salient question might be this - how much revenue would they need now to maintain those health care costs & still remain profitable?" makes sense. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't wonder why Japan, Germany, France, and a lot of other countries have universal health care, and we don't. Those countries can afford it, and we can't?

Indeed. Health care is paid for out of taxes (and a national insurance scheme which is more or less taxes) here and elsewhere, so it's not charged to businesses until after the bottom line is reached.

There's no logical reason why a business should pay for the health care of its employees. The logic of looking after one's health is that either you pay your own way or you pay through the taxing system so as to achieve some kind of (imperfect) social justice which is generally agreed upon by society. If that agreement doesn't exist, then the only logical option you're left with is pay for your own health care.

One of the problems is that the medical business has transformed itself into a big money earner through the private insurance scam. Insurance is, in principle, no different to taxes - in the end, the provision of medical services is free at the point of delivery. Thus, meeting all demands, which are infinite, becomes the criterion by which a medical service is judged. And, by heroic use of science and technology, the western medical services have by and large met this demand (not perfectly anywhere) and have been paid handsomely for it. A medical service that relied on services being paid for on delivery (actually before delivery), would be a much worse, but more affordable, service; a bit like what you have in the third world.

Also, I've heard "That's not how we do it here" stories like Jim A's before and tended to discount them because I assumed that union-busting might be at work. When it comes from Jim A., though, by way of his father, I have no doubts that the problems lie on both sides.

I'm trying to think of my own direct working experiences, particularly in the newspaper business. Yes, there were drones and even some sabotuers around, but the degree to which you could count on almost everyone to do whatever it took to make things work was very high -- so much so that you almost didn't think about it. In part that had to do with the fact that some of us had our actual names attached to what we were doing, but it was essentially esprit de corps. You knew that the person next to you probably was darned good, and you wouldn't dream of letting him or her down if you could help it. On the other hand, this didn't mean that we regarded the highest higher ups there with awe or even deference, because we were in a position to know, often enough, when they were clothed and when they were pants-less. Rather, bonds of loyalty, team-identity, whatever, extended sideways and only as far up as it made sense for them to go -- and at one time that was far enough.

Your experiences match mine; at least when I was working in the Civil Service. They DON'T match mine when I was working in factories. There is a difference which it's probably difficult to appreciate unless you've experienced both environments.

MG

[medjuck]

I work in a business that is very unionized and most people are highly paid. And though I might complain about how it adds so much to cost of filmmaking I find most union crews to be terrific. And I like working in a business where I don't feel I'm exploiting anyone.

[JSngry]

Just to be clear - I am not "defending" the UAW. As others (and I myself, previously) have noted, they are indeed part of the problem.

But the key word there is part.

I hear countless GOP congresspeople on the various news/talk shows talk about "poor management", and inevitably, if you listen long enough and/or if they talk long enough, they always bring that back to the UAW. Nothing else.

Taht, Dear Friends, is dangerous. It is a lie, and it is nothing even remotely new. "Traditional" management hates unions on principal, and would love nothing better than to just make them go away. For them, unions are the labor equivalent of "affirmative action" - something that in their mind has no business even existing in the first place. But admitting this would be too much ugly honesty, so there are always rhetorical "work-aronds", other ways to "frame the issue" that can actually generate sympathy for the problems w/o calling attention to the motive.

I've got a few friends who work in trucking/freight transportation/etc, and I hear similar "that's not how we do it here" stories about the Teamsters as well. These type attitudes/situations represent the devolution of the union movement into a shakedown crew, and I have no sympathy for that. None, sero, silch, nada, burn down the house and don't let anybody get out alive.

But...

BUT.....

BUT.......

If anybody thinks that the people - corporate management, "traditional" GOP congresspeople, etc - who are looking to bust the unions (and I'll go to the mat defending the notion that that is exactly what they are looking to do here), would be agreeable to having a newer, leaner, more bi-laterally sympathetic responsible form of organized labor representation organization raise up from the ashes, than you are a fool. Simple as that.

The entire paradigm has to change. Look at the history of the union movement, look at what brought it about, look at the whats & whys of how they did what they had to do to get done what they got done (and everybody say THANK YOU!!! when you're through doing that...) & then tell me that management does not need to drop its "old ways" every bit as much as does labor. Unless you are nothing but a pig, you can't.

The opening post of this thread implies the question, What does Toyota knows that GM doesn’t? and then proceeds to provide a very simple answer, one which I alluded to in my response to Chris - when everybody "does the right thing" as a matter of course, there are no need for solutions for problems that do not exists. And since power comes with responsibility to the point that one can say that power = responsibility, one can but conclude that management/ownership has the responsibility to create a paradigm with labor where labor no longer feels in competition with the mechanism which is feeding, clothing, and sheltering it's families, but instead feels a kinship, the yang to ownership's yin.

It's so simple, really, but as long as ownership feels itself intrinsically more "valuable" to society than is labor, it ain't gonna happen. And yes - leadership begins at the top. And the top, Dear Friends,shows next to no sign of getting it.

An estimated 3.1 million jobs are at stake here, jobs that are "related to" the American auto industry. That's a helluva lot of people. I have no earthly idea of what the "best" way to handle this whole sordid mess is, but I do know that the loss and/or curtailment of 3.1 million jobs will fuck up this already fragile economy, so OI'm thinking hat we kill who we gotta kill - management and outdated union models alike, take in who we gotta take in long enough to keep Armageddon at bay, and do whatever we gotta do to put it back together in a way that reflects modern concepts, not just of vehicles, but of management/labor relationships. 3.1 million jobs ain't nothing to play with.

If that cannot, cannot be done, then we as a country will have proven that we have indeed become the cannibalistic swine that our worst enemies accuse of of being.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Just to be clear - I am not "defending" the UAW. As others (and I myself, previously) have noted, they are indeed part of the problem.

But the key word there is part.

I hear countless GOP congresspeople on the various news/talk shows talk about "poor management", and inevitably, if you listen long enough and/or if they talk long enough, they always bring that back to the UAW. Nothing else.

Taht, Dear Friends, is dangerous. It is a lie, and it is nothing even remotely new. "Traditional" management hates unions on principal, and would love nothing better than to just make them go away. For them, unions are the labor equivalent of "affirmative action" - something that in their mind has no business even existing in the first place. But admitting this would be too much ugly honesty, so there are always rhetorical "work-aronds", other ways to "frame the issue" that can actually generate sympathy for the problems w/o calling attention to the motive.

I've got a few friends who work in trucking/freight transportation/etc, and I hear similar "that's not how we do it here" stories about the Teamsters as well. These type attitudes/situations represent the devolution of the union movement into a shakedown crew, and I have no sympathy for that. None, sero, silch, nada, burn down the house and don't let anybody get out alive.

But...

BUT.....

BUT.......

If anybody thinks that the people - corporate management, "traditional" GOP congresspeople, etc - who are looking to bust the unions (and I'll go to the mat defending the notion that that is exactly what they are looking to do here), would be agreeable to having a newer, leaner, more bi-laterally sympathetic responsible form of organized labor representation organization raise up from the ashes, than you are a fool. Simple as that.

The entire paradigm has to change. Look at the history of the union movement, look at what brought it about, look at the whats & whys of how they did what they had to do to get done what they got done (and everybody say THANK YOU!!! when you're through doing that...) & then tell me that management does not need to drop its "old ways" every bit as much as does labor. Unless you are nothing but a pig, you can't.

The opening post of this thread implies the question, What does Toyota knows that GM doesn’t? and then proceeds to provide a very simple answer, one which I alluded to in my response to Chris - when everybody "does the right thing" as a matter of course, there are no need for solutions for problems that do not exists. And since power comes with responsibility to the point that one can say that power = responsibility, one can but conclude that management/ownership has the responsibility to create a paradigm with labor where labor no longer feels in competition with the mechanism which is feeding, clothing, and sheltering it's families, but instead feels a kinship, the yang to ownership's yin.

It's so simple, really, but as long as ownership feels itself intrinsically more "valuable" to society than is labor, it ain't gonna happen. And yes - leadership begins at the top. And the top, Dear Friends,shows next to no sign of getting it.

An estimated 3.1 million jobs are at stake here, jobs that are "related to" the American auto industry. That's a helluva lot of people. I have no earthly idea of what the "best" way to handle this whole sordid mess is, but I do know that the loss and/or curtailment of 3.1 million jobs will fuck up this already fragile economy, so OI'm thinking hat we kill who we gotta kill - management and outdated union models alike, take in who we gotta take in long enough to keep Armageddon at bay, and do whatever we gotta do to put it back together in a way that reflects modern concepts, not just of vehicles, but of management/labor relationships. 3.1 million jobs ain't nothing to play with.

If that cannot, cannot be done, then we as a country will have proven that we have indeed become the cannibalistic swine that our worst enemies accuse of of being.

YEAH!

MG

[Larry Kart]

...as long as ownership feels itself intrinsically more "valuable" to society than is labor...

Couldn't be put any more clearly than that.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

...as long as ownership feels itself intrinsically more "valuable" to society than is labor...

Couldn't be put any more clearly than that.

Funny, I said "YEAH" to Jim's original post, but your bringing this bit out, Larry, has made me think about it and it's not quite right.

Ownership - particularly of these large firms - is vested in the shareholders and other investors in the company, in particular (in this context) Union funds, but also pension funds and the owners of other similar investment instruments. In other words, you, you, you and you.

Management (and, really, I'm talking about top management) is what feels itself intrinsically more valuable to society than labour. Now it's true that, usually, these top managers own shares in their company (or share options) or in other companies, but that ownership stake is tiny compared to the stake of a trade union.

Management is just a different kind of labour. Why management may very well feel itself justified in feeling itself intrinsically more valuable to society is because it gets a different rate of pay; a rate of pay that the members of the top echelon can decide on for themselves and have ratified by a tame AGM of shareholders whose representatives don't want to rock the boat. And all is in accord with the American Dream, isn't it? Or is it?

MG

[JSngry]

...as long as ownership feels itself intrinsically more "valuable" to society than is labor...

Couldn't be put any more clearly than that.

Funny, I said "YEAH" to Jim's original post, but your bringing this bit out, Larry, has made me think about it and it's not quite right.

Ownership - particularly of these large firms - is vested in the shareholders and other investors in the company, in particular (in this context) Union funds, but also pension funds and the owners of other similar investment instruments. In other words, you, you, you and you.

Indeed it is. But this fact is not reflective of the "business culture", and therein lie the problem (or one of them...).

And then there's the matter of private corporations, of which there are some of note. That's old-school "ownership" on its pure form right there, and the behavior of these companies would appear to follow no one particular pattern, which is more than you can say about the recent behavior of so many publicly held companies, which leads me to wonder if maybe the notion of "publicly owned" has devolved once and for all into Fleecing The Suckers.

Bottom line, though, for me = "Ownership" = them that gots the juice & have the tools to keep it no matter what. Technically not a correct definition, but as a practical matter. And no, it is not at all a bad thing to be ownership. It's a good thing, actually. But being a self-obsessed jerk isn't...

Management (and, really, I'm talking about top management) is what feels itself intrinsically more valuable to society than labour. Now it's true that, usually, these top managers own shares in their company (or share options) or in other companies, but that ownership stake is tiny compared to the stake of a trade union.

Tiny in terms of percentage of ownership, but when you look at the leverage that comes with owning exponentially more shares than any one "typical" individual shareholder, there is no question as to who's who & what's what when it comes to riding the horse at the front of the parade...

Management is just a different kind of labour. Yeah, they're the highest-dollar of the high-dollar whores, and they think they don't work for a pimp. But they are wrong. Why management may very well feel itself justified in feeling itself intrinsically more valuable to society is because it gets a different rate of pay; a rate of pay that the members of the top echelon can decide on for themselves and have ratified by a tame AGM of shareholders whose representatives don't want to rock the boat. And all is in accord with the American Dream, isn't it? Or is it? That, my friend, depends on whose dream it is we're talking about - the one that includes the ongoing broad responsibilities that comes with success or the one that runs the titles and brings up the lights once that success has been achieved. Both are "The American Dream", only one's uncut & the other's been edited all to hell.

MG

Edited November 21, 2008 by JSngry