wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] John-Paul G from Elizabeth, NJ December 15, 2008 - 10:10AM

  Someone please raise the volume for the Congresswoman? I'd raise my volume but when Brian comes in, his voice booms.

  
  
• [2] NWP from Greenwich December 15, 2008 - 10:18AM

  Ask Rep Lowey if she was in Lord & Taylor in Eastchester yesterday or Saturday.

  Those who are well off and able to pay the prices that store charges are STILL buying.

  It would be nice to think they are trying to spend us out of the problem. The reality is that they have cut back on the local economy type spending (dry cleaning, housekeeping etc) but not on themselves.

  
  
• [3] O from Forest Hills December 15, 2008 - 10:18AM

  She should be Senator! What great diplomacy. This woman has a lot of class, I like her.

  
  
• [4] Rabelais from Wahington Heights December 15, 2008 - 10:24AM

  For Senate: Carolyn McCarthy

  
  
• [5] Allen from Troy December 15, 2008 - 10:24AM

  Did I just hear Brian ask if Shirley Jackson should be Senator? Or did I mishear? Where did he come up with that possibility?

  
  
• [6] mark from the Fighting 18th December 15, 2008 - 10:25AM

  ug. what was that segment all about? Was it about the congressional session or was it about nita lowey? It sounded like a nita lowey infomerial

  
  
• [7] Harry Burger from Long Island December 15, 2008 - 10:32AM

  Just say no to Shirley Ann Jackson - she cares nothing for what the people below her think. I am an RPI alumnus (2005) and I can tell you she just did what she wanted to do without regard for student input. Case in point, my commencement speaker - Hillary Clinton. On the list of who the students wanted, she was somewhere around 19, yet she was the first to receive an invitation. Many students, myself included, wrote down in comments on the voting to put in a negative vote for Hil - we'd rather have anybody else or nobody than her. There was a group of seniors who boycotted commencement to picket and protest her selection, and there was an aborted attempt to get the senior class to turn our backs during Hil's speech.

  The speech didn't surprise anyone - it was completely useless to us, starting out with her admitting that she is completely unqualified in the sciences and proceeding to make statements that are patently and demonstrably false about the nature of the relationship between politics and research, while making sure to namedrop quite a few prominent politicians. She was already campaigning for President in May of 2005.

  Yes, she's black, she's a woman, and by all indications she is technologically brilliant (something sorely needed in Congress), but a Senator must listen to the needs of constituents first and foremost. That's what we elect them for.

  
  
• [8] Daniel Simon from New York, NY December 15, 2008 - 11:43AM

  Brian raised in passing the question as to why auto workers salaries are being attacked in the auto bailout proposals when stock broker salaries were not in the financial industry bailout. The comparison is superficially appealing but doesn't hold up under analysis.

  The issue is the long-term viability of the enterprises. If US manufacturers can't make similar cars at the same cost of foreign manufacturers, they won't survive and so the money going to them may be wasted. Worker salaries are big part of that equation. If they're not willing to work for what foreign companies pay their workers, it's likely that manufacturers will move production overseas, or go bankrupt, or require a continuing government subsidy.

  Stock brokers do not currently face the same competitive pressures to remain viable. If there were people in Bangalore who could do the same job for less, and if that competitiveness threatened the viability of the financial services industry, then you'd see the same questions about stock broker salaries. (We've already seen such a shift in the customer service field.)

  The issue isn't whether those working in failing fields need a salary adjustment as some kind of punishment. It's whether such adjustments are necessary to make sure that those enterprises will survive for the long term. And that depends on what other companies in the field are doing with employee pay. So the auto workers and stock brokers just aren't comparable because one is facing substantial competition on wages and the other is not.

  
  
• [9] mc from Brooklyn December 15, 2008 - 11:50AM

  Harry Burger:

  I don't know much about Shirley Jackson and doubt that she'd be the ideal person for the senate seat but it sounds like you are basing your opinion of her solely on your Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Why?

  
  
• [10] mc from Brooklyn December 15, 2008 - 11:53AM

  Daniel:

  Worker salaries make up about 10% of the cost of making a car at the BIg Three. Moreover, a large percentage of the labor cost that they claim are legacy payments that were promised a long time ago to retirees, not current salaries and benefits.

  It seems to me that the problem the Big Three are having is that their product isn't very good. I can attest to that personally. After my 1995 Saturn fell apart at 40,000 miles I swore I would never buy another American car.

  
  
• [11] Daniel Simon from New York, NY December 15, 2008 - 12:25PM

  mc:

  I'm not arguing about whether worker salaries for the Big Three are necessarily a problem or not; my point was to discuss why they come up for the auto bailout but broker services didn't come up for the financial services bailout.

  Legacy costs are certainly an issue. But the point is that it's hard for American auto companies to be competitive if their workers are paid more than foreign workers. Even if worker salaries are 10% of production costs, it's harder to compete over the long term if others are doing it for still less, which is why their salaries come up as an issue. And at present, there isn't the same competition for brokerage services, which is why the comparison isn't appropriate.

  As for the 1995 Saturn, I've heard that American cars have improved substantially since then but are still burdened precisely by the image you describe. Once you've made bad stuff for a while, it's hard to convince people that your stuff is better now.

  
  
• [12] mc from Brooklyn December 15, 2008 - 12:59PM

  Daniel:

  Agreed about the product. Once the word is out that the product sucks, no one will buy it even if they say it's good.

  The workers are paid more than their non-union counterparts, but I still think that the reason they are not competitive is because the product they made was so bad for so long. Also, the light trucks and SUV's were protected; we never imported those, only cars, and even with this advantage they could not compete with a superior foreign product. I'm not saying that labor costs are not a factor -- just saying that it is a red herring being flogged by Senate Republicans.