Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 48 posts

Re: Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)

#11

Post by mechanical_fish »

davidw wrote: post #9
cmcginnis wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups."

What you guys don't seem to realize or take seriously is that enough of this stuff (Obama, Iran, unions, etc...) will drive the quality of the site down, just like reddit. "Non computer" stuff is often ok if it's just some random, interesting thing that's "food for the brain", but when you get into politics and economics (at least some kinds of economics) and stuff like that, it's just poison.

I'm often tempted to disagree with the effective HN ban on political issues, because it leaves so many of the most important facets of life off the table.

But, alas, I think this is correct. This is a terrible forum for discussing political issues -- because the signal-to-noise in politics is very low (any political discussion is mostly about team-building, horse-trading, and tooth-baring, not problem-solving or analysis and certainly not software or technology) and we don't have the time to wade through waist-deep piles of personal statements, deal memos, and threats; because this site draws people from very diverse political backgrounds who will take a very long time to reach equilibrium if they start team-building, horse-trading, or baring their teeth; but mostly because the place just works better if there's some focus. It helps us to know when to shut up.

I interpret PG's mission statement not as an attempt to ensure that "anything of interest to anyone smart" is on topic, but as a signal that he doesn't want to be the Big Man who sets the agenda for news.yc. He wants the community to do that. And we have: political discussions get discouraged (using our polite jargon: "That's too reddit for this site") and I personally strive to limit my team-building, horse-trading, and tooth-baring efforts to the slyest possible implications. For example, I'm going to go mod up edw519.

It's not as if there are no other political forums on the web.

Re: Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)

#12

Post by gahahaha »

From http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/07/denpartment-of.html regarding this article.

"When GM offered the UAW more lavish benefits, it did so in order to induce the UAW to accept less generous wages. The money that GM paid in the 1990s and 2000s to fund pension and retiree health bnefits was offset by wages that GM did not have to pay in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Lowenstein appears to want to live in a world in which GM (a) gets a break on its wage costs in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s; and can do so (b) without having to pay any money to fund pensions in the 1990s and 2000s."

Bad management screwed GM, not not the Unions. GM ought to have set aside the money saved on wages to meet these future obligations. That they did not do so is just one of many examples of their management incompetence.

Re: Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)

#13

Post by pg »

davidw wrote: post #9
cmcginnis wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups."

What you guys don't seem to realize or take seriously is that enough of this stuff (Obama, Iran, unions, etc...) will drive the quality of the site down, just like reddit. "Non computer" stuff is often ok if it's just some random, interesting thing that's "food for the brain", but when you get into politics and economics (at least some kinds of economics) and stuff like that, it's just poison.

There have always been a few stories like this.

I understand that to someone who saw what happened to reddit, the sight of words like "Obama" or "Union" in a title is very alarming. But not all stories with those words in their titles are boring political ones.

Don't worry, I won't let News.YC go down that road. I'll munge the voting algorithm before I let that happen.

Re: Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)

#14

Post by josefresco »

edw519 wrote: post #7

Make cars people want.

It's kind of tough to succeed when your workers (with the same skills) get paid 2-3x what competing car companies pay. Profit margins are just as important to a company's success as demand. See Internet math of the late 90's for a perfect example of what 1000000 * 0 equals.

Re: Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)

#15

Post by josefresco »

biohacker42 wrote: post #5

As a libertarian immigrant, I don't care for unions. Please no Ayn Rand jokes, I can't stand her. So while the unions are certainly a big part of the problem, the responsibility is ultimately with management. It is ALWAYS management's fault. It doesn't matter if it is GM or a start up, it's management. If you are considering going to work for a startup, the management should be the most important factor in your decis…

GM didn't buy their own SUV's, Americans did. So while we're all quick to blame GM for cashing in on SUV's we all did the dance with GM in the 90's which got them drunk with success and profit.

That being said (and to counter my own point), the first Toyota Prius came out in 1997, and I don't think I need to tell everyone what gas cost then.

Re: Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)

#16

Post by edw519 »

josefresco wrote: post #14
edw519 wrote: post #7

Make cars people want.

It's kind of tough to succeed when your workers (with the same skills) get paid 2-3x what competing car companies pay. Profit margins are just as important to a company's success as demand. See Internet math of the late 90's for a perfect example of what 1000000 * 0 equals.

Profit margins are just as important to a company's success as demand.

On what planet?

Wanna buy a buggy whip, a cassette player, or a 5.25" floppy disk drive? All marked up 100%, but still good prices.

Re: Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)

#18

Post by falsestprophet »

biohacker42 wrote: post #5

As a libertarian immigrant, I don't care for unions. Please no Ayn Rand jokes, I can't stand her. So while the unions are certainly a big part of the problem, the responsibility is ultimately with management. It is ALWAYS management's fault. It doesn't matter if it is GM or a start up, it's management. If you are considering going to work for a startup, the management should be the most important factor in your decis…

"So while the unions are certainly a big part of the problem, the responsibility is ultimately with management. It is ALWAYS management's fault."

That is silly. The capital markets are structured in a way that incentivizes short term returns to the detriment of long term growth. Everyone saw this coming. No one cared.

Whether this is a bad thing or a tolerable thing is an open question. What are the consequences of the death of the American auto industry? The management, employees and investors thrived for decades after this deal was made. It was not secret, so investors were able to price auto industry assets fairly over time. Now, pensioners effectively own a good chunk of the company so they will do just fine. There are no big losers.

Except the people of Detroit. The people of Detroit suffered to be sure. It may have been wise for the City of Detroit to acquire a sizable fraction of the companies so it could have a voice in long term planning. It may also have been wise for the city to actively encourage diversification.

It is not reasonable to expect leading companies to retain their position for centuries. Companies are simply machines that output wealth from humans and material. Machines, as a rule, grow obsolete.

Re: Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)

#19

Post by gills »

pg wrote: post #13
davidw wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you guys don't seem to realize or take seriously is that enough of this stuff (Obama, Iran, unions, etc...) will drive the quality of the site down, just like reddit. "Non computer" stuff is often ok if it's just some random, interesting thing that's "food for the brain", but when you get into politics and economics (at least some kinds of economics) and stuff like that, it's just poison.

There have always been a few stories like this. I understand that to someone who saw what happened to reddit, the sight of words like "Obama" or "Union" in a title is very alarming. But not all stories with those words in their titles are boring political ones. Don't worry, I won't let News.YC go down that road. I'll munge the voting algorithm before I let that happen.

Thank you.

I like hearing what the people on this site have to say about those types of issues and if they hold any relation to your businesses and strategies, even if they are 'off-topic'.

Post reply on HN