Japans Cash for clunkers - Page 4

BlueStreak · #31 12-29-2009, 09:44 AM

Quote:

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 · #32 12-29-2009, 09:49 AM

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 · #33 12-29-2009, 09:57 AM

Quote:

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 · #34 12-29-2009, 09:59 AM

That is the cost of labor.

Pete

BlueStreak · #35 12-29-2009, 10:26 AM

Quote:

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

Boreas · #36 12-29-2009, 10:35 AM

Quote:

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

piece-itpete · #37 12-29-2009, 10:40 AM

The only reason I'm talking about the union guys is, they took a temporary thing and tried to make it permanent, and along with pig-headed management killed the golden goose. It was all their faults, not one or the other.

There has always been very rich. They pay a lot of taxes.

Pete

Boreas · #38 12-29-2009, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

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?

How about now?

John

BlueStreak · #39 12-29-2009, 10:58 AM

As I said; "I for one, would like to draw that line now....."

Dave

BlueStreak · #40 12-29-2009, 11:13 AM

"There has always been very rich. They pay a lot of taxes.

Pete"

That's funny. Last night our plant "wing-nut" told me, "Raising taxes on the rich makes no sense, 'cuz the rich don't pay taxes anyways." Shortly thereafter he told me, "If you keep raising their taxes they'll all just leave anyways, and mo**er fu**ers like us just end up unemployed."

So, which is it?

And as an aside, I can't recall ever having told this moron I support raising taxes on anyone anyways.

These people make me nuts.

Dave