sherm03;1321471 wrote:The rising cost of production also contributed heavily to this. The first time they went into bankruptcy, they cited the rising cost of ingredients. That cost has only gone up. But at the end of the day, you can only raise the price so much before you hit a ceiling and you just aren't profitable anymore. At the end of the day, the people buying these products were doing so to put in their kid's lunch box. And people are only going to pay so much before they start resorting to buying the off-brand products that are nearly identical.

i think it is actually conspiracy...does anyone else find it funny that as soon as weed gets legalized that they take away twinkies?? hmmmmmm..

Little Debbie was better anyways

sportchampps;1321501 wrote:Little Debbie was better anyways

this

Gblock;1321465 wrote:they are going out of business because people dont eat twinkies or ho hos anymore. for what ever reason. bad marketing, healthier living etc... i havent had either in 10 years and i havent seen anyone i know eat any either. and i eat plenty of junk food. i dont even see them in the stores anymore. when i was a kid they were always front and center near the checkout making you want to buy them...

It's called labor costs. Too high.

sleeper;1321545 wrote:It's called labor costs. Too high.

Speaking of which, how did the taxpayer end-up on the hook for pensions (via the PBGC) anyway? Nevermind, I can probably guess at the answer.

A few years back, I thought of writing a book. The book would have been entitled, "The Garlic-Flavored Gum Project: Enter Subtitle Here".

The long and short of it would be similar to what is on this thread...

Right about the tipping point of freedom-turned-socialism, some big inverstors poured money into a bubble gum company. (No real reason why. It's just a story.) But as the company was expanding in order to try out new flavors, the powers-that-be shifted the country's economic scheme, moving from free market to socialism. Some of those in power were the individuals who put their money into the gum company.

So, in order to keep tax revenues coming in, they made people buy the company's gum. Some of the gum people liked. But nobody liked the garlic-flavored gum. But they had to keep buying it in order to keep people employed, in order to generate the tax revenues, in order to pay the people at the top, in order to keep the country up and running.

Somewhere down the line, people were told they had to work in certain "companies" in order to be employed, and some individuals were carted off to the Foundations because they were no longer "productive members of the society".

Yes! I got further actually writing the book in this post than I ever have before! Success!!

gut;1321565 wrote:Speaking of which, how did the taxpayer end-up on the hook for pensions (via the PBGC) anyway? Nevermind, I can probably guess at the answer.

cruiser_96;1321570 wrote:A few years back, I thought of writing a book. The book would have been entitled, "The Garlic-Flavored Gum Project: Enter Subtitle Here".

The long and short of it would be similar to what is on this thread...

Right about the tipping point of freedom-turned-socialism, some big inverstors poured money into a bubble gum company. (No real reason why. It's just a story.) But as the company was expanding in order to try out new flavors, the powers-that-be shifted the country's economic scheme, moving from free market to socialism. Some of those in power were the individuals who put their money into the gum company.

So, in order to keep tax revenues coming in, they made people buy the company's gum. Some of the gum people liked. But nobody liked the garlic-flavored gum. But they had to keep buying it in order to keep people employed, in order to generate the tax revenues, in order to pay the people at the top, in order to keep the country up and running.

Somewhere down the line, people were told they had to work in certain "companies" in order to be employed, and some individuals were carted off to the Foundations because they were no longer "productive members of the society".

Yes! I got further actually writing the book in this post than I ever have before! Success!!

Substitute trains in for bubble gum and steel for garlic and I think you have an idea.</SPAN></SPAN>

Yeah this is all about the union and not financial irresponsibility of Hostess lol

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1321794 wrote:Yeah this is all about the union and not financial irresponsibility of Hostess lol

Any notion that it isn't both is frankly agenda-driven and more than a little silly.

Hostess going out of business. Papa John's and Denny's raising prices. Trailer trash is taking a beating these past few weeks.

ccrunner609;1321880 wrote:unions that want $20 hour jobs for people that should be paid $10 is why they can go Away. auto unions are worse.

Who decides how much they should be paid? Does the company have to sign the contract or does the union just tell them what they're making?

I just don't understand the mentality that allows one to conclude that a pay and benefits cut is going to be worse than losing your job.

What was the company in Morgan County (McConnellsville, Malta area - Gould Pump????) that shut down a few years ago after the workers struck - in a remote county with 16% unemployment? I still shake my head over that one.

ccrunner609;1321885 wrote:company and union negotiate pay.

Oh so the company agrees they should make 20 an hour not 10

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1321883 wrote:Who decides how much they should be paid? Does the company have to sign the contract or does the union just tell them what they're making?

ccrunner609;1321885 wrote:company and union negotiate pay.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1321888 wrote:Oh so the company agrees they should make 20 an hour not 10

Walked right into that one cc...

ccrunner609;1321880 wrote:unions that want $20 hour jobs for people that should be paid $10 is why they can go Away. auto unions are worse.

I agree. I get so pissed that gym and health teachers get much more money than they deserve because of those damn unions.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1321883 wrote:Who decides how much they should be paid? Does the company have to sign the contract or does the union just tell them what they're making?

Historically the economy determines the winner of negotiations. When they are selling cars as fast as they can make them, the Big 3 almost always cave to avoid a strike. When there's excess capacity the union usually caves.

And when there's bankruptcy, the govt caves.

As for the company "agreeing" to overpay, maybe now you understand what drives outsourcing.

gut;1321910 wrote:Historically the economy determines the winner of negotiations. When they are selling cars as fast as they can make them, the Big 3 almost always cave to avoid a strike. When there's excess capacity the union usually caves.

And when there's bankruptcy, the govt caves.

As for the company "agreeing" to overpay, maybe now you understand what drives outsourcing.

They must not think they are or they wouldn't sign

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1321916 wrote:They must not think they are or they wouldn't sign

Sure they sign. Strikes don't help the company.

sherm03;1321891 wrote:Walked right into that one cc...




I agree. I get so pissed that gym and health teachers get much more money than they deserve because of those damn unions.

Unions suck.

Ironman92;1321951 wrote:Unions suck.

Do you work at a job where you have sick time and vacation time? Do you enjoy those perks?

You can thank unions for that...

The "it's because of unions" argument doesn't explain everything. For one thing a lot of their products are simply not cohesive with the current and future ideals as far as what types of foods people like/think we should eat. And earlier this year they did what so many companies tend to do before closing up shop and blaming it on the workers or someone else...give their executives massive pay increases.

sherm03;1321991 wrote:Do you work at a job where you have sick time and vacation time? Do you enjoy those perks?

You can thank unions for that...

Thanks Upton. We are a long ways away from the meat packing days.

I Wear Pants;1321994 wrote:The "it's because of unions" argument doesn't explain everything. For one thing a lot of their products are simply not cohesive with the current and future ideals as far as what types of foods people like/think we should eat. And earlier this year they did what so many companies tend to do before closing up shop and blaming it on the workers or someone else...give their executives massive pay increases.

Is there a cite for this other than what is coming from the union or their lackeys in the media (Huffington, Democratic Underground, and other really credible sources [sarcasm]). Not only is Hostess not publicly traded thus they aren't subject to executive comp disclosure, but they were practically run by hedge funds that were actively trading their debt. Not exactly the type of shareholder that is going to sign off on an extensive comp increase. Even if the HuffPo is correct with its union report (which I'm pretty sure it isn't - my guess is any additional increase was tied to their stock which isn't worth much now - i.e. a potential paper gain that never materialized), a million dollar increase wasn't going to make or break the company.

It never ceases to amaze me that people claim to be experts in how businesses are run, yet rely solely on non-credible information. Then again that explains the toxic business environment we have currently in the U.S.

Unions had their place back in the 40's and 50's, but this too has passed. Even though they have been one of our country's proudest movements, they also have become one of our biggest curses. Bust them, bust them all.