Charlie Rose

electrospin  11/25/2008 05:21 PM Report

A relative of mine is a retired autoworker. He worked for Chrysler for 35 years. When he retired he was a Journeyman carpenter/painter, and safety trainer with a four year degree and his base salary topped out at ~$60K. That was 3 years ago. His retirement is about ~30K. Given his position and level of education that put him at the top of the food chain for blue collar workers. That is a good living, but hardly extravegant for someone with that level of training and experience. MOST current autoworkers do not have that kind of base pay. They DO, however, work boat loads of overtime, which allows them to achieve the 6 figure numbers that the press and politicians are so fond of quoting. During the eighties, these workers were averaging twelve hour days, 7 days a week. The jobs are dirty and very dangerous. The salaries they get are earned the hard way. The pensions that they are entitled to are a result of money that they have paid in, as well as money that the company contributes. The health care that they get is what all americans should have, but don't and they have gotten it without the american tax payer paying a dime. The proposed "bail out" is a loan, not a gift. If these companies fail, the american tax payer will have to foot the bill for all the retires rather than companies that have the obligations. That is what bankruptcy means, as Barney Frank has pointd out. Why should we let the shareholders and management foist their responsibilities onto us for free. We should at least charge them interest.

For the record, I am a PH.D. level scientist and am about as white collar as they come. This is not about politics, it is about what is fair.

cassiusclay  11/22/2008 03:59 PM Report

The Big Three’s Bailout Plan

Congress wants a formal plan for how the 25 billion dollar bailout money will be spent from the Big Three and I suspect their plan will be nothing that will truly help them out of the position they are in. I have a plan, a plan that will not only help them but help the American people. The plan is simple but will help in three major ways:

The money should be allocated to the financial divisions of the Big Three with the sole purpose of using the money to provide loans for the American public, people who in these troubled economic times cannot get loans due to imperfect credit or low credit scores.

The plan is simple, have the Big Three build a select group of vehicles, all entry level and low in price. Each would have a car, truck, van and a sport utility vehicle and these would be the only vehicles eligible for the program.

When a customer comes into a dealership and cannot qualify for a car loan through conventional banks they can be introduced to this special program. Qualifications would be rigid some of the requirements would be the following:

No open bankruptcies

One car loan per person

10% of the purchase price down

Payment to income earned must be 14%

The program would be a 27 month closed ended lease with low residuals and low interest rate.

How would this help? A two year buying cycle brings customers back into the showroom sooner than a typical six year purchase. The Big Three could streamline their assembly lines and this would cut cost by making the same type of vehicle and dealerships could extend their sales to people who normally would be forced into buying a used car.

25 billion dollars is a lot of money, why not use it to actually help people instead of blowing it on jet fuel and big corporate expense?

Your thoughts?

Clay

EOG.COM

Red_Sanders  11/22/2008 10:34 AM Report

Little mention is given to the major problem with the American auto industry - high labor costs and corresponding mediocre products. I can remember working as a classroom teacher 30 years ago reading of the hourly salary of an auto worker that spread solder. His salary was more than twice what I made as an experienced science/math teacher with a masters degree. That was a sustainable model when the American auto industry had a monopoly, they don't now.

Those that are at fault for this condition are the politicians that have a quid pro quo relationship with organized labor (support gets votes), the complacent auto industry administrators, and yes - the American auto workers and their unions that keep expecting unreasonable salaries and disproportionate benefits while producing mediocre products.

The market is the solution - let them fail, or at least go bankrupt. We have numerous examples over many years where government "solutions" have more consequences than benefits, whether it be with domestic or financial issues. We have now welcomed their unprecedented intrusion into the world's best market, and are lurching toward it's intrusion our health care.

As for electric cars, this is a silly concept. Their range is severely limited and their recharge time is totally unacceptable to anyone on a time schedule. And those that try to sell the idea that these cars reduce pollution are advertising their ignorance of grade school physics and chemistry. The cars get their energy from power plants that are running on coal or natural gas! The pollution impact could be significantly reduced if a substantial amount of our energy came from nuclear plants - but the greenies that want the electric cars don't want any kind of power plants - especially those that are nuclear.

hrc  11/21/2008 10:38 PM Report

Like what is the problem with lending money to the big 3 if money is not available elsewhere. Let' say it' $25 billion each. It comes back as taxable income and with principal and interest. Jobs are saved, wheels keep turning, etc, etc. Contrary wise, what, continue the meltdown. Surely the void would be filled, but at what cost, and in what time frame. They gave money semi willy-nillie to the financial sector just to dress the wounds. Well capital must flow or all hell breaks loose and that' just the way it is. Bankruptcy is not a solution as Barney Frank so patiently states. It was good for both Frank and Shelby to share their positions on this matter. Shelby, well, in another time I could understand his position, not under these circumstances.

ssg13565  11/21/2008 11:29 AM Report

Don't you wish you had been armed with the info in this article:

http://ssgreenberg.name/PoliticsBlog/?p=1149

Before you talked to Senator Shelby. Perhaps, if you had, you could have got to the truth of the matter about shy he was objecting to the big 3 bailout.

To argue on principle that the federal government should not do for the US auto companies exactly what Alabama is doing for foreign auto companies could be called the height of gaul.

oh_my_darling  11/21/2008 07:49 AM Report

Mr. Rose, please bring back the previous web-site, it was perfect. This one is so dark and gloomy and more difficult to navigate. The other one was so open and free, and a real testament to your fearless quest for the truth of people and their opinions. From the geniuses that grace our earth, to the bums stumbling around clinging tightly to their mason jar of urine... Everybody has something to bring to the table. And that, is BEAUTIFUL.

Ricardo_Amaral  11/21/2008 04:04 AM Report

Reply to tartufe

Why should the taxpayer give a loan, grant or any type of bailout to the 3 major US automakers? When the US government can buy 95 percent of the common stock in exchange for an infusion of US$ 12 billion dollars in GM and also at Ford.

After the US government controls these companies then: 1) they get rid of the board of directors of both companies 2) they merge these 2 companies into one 3) they change the management with a new set of people to run the new company 4) transfer the legacy costs out of the new company 5) After evaluating the new path forward for this new company then they should close some plants from GM and Ford and buy some of the plants from Chrysler when that company files for chapter 7.

Keep in mind that GM and Ford have the technology to make smaller and more efficient cars in Europe, Brazil, and even in China and only the US portion of their business that operates as if they were brain dead.

Most Americans would be surprised that one of the major US automakers had developed an outstanding electrical car the General Motors EV-1. The management at GM did everything possible to kill the car of the future for that corporation. They got it right and then they decided to kill it. We are talking about idiots running a major corporation in this case and now they are begging for bailout money.

It will be an insult to the intelligence of the American people to give any bailout money to those idiots. That’s why the US government has to nationalize GM and Ford and get rid of the management and get smarter people to run the new company.

.

tartufe  11/21/2008 01:47 AM Report

Honda, Toyota et al will not (and are not) graciously standing by hat-in-hand while the (Big?) three catch up. The Volt (>$30k?) will be had for lunch by the foreign competition. Their legacy costs are smaller and technology unencumbered with Mr Amarals misgivings (below). The CA auto show revealed this with American cars conspicuous by their absence. They're a black-hole doomed to failure either way. Chapter 8 (not 11) may be the best route long term by (fire) selling off plant and assets to a viable bidder/competitor (foreign or otherwise). Perhaps a structured sale conditioned on keeping production and suppliers in the US. So for that to happen a presale agreement between US Govt and the successful bidder would have to be executed, then the govt buys and resells the skeleton - maybe even at a profit(?)- to the successor. Current mgrs barred - non-compete or participate clause.

MadameDefarge  11/20/2008 04:29 PM Report

Ah, paragraphs!

Actually, the panel members who are not in favor of a bailout, did the most to convince me, anyway, that we should have a bailout. If it was vital that the US government help out Wall Street, then surely backing the largest manufacturing entity in the country is appropriate.

Great program!

Ricardo_Amaral  11/20/2008 03:28 PM Report

The US government should nationalize ASAP the 2 major US automakers GM and Ford – and they should let Chrysler die a quick death.

It is a very stupid idea even to consider the bailout of these 3 US automakers when you take in consideration that these 3 companies are bankrupt and for all practical purposes they are out of business. Today GM stock closed at $ 2.79 per share and the market cap was US$ 1.7 billion and Ford stock closed at $ 1.26 per share and the market cap was US$ 3 billion.

Instead of giving bailout money (grants) or loans to these companies the US government should invest US$ 12 billion in each company for 95 percent of the common shares of each company. After the US government bought these companies then these companies would be consolidated into one viable company.

*****

Before Congress goes any further on the bailout of the 3 major US automakers every senator and congressmen should be required to watch the documentary Who killed the electric car?

In June 2007 I saw a very interesting documentary on television – Produced by filmmaker Chris Paine - Who killed the electric car? (2006)

This documentary is about the development of an electrical car by General Motors EV-1

An automobile that required no gas or oil….

The filmmaker also documented how GM and the major oil companies sabotaged the electric car project right from the beginning.

GM senior management still sabotaging the electric car today for example: I saw a program on CNN “Out of Oil” which was broadcasted this past weekend and I believe that I had seen that program a few months ago.

On this program a CNN reporter interviews Bob Lutz – GM’s vice chairman for product development – and Mr. Lutz try to give the impression to the viewer that GM still having problems with its batteries for the electric cars and he even mention that GM likes to call when batteries catch on fire – he said GM refers to it as thermal events.

GM still wants to give the impression to the public that it is very dangerous to drive these cars because their batteries can have thermal events.

The documentary who killed the electric car? Show to the public how hard GM fought to destroy the electric car – and they even interview the owner of ovonic battery – a company that had developed a battery that increased the range of the EV-1 from 60 to 100 miles between charges and a much safer battery.

GM sold its 60 percent ownership in Ovonic Battery to Chevron Texaco for them to kill that improved battery project.

The car dealers also started giving GM a hard time about the electric car because that car needed very little maintenance when compared with a car that runs on a combustion engine. The dealers brought to the attention of GM that the regular car maintenance of regular combustion engine cars was a big chunk of their regular business.

It was very interesting the interview that they had with Mr. Stan Oshinsky and his wife, Dr. Iris Oshinsky, of Energy Conversion. Technologies – and how GM and the major oil companies buried all his discoveries regarding innovations on batteries for the electric car.

GM Ovonic was formed in 1994 between GM and Ovonic Battery to manufacture a new type of battery for the EV-1

When the day comes – the US government should allow GM to go bankrupt and go out of business – that is a corporation that is not worth saving.

*****

In September 2007 The Record (One of the major newspapers in New Jersey) published an article that called my attention, the article was about a new type of battery that can be used on electric cars and with this new technology an ultracapacitor a motorist could plug it into any source of electricity and in for five minutes get a complete new charge and drive the vehicle about 500 miles before he needs a new ultracapacitor charge.

.

Michael  11/20/2008 01:21 PM Report

Could Mr. Shelby's opinion possibly be colored by the fact that Honda, Hyundai, Mercedes and Toyota have all set up shop in Alabama supporting over 44,000 direct jobs and over 79,000 indirect jobs?