southsider2k5

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:51 AM) If you "train your customers" and I do business the way they prefer, who will have more business and better satisfied customers? So you are in favor of a less efficient post office, INS, etc.? The big question would be is it more effecient to change the whole system for a few, or change a few for the whole system?

This must be more of this "bipartisianship" we heard so much about during the Congressional elections.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:40 AM) When I was Executive Director of the South Texas Manufacturers Association I received numerous "state of industry" reports from the DoL. All pointed to a decline in "real wages". And it isn't only declining wages, or wages that are not keeping up with gains in other sectors, but we are losing those jobs. From textiles to food production. Autos to computers. We actually manufactured computers, from the component level up in this country. Find one now. So I take you don't have any statistics?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:36 AM) Well which is it? You seem to be offering two different scenarios, I'm confused. You tell me. I have offered the same arguement all along when it comes to growth. The reality on the ground is that people who want better benefits and higher wages are shooting themselves in the foot by allowing a 10% expansion of the labor pool. You don't have to agree with the position of an arguement to be able to understand the fundementals that go with an arguement. Think about it. If you are a part of a group with a certian skill set, do you want more or less people around who also can do your job. Now what if part of that group was willing to work for way less than you could afford to do? What effect do you think that would have on wages? Now why do you think big business is in favor of letting the illegals stay? Its not a big leap to understand it.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:25 AM) We are losing higher paying jobs and replacing them with lower paying jobs. The demand for these jobs go up, the qualified and willing pool goes up. Wages remain low. Manufacturing jobs paid very well. Tool and Die makers well over $50,000 per year. Industrial Maintenance equal to that. All the way down to line assembly work. Same formerly with customer service. Show me one official statistic that shows a declining wage in the US. Even in the manufacturing sector this is not true.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:16 AM) So it is bad for America when business owners are able to pay lower wages? IIRC you taught me that owners need bigger profits so they can reinvest in the businesses and hire more people and everyone gains, we receive more tax revenues, etc. And how are we adding these people? I thought they were already here and working jobs. That's funny, because I keep getting told that all of these illegals are vital to me keeping my lifestyle. I am so confused. :

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:07 AM) Of course, part of the problem there is that nowadays, boards of directors are so intertwined with the companies they are supposed to oversee (sometimes even being the same people), that the check and balance they are supposed to provide no longer exists. The other major check that is supposed to keep executive salaries under some degree of control is the publishing of those salaries and their effect on public entities' stock prices. That's why the push lately to show FULL compensation information. But, unfortunately, the markets are now so used to the absurdly high salaries of executives that they no longer flinch at a CEO making $25M a year at a company that is losing $50M a year. The trainwreck that is Sarbines Oxley was supposed to fix that mess. Ha. Ah usual, more government regulation had the opposite of the intended effects. It added more costs to doing business, has led to a flight of companies willing to have their stock traded in the US because of regulatory costs, and it led to an explosion of CEO and executive salaries. Now with all of that stuff being public disclosed knowledge all it led to is things becoming like baseball free agency and everyone wanting to out do each other. The idea was that stockholders and the public were supposed to be outraged at the high numbers, instead now that they know what their competitors are paying, they know that they have to outdo those numbers or they could lose their valued executives. Now back to feduciary duties, I don't think most people also realize that management and the board of directors can be sued for their business decesions that they make and held liable to the creditors for those moves. Its another yet another risk that Joe Lineworker doesn't have. Its not like people are going to take on all of this out of the goodness of their hearts. If that were the case, public companies would be fighting not for profits for people to run their organizations, and not the opposite. And I know it is cute to dabble in "what ifs" and all of that stuff, but the reality is that things don't happen that way. For some strange reason, people don't want to work 100 weeks, risk their professional careers, give up control of the companies, put their personal fortunes on the line, and do it for nothing. Its just like anything, where if people take a risk, they want at least the promise of reward comisserate with the risk they are taking. That is the reality of the situation.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 07:55 AM) Are you referring to illegal immigration? Because I'd suggest there are other, bigger players. The total workforce in the US is only 150 million people. Adding somewhere around 10% of people to the supply who are willing to work for anything has a huge depressing effect on wages. It takes a hell of a lot more money out of workers pocket than any CEO stock option bonus, which is what most of the huge bonus numbers that you see today are. But then again, paper gains don't make for good arguements either.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 12, 2007 -> 11:02 PM) Funny you should mention that. At United, the CEO did take a paycut of about 15% to show he was serious about turning the airline around. Symbolic really, because it was about 100K a year savings to the company - but upon emergence, the CEO received a 300K bonus - equivalent to a raise of 30% for that year and 1% of United's total stock. In fact about 150 million of the 1.8 billion dollar market cap on UAL went to 400 board members and managers. The workers, who all took paycuts of 25-40 percent? They got nothing. I am curious about something. Do you have knowledge of the feduciary duties, rights, and responsibilities of a board of directors and upper management teams?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 12, 2007 -> 04:40 PM) Here's the other point I'd add on to this and to what I said earlier... What forces are there that you can name that would make the average American's wage go down? Things like a poor economy, crashes, issues at a particular company, rising production costs, competition from overseas, etc. In general, you hear more about wage and benefit cuts whenever some business or some sector of the economy struggles for whatever reason. Hell, just the movement of Walmart in an area was enough to force all the grocery stores out here to make their employees take a 1/3 pay cut or so. Now, what forces can you name, or what market conditions can you name that would make salaries in upper management go down? Thus far, the arguments here have been that you have to keep paying CEO's, especially in tough times, because you have to retain top talent. But as far as I can tell, when things are going well in a company, you also want to pay CEO's well to hold onto them then because they're doing a good job. So, I ask...what force out there exists that is actually counterbalancing the drive to increase CEO wages? What market situation could exist that would push them downwards? The irony is that you are forgetting to mention the biggest source of wage depression in the US today...

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 12, 2007 -> 03:49 PM) Would you feel better as an employee who took a slightly smaller pay cut and watched as the CEO also took a cut and not a raise? I think we all would. And I'll differentiate between a CEO and an owner. If you had the skills and experience to be a CEO, would you take a pay CUT to go into a much more difficult, intense, and thankless job, where you have very little control over your finances, yet have to guide a major corporation through bankruptcy? Or would you take the other job that paid more, and offered less headaches and more control? Think about this for a second. We are talking about post 9-11 airlines. Many of these companies were left for dead, for many of the reasons that Rex outlined. I don't think you guys realize that those mitigating circumstances make it harder to get someone to lead you through bankruptcy, not easier. By harder to find someone, I mean you are going to have to pay them a crapload more money to enter into a situation that might not even exsist a short time into the future. Who in their right mind would take that job without the opportunity of somekind of significant reward? I have yet to hear one person say that they would take the CEO job with the airline teetering on the verge of liquidation instead of the nice safe job that paid more money. Everyone wants to pick apart details and come up with slightly different scenarios while missing the big point. You are not going to find a CEO to work in that situation for the same price as they could get a much better job for. Period. Its naive to think otherwise.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Sep 12, 2007 -> 02:15 PM) what makes you say that? As opposed to a loudmouth who is afraid to show up and face the people he backstabs? What a two face.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 12, 2007 -> 02:44 PM) Earlier this year, Northwest exited bankruptcy. From it's pilots, it extracted a 15 percent pay cut, followed by a further 24 percent pay cut. Upon exiting bankruptcy, it awarded its CEO compensation totalling $26.6 million. (That's a little over 4% of the total annual concessions that the pilots over the whole airline made) If you were being asked to take a cut in pay to save the company, how would you feel if every 20th dollar you gave up went straight into the wallet of the guy who threatened to take your job away from you if you didn't take a pay cut? If it wasn't "good business," it'd feel a lot like extortion to me. Would you feel better as an employee in the unemployment line as the company went through a court-ordered liquidation sale?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 12, 2007 -> 02:42 PM) Cool, I've got tickets for Friday. Thursday is an off day. I think I might have a chance to see 500. No offense, but I hope he gets it today. After the way that the Indians fans treated him, I would love to see Big Jim stick it to them.

On top of the innings, Danks worked a whole lot of long innings this year as well. I think he was 3-2 on more hitters than anyone else on this team. Those innings wear on a pitcher as the season goes on. Once he learns to control his pitch count is when he has his breakthrough season.

Time to pin this b****! 499!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 12, 2007 -> 02:27 PM) Here's the question though...if you pulled a bum off the street and offered him $400k, or just at least picked a person at random with an average education...or best yet...picked a person who was moderately qualified but for whom that position was a promotion...could they do well enough that the difference between the performance of the 2 CEO's would be less than the salary difference. I.e. if it costs me $25 million a year including severance packages or something like that for a big name CEO fixer guy, and $500k to just promote someone from upper management who's familiar with the company, is the difference between the 2 worth $24.5 million? (of course, $25 million probably being on the low end of CEO compensation packages these days). IMO, due to the corporate board room mentality, this is something that just isn't considered at all these days. Board members hire people of their own standing because it's developed into such a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" system where everyone knows everyone and protects everyone at the expense of many businesses. Therefore, it's never evaluated whether or not this "top talent" is actually worth what is paid for it, it's just claimed that you must attract "Top talent" without evaluating whether or not it's actually worth it. You realize that what you are saying is the baseball equivilent of saying we should bring a random pitcher up from A ball, release Mark Buehrle, and cut the ticket prices for the fans. In reality, I probably should wait for Kap to get back here to take on this subject in a little more detail, because I would be willing to bet that he is the only guy on this site who has actually been through the management side of a coroporate bankruptcy, and more specifically, for an airline.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 12, 2007 -> 02:22 PM) Most of the "top talent" didn't stay. Trust me when I say this. When the going gets tough, 99% of people will abandon an organizaiton, if all other things remain equal. I am telling you this from first hand experience from something going on as we speak. The more people that leave you, the harder it is to fix an already failed entity. The more people you can retain or attract, the better your chances for avoiding complete liquidation. If the only attraction to your group is through the good of people's own hearts, you are doomed to failure. If you are not willing to pay much better than another company offering people a much better situation, your company will cease to exsist.

Happy Birthday boys

QUOTE(NUKE @ Sep 12, 2007 -> 02:06 PM) Well, if you want top talent to stay then you have to pay them. Why would they want to stay on a sinking ship when they can quit and join a company that is actually doing well? Seriously. If you were a CEO, or any upper level manager, and were going to get the same compensation at a company in bankruptcy, or a company with solid earnings, where would you go? And please do not tell me that you would take the problematic company!

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 12, 2007 -> 01:34 PM) Except, look at what happened after - the people "managing" the bankruptcy walked away with multi million dollar deals and the flight attendants/pilots/mechanics who don't really make that great money to begin with, walk away with 30% less. Workers concessions might have saved the company at that moment, but that wasn't the cause of the poor financial performance of most of these airlines. That had a lot to do with a combination of poor customer service (usually off aircraft), poor route management, an increase in fuel, a downturn in travel following Sept 11. I know that you keep mentioning the MULTI MILLION DOLLAR DEALS, but I don't think you realize that these kind of things are pretty standard bonuses for companies emerging from bankruptcy. For management teams to stay on board during a bankruptcy, there has to be some kind of incentive. Bankruptcies, while sounding quite sexy by TV lawyer standards, are pretty much hell on earth for a companies management team. They lose all financial control of their company and are pretty much at the mercy of lawyers, judges, and creditors. The big payoffs are offered to management to not leave the company during the proceedings, otherwise there would be no one running a company in bankruptcy, because it isn't worth it otherwise. Without these carrots to management, all of these employees would be walking the unemployment lines, instead of just some of them. FWIW, I did a google search on "management bankruptcy bonuses" and got Delphi, Delta, Dana, Tweeter, a hospital in Brooklyn and Ernon all on the first page. As I said it is a pretty standard thing used to keep key people around.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Sep 12, 2007 -> 10:40 AM) Well I dont know about that. Its a fuel air explosive, and the last time I checked the combustion of any fuel source pollutes by nature. Now granted, the area isnt roped off for the next 1000 years as everything glows in the dark. The locals aren't also getting hooves, and fangs and wings and other sorts of mutations from their new "DNA". I wonder if it is Carbon-Nuetral, or if Putin bought some offsets?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 12, 2007 -> 11:44 AM) At the airlines? Look at what happened at Northwest and United? They asked the unions to take huge paycuts to survive, and when the airline exits bankruptcy, the same execs threatening to shut the airline down take multimillion dollar bonuses as they exit the company and Jane Flight Attendant? Working for 30% less than they were three years before. The airlines are a bad example of blaming the unions, because labor has been generally extremely flexible with management to keep people working and moving. The airlines are a good example actually. The unions didn't have much choice to comply or not, because if they didn't they were going to be liquidated. The choice between 70% of your pay and nothing is usually pretty easy. If you want another good local example, you can look at the steel industry.

Broadway and Phillips have both been more effective than I would have expected. I wouldn't be surprised to see Heath catch on either at the end of our pen, or as a 5th starter on a bad team next year. Broadway will be interesting to see if hitters start to take more walks as they see him.

Broadway strikes me as a guy that Don Cooper can work with. Without having seen him pitch in the minors, he strikes me as a guy who has more movement than he knows how to control at his age. I don't think it is because he doesn't want to challege hitters, I just don't think he has harnessed his stuff yet. Cooper seems to specialize in controling the amount of variables in a pitchers delivery to give them some movement, but still allow them a higher level of control over it. Will he succeed, I don't know. It seems like he could be a guy who could succeed here.