Japans Cash for clunkers

[piece-itpete]

That is the COST OF LABOR, very simple - Cost of workers divided by number of workers.

No debunking, just lack of business understanding. It's the reality that the folks who run those companies have to deal with.

Pete

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

That is the COST OF LABOR, very simple - Cost of workers divided by number of workers.

No debunking, just lack of business understanding. It's the reality that the folks who run those companies have to deal with.

Pete

Perhaps you can tell us why the 'cost' for the big three is always compared to the 'hourly rate' for the Japanese? Can you say apples and oranges?

[piece-itpete]

It's not Rob, look at the chart.

Btw, I forget, I've argued online before and I assume (yeah, I know ) that I've said things here too.

That last contract was the UAWs last hurrah. I've got two friends with the UAW, well one now since Chryslers' hit the skids, have many other friends (and family!) that supply the auto industry, and I buy UAW (or our brother CAW ) built cars.

So I guess you could say I'm really arguing about how the big 3 got here. Every day that passes the 2 are in better shape and Toyota et al must know it.

I believe the American worker can take on any other head to head. It's all about productivity. We'll survive

Pete

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

That is the COST OF LABOR, very simple - Cost of workers divided by number of workers.

No debunking, just lack of business understanding. It's the reality that the folks who run those companies have to deal with.

Pete

Did you read any of the links? The figure comes from compensation and benefits paid to all current wage earners plus pension and medical benefits paid to all retirees and their heirs. Then they divide the total by the number of current wage earners, leaving out the retirees.

There's only a couple of bucks difference between the wages and benefits of Big Three workers and those at the non-union foreign manufacturers. The big difference in the numbers comes from the fact that the foreign companies haven't been operating here very long so they don't have nearly as many retirees on their books.

John

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Did you read any of the links? The figure comes from compensation and benefits paid to all current wage earners plus pension and medical benefits paid to all retirees and their heirs. Then they divide the total by the number of current wage earners, leaving out the retirees.

There's only a couple of bucks difference between the wages and benefits of Big Three workers and those at the non-union foreign manufacturers. The big difference in the numbers comes from the fact that the foreign companies haven't been operating here very long so they don't have nearly as many retirees on their books.

John

Makes sense to me.

I recently read an article about USSteel. (It may have come from their corporate website.) You may not be aware, but USS has been rebounding in the last decade or so. The reason given was "the rapidly declining retiree base". It would seem the largest demographic in the "Big Steel" retirement base is the WW2 generation. As these guys die off, the companies retirement obligations decline, freeing up capital for other things. I know, USS has fallen very far from it's heyday. And so have the automakers. But, maybe.............

Dave

[piece-itpete]

It doesn't matter where the costs come from - it's a COST and the company has to pay it. Once again, total cost of labor divided by workers = cost per worker.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no lacky for the wealthy. But I'm not going to slam folks just because they do better than me.

I WANT my owner to drive a Rolls.

Pete

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

It doesn't matter where the costs come from - it's a COST and the company has to pay it. Once again, total cost of labor divided by workers = cost per worker.

But that's not what they did. They added the cost of current workers to the cost of the retirees but then they divided by just the number of current workers, making it appear that all the money was going to them.

John

[piece-itpete]

That is the cost of labor.

Pete

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

That is the cost of labor.

Pete

At one level we are in agreement. It is the cost of labor but to present that $70 per hour figure the way it was in the right wing media, as what the average auto worker actually earns, is blatantly dishonest.

I confess I'm a little disappointed at the way you presented that data too.

John

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

It doesn't matter where the costs come from - it's a COST and the company has to pay it. Once again, total cost of labor divided by workers = cost per worker.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no lacky for the wealthy. But I'm not going to slam folks just because they do better than me.

I WANT my owner to drive a Rolls.

Pete

Yes, you do. You just don't slam the folks who do WAAAAAY better than you.

And if you want your boss to drive a Rolls, fine. But, two, three, four Rolls, then a mansion in Ohio, then one in California and one in France, then another in Tahiti, and a private Gulfstream to jet back and forth? Then Pete and his coworkers gets laid off and their jobs get sent to Bolivia so the (former) boss can afford to buy a personal Ski Chalet in Switzerland?

The question isn't whether or not the successful deserve to live well, Pete.
I believe they do.

But,

The question is where do you draw the line? At what point does it get rediculous and destructive? When does it reach the point where folks like us are being forced into hardship so a handfull of people can live like Gods?

I for one, would like to draw that line now, before it's too late, and future generations have to fight to get it back.

Funny, how so many are only concerned about greed, when it comes to wage earners, but not when it comes to wage payers.

Dave