Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Random_Dragon]

Ah, another nutjob ranting about the latest distraction from the literal goddamn traitor currently still trying to incite his cronies to subvert our shithole of a country's attempt to actually convinct someone for insurrection.

[bloop_bleep]

Is there any evidence of Biden doing or agreeing to do something in exchange for money? A guy helping pay his father's bills using the money he makes from his business dealings doesn't really implicate either of them. What were they talking about in the "JRB Memo" email thread, also?

[Frumple]

Is there any evidence of Biden doing or agreeing to do something in exchange for money?

As far as anyone seems to be able to actually tell, no. Lots of screeching it exists followed by a completely unsurprising lack of actually producing it.

[Micro102]

If there was evidence, every right wing media outlet would be displaying it. They instead just show pictures of Hunter nude because that is the best they have that won't get them sued for slander

[hector13]

Hunter has had his taxes looked at by federal investigators for years. If there was any evidence that the senior Biden was getting kickbacks, they would have found it.

The Daily Mail is another tabloid. Let’s have a look at some of their headlines…

“Ex-wife of The Road writer Cormac McCarthy pulled silver handgun from her genitals during argument with boyfriend over space aliens”

“Kate on a birthing ball, yoga with Pippa and Wills at birthing classes: The preparations for the birth of the royal baby (as imagined by celebrity photographer Alison Jackson)”

“Goodbye walk of shame: Finally, make- up you can sleep in that won't scare
men in the morning”

“That's a little fruity! Woman finds strawberry shaped like a penis in her
garden”

“Is There No-one Left In Britain That Can Make a Sandwich?”

Sounds like the last bastion of journalism.

[The_Explorer]

The hunter thing is such nonsense, its as nonsense as the worker protest thing going on in the auto industry.

All both are is to make biden look bad, during an amazing economic recovery post-covid (granted covid is still an issue, but not really as much it seems). And the hunter thing is a nonstory.

Compare it to trump, they actually focused on trump (democrats) AND his whole family. Republicans? All they can do is "but bidens son we got nothing on biden or anyone else so just focus on his son". Its nonsense lol.

And the worker protest? during a good economy? I dunno, maybe I don't understand whats going on there, but it just seems like an attempt to make (again) biden look bad to me which is weird.

[Lord Shonus]

And the worker protest? during a good economy? I dunno, maybe I don't understand whats going on there, but it just seems like an attempt to make (again) biden look bad to me which is weird.

Not sure what claim you're making here. The "worker protest" (actually contract negotiations because the current contract is expiring) in the auto industry is "all the benefits of the good economy are going into CEO and Corporate pockets and none of it is going into ours".

[The_Explorer]

And the worker protest? during a good economy? I dunno, maybe I don't understand whats going on there, but it just seems like an attempt to make (again) biden look bad to me which is weird.

Not sure what claim you're making here. The "worker protest" (actually contract negotiations because the current contract is expiring) in the auto industry is "all the benefits of the good economy are going into CEO and Corporate pockets and none of it is going into ours".

ah I see, so its a CEO issue. Pretty typical, like the Unity CEO who wants to destroy Unity like wanted to destroy EA all for money.

But, I thought the wages went up not too long ago? Minimum wages did anyway. But I guess the CEO is still taking a lot more. I didn't get that part I guess.

(edit: as for part making biden look bad. I mean when I went to X/twitter, a lot of trumptards celebrating the worker protest (has it officially started btw? If not either way they are celebrating it) when I checked that trending tag, same with the occasional celebration of the recent hospital protest forgot which one it was, starts with a Ka or something. Like they are actively celebrating anything that hurts america just because it hurts biden. Its dumb.)

[McTraveller]

I don't see how the union stuff has anything to do with Biden?

That said, the difference in CEO compensation with total salary is one of scale though - 40% increase in CEO pay is a very small absolute number compared to 40% increase in all hourly workers' pay.  It would be something like an extra $5B/year in labor costs.  The entire net income of the Big Three last year was only something like $12B - so that increased labor cost would reduce net income by more than 40%.  Paying the executives an additional $100M doesn't come anywhere close to the same impact to the company.

So there's a balance - yes the workers should get paid more, but you don't want to basically put the companies in a position where they have zero operating margin when there is a downturn; you can't pay workers if you don't sell enough cars (and I'm not sure how much the union contract has in it to scale the workforce exactly with sales, because labor required is not just a simple constant times the number of cars sold).

Which is why historically the companies have offered bonus structures - so they can indeed give the workers a piece of the profits, without over-encumbering the companies with commitments they can't guarantee.

That said - this negotiation is the process by which the aforementioned balance is determined, so it's "working as intended" as far as that goes: the workers want more "guaranteed" income, not bonuses, as well as things like pension and health care and the like.  Vacation and 4-day workweeks is also complicated; some costs (like health care) scale with number of employees, not hours worked, so shorter work weeks has a higher health care cost per hour worked (and therefore per car produced) because you need more people to maintain a given amount of production.  This is countered by new cars not needing as many people to begin with.  But - all these are estimates, not "guarantees", so the two sides are wrangling.

Also don't forget there's at least a third party affected by this, which doesn't have a seat at the negotiation table: people buying cars.  Higher car prices reduce sales quantity (all else equal) so increasing the cost basis for vehicles is likely to reduce sales quantity.  So neither the unions nor the companies know how much the labor contract will impact demand, which is ultimately the only thing that can pay for the contract, however it resolves.

[The_Explorer]

I don't see how the union stuff has anything to do with Biden?

That said, the difference in CEO compensation with total salary is one of scale though - 40% increase in CEO pay is a very small absolute number compared to 40% increase in all hourly workers' pay.  It would be something like an extra $5B/year in labor costs.  The entire net income of the Big Three last year was only something like $12B - so that increased labor cost would reduce net income by more than 40%.  Paying the executives an additional $100M doesn't come anywhere close to the same impact to the company.

So there's a balance - yes the workers should get paid more, but you don't want to basically put the companies in a position where they have zero operating margin when there is a downturn; you can't pay workers if you don't sell enough cars (and I'm not sure how much the union contract has in it to scale the workforce exactly with sales, because labor required is not just a simple constant times the number of cars sold).

Which is why historically the companies have offered bonus structures - so they can indeed give the workers a piece of the profits, without over-encumbering the companies with commitments they can't guarantee.

That said - this negotiation is the process by which the aforementioned balance is determined, so it's "working as intended" as far as that goes: the workers want more "guaranteed" income, not bonuses, as well as things like pension and health care and the like.  Vacation and 4-day workweeks is also complicated; some costs (like health care) scale with number of employees, not hours worked, so shorter work weeks has a higher health care cost per hour worked (and therefore per car produced) because you need more people to maintain a given amount of production.  This is countered by new cars not needing as many people to begin with.  But - all these are estimates, not "guarantees", so the two sides are wrangling.

Also don't forget there's at least a third party affected by this, which doesn't have a seat at the negotiation table: people buying cars.  Higher car prices reduce sales quantity (all else equal) so increasing the cost basis for vehicles is likely to reduce sales quantity.  So neither the unions nor the companies know how much the labor contract will impact demand, which is ultimately the only thing that can pay for the contract, however it resolves.

For the first thing about biden, nothing to me. Or most sensible people really (I'd hope most people are sensible). But its just ammo republicans are already using "looks like biden isn't very pro-worker" is what I've seen pretty much on twitter/X, and I even seen roughly the same thing when I took a gander at what fox news, already using the workers as an excuse against biden in one of their "news" articles. Most people I would hope are smart to look past it, but it is making the round.

thanks for the rest of the info though. It does make sense.

[hector13]

I would suggest that hourly workers have a much bigger impact on the buesiness than the executives do. If you take away the executives, cars are still being made and sold because the infrastructure is still there to do that without “higher functions”.

Do the same with hourly workers, and you’re making no money.

[Lord Shonus]

But, I thought the wages went up not too long ago? Minimum wages did anyway. But I guess the CEO is still taking a lot more. I didn't get that part I guess.

Not sure what minimum wage increase you're referencing, but it is possible that some of the car factories in question were in fact affected by such an increase. That said, you only get an automatic pay raise when minimum wages go up if you work below the new minimum wage. Some employers will bump you up, and unions will generally try to get a matching increase, but there's nothing to force it. The only time you have strong muscle to expect and demand higher pay is if you are in a unionized company and the contract is ending. Otherwise it is at the whim of the employer.

The UAW contracts were well above every state's minimum wage, so they were unaffected. More importantly, their last contract negotiations went through during a time when auto profits weren't that good, and the unions made a number of concessions to the weakened economic situation. Now the industry profits are up 63% over the contract period, wages are only up 6%, and the unions are fully intending to call in their markers for being reasonable last time. So they want to match that 63% increase in profit to a 40% increase in pay, plus reinstating cost-of-living adjustments and more benefits.


You keep calling this a "worker's protest", which is the wrong word. This will be a strike.

[McTraveller]

Hrm. This is either a mis-quote or an intentional "statistics never lie, but you can make them say whatever you want" situation:  The UAW head says Ford's statement that a 40% wage increase would eat all Ford's profit is a lie, because labor for a vehicle is only 5% of its cost so doubling it wouldn't matter.

But Ford's net margin is only about 5%....

So lets say every card Ford makes costs Ford $100 to make, UAW is claiming they only account for 5% of that cost, so $5.  Ford's margin is 5%, so they are selling cars for $105.  So if you double labor cost to $10, Ford's margin will go to.... 0.  It's like... percents don't work the way people think they do.

I can't tell if the UAW head was intentionally being confusing, knowing that the general public really can't do math, or if the head (and all his consultants) also can't do math...

[hector13]

40% of $5 is $2 though, so the increase would be to $7/7%, reducing margin to 3%, unless I’m missing something?

Ford won’t absorb the cost anyway. They’ll increase prices to pass it to consumers.

[Lord Shonus]

The UAW guy is talking about the manufacturing cost, which is only a portion of the total cost of a vehicle. Even if the idea that Ford only makes 5% margin (which I'm pretty sure is bullshit) is true, the total cost of a vehicle is far, far, far higher than the manufacturing cost.