sure wish we could discuss the UAWs incredible strike. (1 Viewer)

[dkp993]

So instead we‘re advocating (or outright doing it) contempt and disdain for employers.

That's pretty common though. There are always a lot more employees than employers in most groups so that's normally the sentiment.

Sure, I understand this. But that doesnt mean we shouldn’t push back against the narrative. It doesn’t make it true just because the group is larger.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I would support a shift in "feel" to say a 32-35 hr. work week, I think we as a society would be better off for it, but that's really hard to do if we all continue trying to keep up with the Joneses.

This feels like an important part of the conversation that is rarely brought up.

And part of the thing I mean when I say I'm interested in how so many people talk about this as if they have no control or responsibility on this.

I see people who aren't willing to drive a lesser car or live in a lesser home or apartment or not want to have 4 roommates or not buy the expensive thing they think they need.

Those things have a cost.

This is the heart of it imo. People want to work less but have more. That’s the definition of entitlement. Work less, that’s fine and certainly your right. But guess what, that means you don’t get to live without roommates and have the newest iPhone every year. Unfortunately I just don’t see the willingness to sacrifice anymore (either via working more or having less).

This would be true if wages have kept pace with inflation, but since that’s not the case, expecting to make more is well within people’s rights. There have been enough sacrifices in this regard.

It’s entitlement to want wages to at least keep pace with cost of living?

Are you Elon Musk?

I don't understand this. Wages are going up. UPS workers scored a big win. The UAW is probably going to get a good chunk of what they're asking for. This is what "increasing wages" looks like. Why do you think this isn't happening?

 

[massraider]

This is the heart of it imo. People want to work less but have more. That’s the definition of entitlement. Work less, that’s fine and certainly your right. But guess what, that means you don’t get to live without roommates and have the newest iPhone every year. Unfortunately I just don’t see the willingness to sacrifice anymore (either via working more or having less).

You followed this post with this post:

So instead we‘re advocating (or outright doing it) contempt and disdain for employers.

So, broad generalizations of employees (people)--no problem. Broad generalizations of employers--what is the world coming to?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Also, people are conflating salaried email jobs where people "work" 50 hour weeks with blue collar hourly jobs with 40 hour weeks. Those are two totally different things. Auto workers don't have work-life balance issues.

 

[dkp993]

This is the heart of it imo. People want to work less but have more. That’s the definition of entitlement. Work less, that’s fine and certainly your right. But guess what, that means you don’t get to live without roommates and have the newest iPhone every year. Unfortunately I just don’t see the willingness to sacrifice anymore (either via working more or having less).

You followed this post with this post:

So instead we‘re advocating (or outright doing it) contempt and disdain for employers.

So, broad generalizations of employees (people)--no problem. Broad generalizations of employers--what is the world coming to?

So your broad generalizations are ok and accurate but mine aren’t? Like you my opinions are based off of experience. But please point out where in either post I made where I’m wrong.

As I’ve pointed out many times here, while there are certainly bad actor employer’s I don’t believe the vast majority are. Nobody wants to work, that’s human nature, hell I’d love to be sitting on the beach in Costa Rico and chillin’ while also getting a new car every year and living where I want how I want. Unfortunately that’s now how life works. If you want something, more likely then not, you’re gonna have to work for it.

 

[Psychopav]

I believe that for public companies there should be a legislated maximum multiple of total compensation between the lowest and highest paid employee. It is the best way to hold the CEO accountable for results that benefit the workers, which is in society's best interest.

I believe private companies should be able to structure pay however they want (or are able to negotiate if they have to deal with unions).

The SEC has required disclosure of CEO pay ratio since 2018. Beyond that it's up to the shareholders and prospective shareholders what they want to do with that information.

And I'd like to see the legislature change that. The shareholders and the CEO are not objective and don't represent the interests of the people.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I don’t know physician:nurse pay ratio offhand, but it feels like it has been decreasing…please correct me of I’m wrong.

I don't know. Quick google showed this. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8403397/

Results​

Unadjusted median wage growth was 9.92% for nurses, 5.68% for healthcare practitioners, and 37.6% for physicians between 2001 and 2017. These rates are roughly above the estimated national rate of wage growth at the 50th wage percentile. In healthcare support and direct patient care occupations, workers experienced either stagnant or negative wage growth. Women had lower occupational wages than men.

No idea if that's accurate.

Now that you mention it, my pay more than doubled in that period. I’ve responded by cutting my hours almost in half, to improve life satisfaction. So take home didn’t change much at all, but I work much less.

My gestalt is I was underpaid initially, but now make too much, though I’m not campaigning to lower my wage. Of note, years ago I suggested a pay cut for my position at a meeting, in exchange for working less hours. My partners weren’t interested - it seems people would rather complain about being burned out than do something about it. Or they’ve painted themselves into a financial corner, so work:life balance isn’t achievable.

 

[massraider]

So your broad generalizations are ok and accurate but mine aren’t? Like you my opinions are based off of experience. But please point out where in either post I made where I’m wrong.

I am not the one who followed one post insulting every American worker with another defending the honor of every employer in the country. You did everything except make an avocado toast reference.

My broad generalizations is not about individual employers, but corporate structure, and in particular need for constant growth.

 

[Stoneworker]

I believe that for public companies there should be a legislated maximum multiple of total compensation between the lowest and highest paid employee. It is the best way to hold the CEO accountable for results that benefit the workers, which is in society's best interest.

I believe private companies should be able to structure pay however they want (or are able to negotiate if they have to deal with unions).

The SEC has required disclosure of CEO pay ratio since 2018. Beyond that it's up to the shareholders and prospective shareholders what they want to do with that information.

And I'd like to see the legislature change that. The shareholders and the CEO are not objective and don't represent the interests of the people.

This thread is already teetering on political. Please don't tip it over the edge.

 

[dkp993]

So your broad generalizations are ok and accurate but mine aren’t? Like you my opinions are based off of experience. But please point out where in either post I made where I’m wrong.

I am not the one who followed one post insulting every American worker with another defending the honor of every employer in the country. You did everything except make an avocado toast reference.

My broad generalizations is not about individual employers, but corporate structure, and in particular need for constant growth.

Every American worker? Really. So myself as well as I’m American and a worker? Also I defended the honor of Every employer while also saying multiple times in this thread alone that there are bad actors out there. And somehow your broad generalization is super specific but mine can’t have any context at all? Hyperbole much?

 

[Psychopav]

I believe that for public companies there should be a legislated maximum multiple of total compensation between the lowest and highest paid employee. It is the best way to hold the CEO accountable for results that benefit the workers, which is in society's best interest.

I believe private companies should be able to structure pay however they want (or are able to negotiate if they have to deal with unions).

The SEC has required disclosure of CEO pay ratio since 2018. Beyond that it's up to the shareholders and prospective shareholders what they want to do with that information.

And I'd like to see the legislature change that. The shareholders and the CEO are not objective and don't represent the interests of the people.

This thread is already teetering on political. Please don't tip it over the edge.

I don't think I'm doing that, but ok.

 

[massraider]

Every American worker? Really. So myself as well as I’m American and a worker? Also I defended the honor of Every employer while also saying multiple times in this thread alone that there are bad actors out there. And somehow your broad generalization is super specific but mine can’t have any context at all? Hyperbole much?

This is ridiculous. You haven't even said what generalization of mine offends you. Now you want to win some semantics argument. I give up you win.

 

[Terminalxylem]

And of course, like anything, it comes down to defining what we really mean.

What exactly is a "terrible work/life balance?"

What is an acceptable work/life balance?

I feel like us, as Americans have a terrible work vs life balance. There is a reason we are more stressed, and less healthy than a lot of other nations and this is a big reason.

We work way too many hours, and take way to few vacations. It causes us to sleep less, eat more unhealthy food for the sake of cost and convenience. We live paycheck to paycheck, so it feels like we can never stop.

This is the broad stroke and most people fit into this, not all people. There are people that balance long hours with a good diet and plenty of rest, there are people that don't live paycheck to paycheck, there are people that take lots of vacations. My point is we should make it easier so more people can do it, not just the rich, or extremely well disciplined.

People shouldn't have to choose between being a good parent, having hobbies, getting rest and exercise, and a career. We should be able to do most or all of it. I also believe if more people weren't so stressed and worried about money, and parenting, and sleeping and being healthy that we would be a lot better off as country and species.

Most of Europe has this figured out

This seems to be the common thinking.

Americans are too stressed and eat poorly and have a terrible work life balance.

But Europe has it figured out.

Would be interested to hear way more about this.

What keeps us from "figuring it out?"

Is this terrible work life balance just something that happens to us and we have no say in it?

A culture of materialism and convenience, and a government that promotes unhealthful living.

 

[dkp993]

Every American worker? Really. So myself as well as I’m American and a worker? Also I defended the honor of Every employer while also saying multiple times in this thread alone that there are bad actors out there. And somehow your broad generalization is super specific but mine can’t have any context at all? Hyperbole much?

This is ridiculous. You haven't even said what generalization of mine offends you. Now you want to win some semantics argument. I give up you win.

It’s not semantics, it’s your own words. I also never said anything you said “offended” me. You started this by quoting me, not the other way around.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Come on, guys.

 

[HellToupee]

I believe that for public companies there should be a legislated maximum multiple of total compensation between the lowest and highest paid employee. It is the best way to hold the CEO accountable for results that benefit the workers, which is in society's best interest.

I believe private companies should be able to structure pay however they want (or are able to negotiate if they have to deal with unions).

It doesn’t seem healthy to have a ceo compensation 400x average salary of a worker

 

[dkp993]

I believe that for public companies there should be a legislated maximum multiple of total compensation between the lowest and highest paid employee. It is the best way to hold the CEO accountable for results that benefit the workers, which is in society's best interest.

I believe private companies should be able to structure pay however they want (or are able to negotiate if they have to deal with unions).

It doesn’t seem healthy to have a ceo compensation 400x average salary of a worker

While it’s understandable to see that ratio and say wow, not cool. But how much should a CEO of a 150+ billion dollar with 186,000 employees make? (Ford in this example) Seems like a pretty massive job with an incredible amount of responsibility. 20mil doesn’t seem out of proportion to me.

 

[Stoneworker]

But how much should a CEO of a 150+ billion dollar with 186,000 employees make? (Ford in this example) Seems like a pretty massive job with an incredible amount of responsibility. 20mil doesn’t seem out of proportion to me.

More than an NFL quarterback playing a game, that's for sure (J. Burrow = $55mm/yr). And yet the somehow the QB's are lauded for "taking care of their family." Pretty funny double standard.

 

[dkp993]

But how much should a CEO of a 150+ billion dollar with 186,000 employees make? (Ford in this example) Seems like a pretty massive job with an incredible amount of responsibility. 20mil doesn’t seem out of proportion to me.

More than an NFL quarterback playing a game, that's for sure. And yet the somehow the QB's are lauded for "taking care of their family." Pretty funny double standard.

Yeah you would think being in the top 50 in the world in your profession would be paid commensurately.

 

[Da Guru]

I worked two summers while in college for a company that did 40 hour work week but in 4 10 hour days.

Half the staff was off on Mondays, half off on Fridays. They rotated every month.

I used to love Sundays when I was off Mondays. A true Sunday-Funday

 

[Scoresman]

I would support a shift in "feel" to say a 32-35 hr. work week, I think we as a society would be better off for it, but that's really hard to do if we all continue trying to keep up with the Joneses.

This feels like an important part of the conversation that is rarely brought up.

And part of the thing I mean when I say I'm interested in how so many people talk about this as if they have no control or responsibility on this.

I see people who aren't willing to drive a lesser car or live in a lesser home or apartment or not want to have 4 roommates or not buy the expensive thing they think they need.

Those things have a cost.

This is the heart of it imo. People want to work less but have more. That’s the definition of entitlement. Work less, that’s fine and certainly your right. But guess what, that means you don’t get to live without roommates and have the newest iPhone every year. Unfortunately I just don’t see the willingness to sacrifice anymore (either via working more or having less).

This would be true if wages have kept pace with inflation, but since that’s not the case, expecting to make more is well within people’s rights. There have been enough sacrifices in this regard.

It’s entitlement to want wages to at least keep pace with cost of living?

Are you Elon Musk?

I don't understand this. Wages are going up. UPS workers scored a big win. The UAW is probably going to get a good chunk of what they're asking for. This is what "increasing wages" looks like. Why do you think this isn't happening

But how much should a CEO of a 150+ billion dollar with 186,000 employees make? (Ford in this example) Seems like a pretty massive job with an incredible amount of responsibility. 20mil doesn’t seem out of proportion to me.

More than an NFL quarterback playing a game, that's for sure (J. Burrow = $55mm/yr). And yet the somehow the QB's are lauded for "taking care of their family." Pretty funny double standard.

Who is saying this?

 

[Joe Bryant]

My partners weren’t interested - it seems people would rather complain about being burned out than do something about it.

I agree with this. I'm interested in how many people seem as if they have no control over this. But obviously, as you've shown, people do have some control.

 

[belljr]

Hourly vs Salary are 2 different worlds. Every salaried position Ive had it was expected to work more than 40

Also middle class to lower class didn't paint themselves into corners "keeping up with the joneses"

 

[The Z Machine]

Wages have gone up in the last 3 years but inflation went up faster. That's a major issue. No doubt that increasing wages can drive inflation, but workers have a right to demand higher wages when prices around them are escalating.

Me personally, i have not been advocating for a promotion, nor have I been searching for a higher paying job. Partly because of work-life balance, partly because I like the work I'm currently doing and I like my boss, and partly because people like me seem to get the axe in a disproportionate amount around here. Why stuck my neck out with a big salary that HR will see in the next RIF?

 

[Nugget]

Hoping they make progress this week. I’d expect an escalation to a powertrain plant if the stalemate continues. Not sure if they will continue to strike each automaker in similar fashion.

 

[Joe Bryant]

and a government that promotes unhealthful living.

Can you elaborate?

 

[humpback]

I would support a shift in "feel" to say a 32-35 hr. work week, I think we as a society would be better off for it, but that's really hard to do if we all continue trying to keep up with the Joneses.

This feels like an important part of the conversation that is rarely brought up.

And part of the thing I mean when I say I'm interested in how so many people talk about this as if they have no control or responsibility on this.

I see people who aren't willing to drive a lesser car or live in a lesser home or apartment or not want to have 4 roommates or not buy the expensive thing they think they need.

Those things have a cost.

Agreed. I think people get so dug in that they're afraid to even acknowledge that there are trade offs, and it's far easier to blame someone else than it is to take personal responsibility. Of course, that doesn't mean it all comes down to personal choices either. As with most things, it's a combination.

 

[Terminalxylem]

and a government that promotes unhealthful living.

Can you elaborate?

Agricultural subsidies for stuff other than fruits and veggies, inadequate promotion of exercise through infrastructure like bicycle paths/walkways, poor reimbursement for preventative health services, defunded public health departments, avoidance of meaningful drug and firearm legislation, etc. A lot of politics in this discussion, so I’ll stop there.

 

[msudaisy26]

So your broad generalizations are ok and accurate but mine aren’t? Like you my opinions are based off of experience. But please point out where in either post I made where I’m wrong.

I am not the one who followed one post insulting every American worker with another defending the honor of every employer in the country. You did everything except make an avocado toast reference.

My broad generalizations is not about individual employers, but corporate structure, and in particular need for constant growth.

The constant growth thing always puzzles me. We can only have so many cars on the road, new people get drivers license and older people lose them. In every industry there is a cap on growth and it seems like everytime that cap is passed these huge corporations start doing things to keep growing and it is usually at the expense of the blue collar workers.

 

[Stoneworker]

So your broad generalizations are ok and accurate but mine aren’t? Like you my opinions are based off of experience. But please point out where in either post I made where I’m wrong.

I am not the one who followed one post insulting every American worker with another defending the honor of every employer in the country. You did everything except make an avocado toast reference.

My broad generalizations is not about individual employers, but corporate structure, and in particular need for constant growth.

The constant growth thing always puzzles me. We can only have so many cars on the road, new people get drivers license and older people lose them. In every industry there is a cap on growth and it seems like everytime that cap is passed these huge corporations start doing things to keep growing and it is usually at the expense of the blue collar workers.

If a company doesn't grow its earnings, no one will invest a dollar of new capital into it. And not long after that, existing investors will start selling their shares because they can get better returns elsewhere, which will trigger a downward spiral in the value of the company. And then the company will die...or at best be sold at a discount and incur large layoffs.

Are those outcomes better or worse for blue collar workers than maintaining constant growth?

 

[msudaisy26]

So your broad generalizations are ok and accurate but mine aren’t? Like you my opinions are based off of experience. But please point out where in either post I made where I’m wrong.

I am not the one who followed one post insulting every American worker with another defending the honor of every employer in the country. You did everything except make an avocado toast reference.

My broad generalizations is not about individual employers, but corporate structure, and in particular need for constant growth.

The constant growth thing always puzzles me. We can only have so many cars on the road, new people get drivers license and older people lose them. In every industry there is a cap on growth and it seems like everytime that cap is passed these huge corporations start doing things to keep growing and it is usually at the expense of the blue collar workers.

If a company doesn't grow its earnings per share, no one will invest a dollar of new capital into it. And not long after that, existing investors will start selling their shares because they can get better returns elsewhere, which will trigger a downward spiral in the value of the company. And then the company will die...or at best be sold at a discount and incur large layoffs.

Are those outcomes better or worse for blue collar workers than maintaining constant growth?

That is the problem. We have to grow. So take cuts or smaller raises or lose your job. No win situation for the workers, or Ford (for example) could be happy with a 23.66 billion dollar profit from last year, but nope have to hit 25 billion next year.

 

[Stoneworker]

That is the problem. We have to grow. So take cuts or smaller raises or lose your job. No win situation for the workers, or Ford (for example) could be happy with a 23.66 billion dollar profit from last year, but nope have to hit 25 billion next year.

Not necessarily. They could grow through innovation, which is what the Big 3 are trying to do w/ EVs. But the workers would need to adapt their skills accordingly. And unfortunately the high labor costs of the legacy ICE era are putting the companies at a competitive disadvantage relative to Tesla and Toyota. So they are at risk of becoming dinosaurs.

We want EVs to help solve climate change, but many aren't willing to tolerate the creative destruction required to get them.

 

[massraider]

If a company doesn't grow its earnings per share, no one will invest a dollar of new capital into it. And not long after that, existing investors will start selling their shares because they can get better returns elsewhere, which will trigger a downward spiral in the value of the company. And then the company will die...or at best be sold at a discount and incur large layoffs.

Are those outcomes better or worse for blue collar workers than maintaining constant growth?

You make a fine argument for never working for a publicly traded company.

Increasing earnings per share can be done in a lot of ways, many of which are bad for the long term health of a company.

Lot of people got wiped out when companies value stock price and growth over business fundamentals.

 

[msudaisy26]

That is the problem. We have to grow. So take cuts or smaller raises or lose your job. No win situation for the workers, or Ford (for example) could be happy with a 23.66 billion dollar profit from last year, but nope have to hit 25 billion next year.

Not necessarily. They could grow through innovation, which is what the Big 3 are trying to do w/ EVs. But the workers would need to adapt their skills accordingly. And unfortunately the high labor costs of the legacy ICE era are putting the companies at a competitive disadvantage relative to Tesla and Toyota. So they are at risk of becoming dinosaurs.

We want EVs to help solve climate change, but many aren't willing to tolerate the creative destruction required to get them.

For the last few years they (Ford) are averaging over 20 billion a year in profit and they are some how a risk to go extinct? I am sorry that is some chicken little the sky is falling nonsense.

 

[Stoneworker]

That is the problem. We have to grow. So take cuts or smaller raises or lose your job. No win situation for the workers, or Ford (for example) could be happy with a 23.66 billion dollar profit from last year, but nope have to hit 25 billion next year.

Not necessarily. They could grow through innovation, which is what the Big 3 are trying to do w/ EVs. But the workers would need to adapt their skills accordingly. And unfortunately the high labor costs of the legacy ICE era are putting the companies at a competitive disadvantage relative to Tesla and Toyota. So they are at risk of becoming dinosaurs.

We want EVs to help solve climate change, but many aren't willing to tolerate the creative destruction required to get them.

For the last few years they (Ford) are averaging over 20 billion a year in profit and they are some how a risk to go extinct? I am sorry that is some chicken little the sky is falling nonsense.

Lol. The entire industry has been bailed out multiple times by the government in the past.

 

[Stoneworker]

If a company doesn't grow its earnings per share, no one will invest a dollar of new capital into it. And not long after that, existing investors will start selling their shares because they can get better returns elsewhere, which will trigger a downward spiral in the value of the company. And then the company will die...or at best be sold at a discount and incur large layoffs.

Are those outcomes better or worse for blue collar workers than maintaining constant growth?

You make a fine argument for never working for a publicly traded company.

Increasing earnings per share can be done in a lot of ways, many of which are bad for the long term health of a company.

Lot of people got wiped out when companies value stock price and growth over business fundamentals.

There's nearly 6,000 publicly traded companies in the U.S. that employ millions of people. But really no one should work for any of them. That makes a ton of sense.

 

[Nugget]

That is the problem. We have to grow. So take cuts or smaller raises or lose your job. No win situation for the workers, or Ford (for example) could be happy with a 23.66 billion dollar profit from last year, but nope have to hit 25 billion next year.

Not necessarily. They could grow through innovation, which is what the Big 3 are trying to do w/ EVs. But the workers would need to adapt their skills accordingly. And unfortunately the high labor costs of the legacy ICE era are putting the companies at a competitive disadvantage relative to Tesla and Toyota. So they are at risk of becoming dinosaurs.

We want EVs to help solve climate change, but many aren't willing to tolerate the creative destruction required to get them.

For the last few years they (Ford) are averaging over 20 billion a year in profit and they are some how a risk to go extinct? I am sorry that is some chicken little the sky is falling nonsense.

Your numbers are high. Ford made about half that last year At 10.4B. Link to 2021 and 2020 profit in the Freep article.

Ford made $10 billion in 2021, including $2 billion in 4th quarter

Ford released its earnings for 2021 on Thursday, showing how the automaker's bottom line fared during a year dominated by the ongoing chip shortage.

www.freep.com

They have the worst margins out of the major OEMs and the big 3 need to remain competitive on cost with Toyota and Tesla. There is room to improve wages for the UAW, but both sides need to keep Ford healthy if they want continued investment in US plants.

 

[msudaisy26]

That is the problem. We have to grow. So take cuts or smaller raises or lose your job. No win situation for the workers, or Ford (for example) could be happy with a 23.66 billion dollar profit from last year, but nope have to hit 25 billion next year.

Not necessarily. They could grow through innovation, which is what the Big 3 are trying to do w/ EVs. But the workers would need to adapt their skills accordingly. And unfortunately the high labor costs of the legacy ICE era are putting the companies at a competitive disadvantage relative to Tesla and Toyota. So they are at risk of becoming dinosaurs.

We want EVs to help solve climate change, but many aren't willing to tolerate the creative destruction required to get them.

For the last few years they (Ford) are averaging over 20 billion a year in profit and they are some how a risk to go extinct? I am sorry that is some chicken little the sky is falling nonsense.

Lol. The entire industry has been bailed out multiple times by the government in the past.

You are moving the goal posts because one had nothing to do with the other and it that is a completely different discussion.

I may not be remembering correctly, but Ford didn't take the money in 2008, did they?

 

[msudaisy26]

That is the problem. We have to grow. So take cuts or smaller raises or lose your job. No win situation for the workers, or Ford (for example) could be happy with a 23.66 billion dollar profit from last year, but nope have to hit 25 billion next year.

Not necessarily. They could grow through innovation, which is what the Big 3 are trying to do w/ EVs. But the workers would need to adapt their skills accordingly. And unfortunately the high labor costs of the legacy ICE era are putting the companies at a competitive disadvantage relative to Tesla and Toyota. So they are at risk of becoming dinosaurs.

We want EVs to help solve climate change, but many aren't willing to tolerate the creative destruction required to get them.

For the last few years they (Ford) are averaging over 20 billion a year in profit and they are some how a risk to go extinct? I am sorry that is some chicken little the sky is falling nonsense.

Your numbers are high. Ford made about half that last year At 10.4B. Link to 2021 and 2020 profit in the Freep article.

Ford made $10 billion in 2021, including $2 billion in 4th quarter

Ford released its earnings for 2021 on Thursday, showing how the automaker's bottom line fared during a year dominated by the ongoing chip shortage.

www.freep.com

They have the worst margins out of the major OEMs and the big 3 need to remain competitive on cost with Toyota and Tesla. There is room to improve wages for the UAW, but both sides need to keep Ford healthy if they want continued investment in US plants.

It maybe, I don't know the best and most accurate sites to get that information from. I got mine here.

Ford Motor Gross Profit 2010-2024 | F

Ford Motor annual/quarterly gross profit history and growth rate from 2010 to 2024. Gross profit can be defined as the profit a company makes after deducting the variable costs directly associated with making and selling its products or providing its services. <ul...

www.macrotrends.net

I think the point still stands. A company making that kind of profit isn't in danger of going extinct anytime soon. They may fall behind other companies, but they won't be gone.

 

[dkp993]

That is the problem. We have to grow. So take cuts or smaller raises or lose your job. No win situation for the workers, or Ford (for example) could be happy with a 23.66 billion dollar profit from last year, but nope have to hit 25 billion next year.

Not necessarily. They could grow through innovation, which is what the Big 3 are trying to do w/ EVs. But the workers would need to adapt their skills accordingly. And unfortunately the high labor costs of the legacy ICE era are putting the companies at a competitive disadvantage relative to Tesla and Toyota. So they are at risk of becoming dinosaurs.

We want EVs to help solve climate change, but many aren't willing to tolerate the creative destruction required to get them.

For the last few years they (Ford) are averaging over 20 billion a year in profit and they are some how a risk to go extinct? I am sorry that is some chicken little the sky is falling nonsense.

In fairness these things change fast. It wasn’t long ago GE was a juggernaut for 50yrs, it‘s 1/3 of what it was and it happened fast. The car market is undeniably rapidly changing. I‘m not prognosticating what’s going to happen with Ford but if they (and the other huge Automakers) don’t watch out the cliff could come for them too.

 

[msudaisy26]

That is the problem. We have to grow. So take cuts or smaller raises or lose your job. No win situation for the workers, or Ford (for example) could be happy with a 23.66 billion dollar profit from last year, but nope have to hit 25 billion next year.

Not necessarily. They could grow through innovation, which is what the Big 3 are trying to do w/ EVs. But the workers would need to adapt their skills accordingly. And unfortunately the high labor costs of the legacy ICE era are putting the companies at a competitive disadvantage relative to Tesla and Toyota. So they are at risk of becoming dinosaurs.

We want EVs to help solve climate change, but many aren't willing to tolerate the creative destruction required to get them.

For the last few years they (Ford) are averaging over 20 billion a year in profit and they are some how a risk to go extinct? I am sorry that is some chicken little the sky is falling nonsense.

In fairness these things change fast. It wasn’t long ago GE was a juggernaut for 50yrs, it‘s 1/3 of what it was and it happened fast. The car market is undeniably rapidly changing. I‘m not prognosticating what’s going to happen with Ford but if they (and the other huge Automakers) don’t watch out the cliff could come for them too.

I disagree, if they run properly. They have been around for well over 100 years.

Plus we heard all the cries in 2008 how we were all in this together and the UAW and their workers had to give back so everyone could survive and the workers did., but for the last decade these auto makers have been thriving and not fairly sharing the prosperity.

 

[Nugget]

That is the problem. We have to grow. So take cuts or smaller raises or lose your job. No win situation for the workers, or Ford (for example) could be happy with a 23.66 billion dollar profit from last year, but nope have to hit 25 billion next year.

Not necessarily. They could grow through innovation, which is what the Big 3 are trying to do w/ EVs. But the workers would need to adapt their skills accordingly. And unfortunately the high labor costs of the legacy ICE era are putting the companies at a competitive disadvantage relative to Tesla and Toyota. So they are at risk of becoming dinosaurs.

We want EVs to help solve climate change, but many aren't willing to tolerate the creative destruction required to get them.

For the last few years they (Ford) are averaging over 20 billion a year in profit and they are some how a risk to go extinct? I am sorry that is some chicken little the sky is falling nonsense.

Your numbers are high. Ford made about half that last year At 10.4B. Link to 2021 and 2020 profit in the Freep article.

Ford made $10 billion in 2021, including $2 billion in 4th quarter

Ford released its earnings for 2021 on Thursday, showing how the automaker's bottom line fared during a year dominated by the ongoing chip shortage.

www.freep.com

They have the worst margins out of the major OEMs and the big 3 need to remain competitive on cost with Toyota and Tesla. There is room to improve wages for the UAW, but both sides need to keep Ford healthy if they want continued investment in US plants.

It maybe, I don't know the best and most accurate sites to get that information from. I got mine here.

Ford Motor Gross Profit 2010-2024 | F

Ford Motor annual/quarterly gross profit history and growth rate from 2010 to 2024. Gross profit can be defined as the profit a company makes after deducting the variable costs directly associated with making and selling its products or providing its services. <ul...

www.macrotrends.net

I think the point still stands. A company making that kind of profit isn't in danger of going extinct anytime soon. They may fall behind other companies, but they won't be gone.

The problem is a competitive price in the market for a vehicle. If Tesla drops their price 10%, Ford can’t keep up because they are working from a 5% margin. Hopefully margins improve as Ford brings more battery production in house.

 

[Stoneworker]

There's a reason why Tesla's market cap is over 5x the combined value of Ford, GM and Stellantis. Investors know where this industry is headed.

 

[Stoneworker]

Plus we heard all the cries in 2008 how we were all in this together and the UAW and their workers had to give back so everyone could survive and the workers did., but for the last decade these auto makers have been thriving and not fairly sharing the prosperity.

I don't think a single person in this thread has discouraged the workers for negotiating for every single penny they can. Good for them. But it has implications.

 

[msudaisy26]

Plus we heard all the cries in 2008 how we were all in this together and the UAW and their workers had to give back so everyone could survive and the workers did., but for the last decade these auto makers have been thriving and not fairly sharing the prosperity.

I don't think a single person in this thread has discouraged the workers for negotiating for every single penny they can. Good for them. But it has implications.

This is the problem. When the company is more profitable it is great for the economy and good for business, no matter how they do it. (with a few exceptions). When the workers make more money it has implications and screws over the consumer, and hurts the business.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Agreed. I think people get so dug in that they're afraid to even acknowledge that there are trade offs, and it's far easier to blame someone else than it is to take personal responsibility. Of course, that doesn't mean it all comes down to personal choices either. As with most things, it's a combination.

Agreed. Much easier to blame big business or a government that doesn't promote everything you want or something else.

Actually doing something about the work life balance, even though we have a lot of control and responsibility ourselves for it, seems to be way more difficult.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This is the problem. When the company is more profitable it is great for the economy and good for business, no matter how they do it. (with a few exceptions). When the workers make more money it has implications and screws over the consumer, and hurts the business.

It's the opposite of that. Typically workers at more-profitable firms earn more than those at less-profitable firms. That's why auto workers make quite a bit more than most other blue-collar workers. They definitely benefit from having the auto industry do well, and they suffer when the auto industry does not do well. (The UAW 100% for sure knows this -- obviously they want to negotiate the best deal possible for their members, but they're not actually interested in killing off Ford or anybody else. That's not in their interests.)

 

[msudaisy26]

This is the problem. When the company is more profitable it is great for the economy and good for business, no matter how they do it. (with a few exceptions). When the workers make more money it has implications and screws over the consumer, and hurts the business.

It's the opposite of that. Typically workers at more-profitable firms earn more than those at less-profitable firms. That's why auto workers make quite a bit more than most other blue-collar workers. They definitely benefit from having the auto industry do well, and they suffer when the auto industry does not do well. (The UAW 100% for sure knows this -- obviously they want to negotiate the best deal possible for their members, but they're not actually interested in killing off Ford or anybody else. That's not in their interests.)

I don't think this is true. Obviously this is just my experience, but my husband is a tradesman in Detroit. He makes more per hour and has better benefits and a pension than these UAW workers. His sister and dad are both UAW workers, his sister got in right when they started the tiered pay system. She still makes less than her dad who retired almost 15 years ago.

 

[supermike80]

This strike will eventually help the current workers, the next generations though, watch out. Jobs will be sent to mexico, china, anywhere but here. It's a bad strategy. But hey, take care of you now, who cares about the next generations.

 

[msudaisy26]

This strike will eventually help the current workers, the next generations though, watch out. Jobs will be sent to mexico, china, anywhere but here. It's a bad strategy. But hey, take care of you now, who cares about the next generations.

They said the same thing 100 years ago too.