Now it's Corning--When will the carnage end?

[iheartmaytag]

Now Boeing

They announced a workforce reduction of 10,000 for 2009. If this keeps on we will be the Air-Capital in name only.

Before I get shot for this I want to say, I was raised in a Union house and my Dad was a 35 year Employee of Boeing (Union). But I think the unions are somewhat responsible for this recent layoff. They had a big strike that lasted almost two months Oct-Dec. They turned down a $5,000 sign-on bonus a guaranteed 4% pay increase and they held out for more. So they cost the company up in the millions a day, delayed the 787 projected deliveries and now cost their fellow members their jobs. Don't they think that the company is going to make up their losses somewhere?

According to this morning's Wichita Eagle, Boeing only delivered 50 planes in 2008, down from the 112 in 2007 they attribute some of this to the decline in the commercial airline business and some to the strike.

http://www.kansas.com/news/breaking/story/679797.html

 

[jeffg]

> How about this: the SUM TOTAL of the mentalties and systems involved made this mess.

I'll never buy the claim that consumers are to blame for this situation. If you put your hand out and offer a dollar bill, someone is going to take it. There's nothing new or different about that fact, and it's not going to change in the future.

But I agree there's not much point in arguing about it. Time will tell who was to blame, and whether this mess is just a normal recession and/or correction, or if it's just the start of something much worse and more permanent.

What angers me more than anything is how so many Americans (and their elected representatives) have offered their backsides to multinational corporations who have no concern for or loyalty to our country, and are only too happy to see our way of life permanently destroyed. A few weeks ago I saw Dick Durbin having a press conference, and he was saying he was soooo happy that Citigroup agreed to a certain piece of legislation. I almost put my foot through the TV. We just went through eight years of this nonsense. Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter: it's government by the corporation and for the corporation (but not of the corporation).

We're 150 years overdue for another revolution.

 

[danemodsandy]

Launderess:

I certainly don't want to try and refute every point you've made here, but there is one I want to speak to: motion picture salaries for stars.

It is irrefutably true that movie stars make outlandish amounts of money - per picture - compared to most of us. And there are certainly a lot of cases - and more of them all the time - where such salaries would seem to be unjustified. But in the case of stars whose movies really do make tons of money for studios, the average member of the public has little idea of what such salaries represent.

To begin with, while a movie studio puts a lot of money, time, effort and talent into a motion picture, the public could not care less about those factors. What the public comes to see is stars. A star's indefinable "something" is what makes the whole enterprise of making motion pictures financially possible. If you doubt me, try raising money to make a movie starring your Aunt Hattie, then try again with one starring Angelina Jolie. The presence of a truly popular star is money in the bank; within the industry, such stars are literally known as "bankable."

Owing to many factors - including the fickleness of the public and the ever-present possibility that a movie that looked good in script form will turn out to be a turkey, stars put their careers on the line with each new movie; the long-term contracts of the Classic Era are long gone. In fact, the average period of real "bankability" for stars is seven years. A good actor may make decent, even good money before and after that time, but the big bucks are compressed into that time frame.

A star's expenses are high. Agents take between ten and fifteen percent off the top. There are union dues, and the charitable contributions expected of stars to industry charities such as the Motion Picture Country Home, an eldercare facility for movie people who can no longer provide for themselves. Such huge chunks of salary coming in that short seven-year time frame mean that a star can end up paying some of the highest possible tax rates. Industry events are costly to attend, with travel and appearance issues eating up lots of money. Stars must, in these difficult and dangerous times of ours, live in highly secure environments, which costs more than most of us can imagine. People like publicists, financial advisors, governesses, personal assistants and housekeeping help are an absolute necessity for a top star; there is no time whatever for a star to take care of such things personally while working.

Essentially, if an actor is fortunate enough to become a genuinely bankable star, much of his or her earnings will evaporate in taxes and expenses. The ride won't last long. And it can all vanish with one bad stinkeroo of a movie. We won't even go into all the ways in which a lifetime of earnings can be stolen from stars, but it happens with disconcerting regularity.

I would be the last person to disagree that there are some outrageously overcompensated people in the entertainment field today (Paris Hilton, anyone?), but an honest-to-Pete movie star - one who is actually bringing in the bucks to justify their price tag - has to put his or her entire career on the line with every project, is going to spend a fortune on expenses, and deserves to be compensated accordingly.

 

[mattl]

I think a big part of it perception.

I look at Tom Cruise or Angelina and I feel they should get what they can for each picture, they are putting themselves on the line, it is their face on the screen.

On the other hand I despise corporate CEOs for the most part. They get the big bucks by eliminating jobs, cutting wages, outsourcing. All these things hurt PEOPLE. The more the CEOs do it the more they get paid, their money comes on the backs of others. If these people choose to innovate and actually add value to something I don't think I or many others would feel as much anger at them as we do.

It seems the ONLY answer to falling profits is to cut people not come up with a new or better product. There is a part of me that would like to see the CEOs and Board of Directors of all the banks getting bailouts flogged in the public square.

 

[neptunebob]

Corning not the only one affected by TV..

Just after Christmas we lost the Sony plant in Westmoreland county, about 1700 people will lose their jobs. The plant used to make the rear-projection large screen TVs that I guess are obselete now.

This is the third time this facility has had a business that had and laid off a large number of jobs. In 1968 Chrysler built the place, but almost and never finished it. 10 years later, Volkswagen bought the plant, called it Volkswagen Westmoreland, and manufactured the Rabbit and Golf there, but in 1988, decided to close the plant. The next year Sony created the Sony Technology Center to make the TVs and even the glass that is used to make the picture tubes. Right now, Governor Rendell is trying to figure out who he can sell the place to.

 

[andrewinorlando]

Jeff - you are right - the sum total!! BUT, it is a question of the chicken and the egg. Which came first? The demand for the product has to be there before any organization can begin to make that available. And that demand has to grow and morph into a bigger and bigger monster that wants to be fed.

No matter what anyone says/thinks/does, the bottom line is that the credit crunch is a direct result of consumers who cannot/will not repay loans secured on property. And if banks are not certain folks will pay, they won't lend money. And it's really as simple as that. Money not available? Goods and products cannot be purchased that are traditionally financed by loans.

Think of it this way - if your friend/brother/sister borrows money from you, say $1000, and never pays you back or even offers to pay you back, then comes to you and asks to borrow yet another $1000, are you going to really loan it to them?? Is this a loan at this point? Or a gift? Whatever goods that person would have spent that money on will now not be able to be purchased. Now multiply that by billions, and you have today's credit crunch and resulting economy. Banks are afraid of their customers!

 

[mattl]

Either I'm surrounded by a group of very conscientious people or the perception that some here are espousing is wrong. I do not know ANYONE who ever bought a house or used a credit card or bought a car that did not intend to pay for or couldn't pay for the item. There might be a handful of people that fit that profile, but in no way can I believe that that is what caused this mess. Even if situations changed the people I know are making every effort to pay their bills.

I feel a big contributor to the current situation was the high fuel prices of last year. How much money was simply sucked out of the economy by the speculators that unnecessarily raised oil prices. Even now with prices back in line companies have not reduced their prices to reflect the lower costs. If you couple that with shady lending practices, regardless of what some here say banks did NOT have a gun to their head to give those loans, you have what amounts to a "perfect storm".

If you add in that you can't build an economy on consumer spending and at the same time take away the good paying jobs that allowed the economy to grow, the problem is amplified. Who took away the good paying jobs? Corporate management chasing the almighty stock price. Ship the jobs to Mexico or China and turn out a crappy product, who cares? If that is all that's available on the market so what?

In the end I put so much of the blame on a crop of @#$@#!% MBAs that came out of the greedy '80s and spread out across this country like vultures, and in the end destroying a basic fabric of this country.

Perhaps the rallying cry of the next revolution should be "Death to MBAs and CEOs".

 

[alr2903]

Hey remember in the late 80's early 90's the word on the street was we are leaving the "industrial age" and entering the "information age", Well "Yes We did", and the information is, The United States is broke or almost Broke. MattL, i think some folks have never lived in a community where the primary employer(s) just up and left. That said, lets move Government from Washington D.C. to Detroit so we can keep an eye on em. Detroit needs jobs just a thought.

 

[jeffg]

> I do not know ANYONE who ever bought a house or used a credit card or bought a car that did not intend to pay for or couldn't pay for the item. There might be a handful of people that fit that profile, but in no way can I believe that that is what caused this mess. Even if situations changed the people I know are making every effort to pay their bills.

Exactly. Credit card defaults in the U.S. have always been in the 2-3% range, and even in the middle of the current recession, more than 93% of us are still paying our bills every month.

Even with home mortgages, 4 out of 5 in the U.S. are being paid in full and on time. More than one-third of all mortgage defaults in the U.S. have occurred in one state: California.

As I said before, blaming consumers for a collapse of lending standards and corrections in the housing market is not only incorrect, it's ridiculous. In fact, with the overwhelming amount of pressure put on consumers every second of every day to buy, buy, and buy some more, what's amazing is the amount of constaint shown by consumers.

 

[andrewinorlando]

Perhaps the rallying cry of the next revolution should be "Death to MBAs and CEOs".

.....you guys are too funny.