OT: does obama bring change?

[1bad65]

By the way why do you think workers are getting older? If anything the baby boomers are starting to retire and the work force is getting younger.

That's actually my point. Obviously it went over your head.

I'll rephrase it, hopefully this is not in vain:

GM's labor costs per employee are actually higher on an OLDER worker than on a YOUNGER one. You see the pensions are only used by retired ones, who are....OLDER! And they have a huge pension plan. And OLDER workers use those excellent healthcare plans more than YOUNGER employees.

You see, GM's 'workforce' in terms of labor cost is not just the guys working in the plants. The ones who are retired and in 'job banks' have to be counted as labor as well, since GM is still paying them. So while the guys making the cars may be getting younger on average, the labor force as a WHOLE is getting older as they have more retirees than current factory workers. And they are ALL drawing checks. And again, the older ones cost GM more than the younger ones.

Is it clear now?

[BoulderDawg]

More badonominics.....

You can count it however you like as long as it's constant. No reason for the age of the work force to make a drastic shift in any direction.

Every year new people were hired, old people retire, retirees received benefits and some die. This happens year in and year out.....Where's the "Gettin older" part?

Maybe people live a few years longer than they use to but in a fairly small population (GM retired workers on pension) it's not enough to break GM as you have described.

[BoulderDawg]

By the way have you ever heard of pension and retirement plans? Do you think GM simply pays all of this out of revenue?

Maybe so in the world of badonomics!

[David Jamieson]

top 5 selling cars in america for 2008 were all japanese models.

labour costs the problem at the big three? nope, it was a matter of greed, debt driven revenue and poor planning.

being the financiers and leasers of vehicles was where they totally messed up.

they financed bad debt, the leased cars that were returned and couldn't be sold, they didn't move fast enough on research of alternative fuel vehicles, they ran their business model based on debt.

so, when they leased those 100's of thousands of vehicles. Then got them back and couldn't sell them, and were faced with a recession where they now have to repo a bunch of the vehicles that they themselves financed and now with the banks not lending until the sub prime mortgage fiasco implemented by the bush regime is fixed...well, it adds up to poor business practice.

now, it is just easy for a bunch of corporate to blame the people who build the cars for the problems they themselves created.

in fact, having an economy that runs on generated revenue weighed against debt handling capability, it's only a matter of time before that house of cards collapses.

[Reverend Tap]

Like I said, the government taking the people's money to create jobs for the people is retarded. It's a system doomed to fail.

You see, the government can only PRINT money, they cannot CREATE wealth. While the private sector cannot print money, they can create wealth.

Does that answer it? FYI, I am trying to answer it, it's just complicated and I'm trying to answer it in a short way.

You might need to go ahead and describe it in the longer way, because at the moment you're still just basically saying "because it doesn't work" without any explanation of why. You say the government can't create wealth, but where's the difference between me making purchases or investments and the government doing it? What prevents government spending from creating wealth in the same way that private spending does? If the government spends a few billion in taxes hiring private companies for large public works projects, doesn't that put a lot more money into the hands of the private sector and, in turn, create a lot more wealth (as well as immediate benefit to the public good) than having a bunch of random people each deciding to do whatever they want with their individual, small amounts of money?

[1bad65]

Every year new people were hired, old people retire, retirees received benefits and some die. This happens year in and year out.....Where's the "Gettin older" part?

Maybe people live a few years longer than they use to but in a fairly small population (GM retired workers on pension) it's not enough to break GM as you have described.

You know nothing about life or economics.

I'll try AGAIN:

Since GM has actually grown over time, that means they've hired MORE people. So every year there will be MORE retirees than the last. And with life expectancy going up, that means more time they will draw checks.

Are you this ignorant, or are you just being an ass?

Don't believe me, do some **** research and post your findings here. It will be a first for you, but you should try it at least once.

[1bad65]

By the way have you ever heard of pension and retirement plans? Do you think GM simply pays all of this out of revenue?

Pension plans are different than 401k and retirement plans. Again, Economics 101.

And yes, if the employees are guaranteed a certain amount, and the retirement plans do not earn/mature enough to cover it, the difference does indeed come out of the 'revenue'.

[BoulderDawg]

Also, as far as labor is concerned, with the advancements in the work place so much more of the work these day is mechanized. Robots do the work. I don't have the facts and figures in front of me but I would bet it only takes a small fraction of the workers to produce a car today than it did fifty years ago. Therefore the percentage of labor as an actual expense would be down and the total numbers of retirees less than in the 50s/60s/70s.

Hmmmm....a kink in badomonics?

[BoulderDawg]

You know nothing about life or economics.

I'll try AGAIN:

Since GM has actually grown over time, that means they've hired MORE people. So every year there will be MORE retirees than the last. And with life expectancy going up, that means more time they will draw checks.

Are you this ignorant, or are you just being an ass?

Don't believe me, do some **** research and post your findings here. It will be a first for you, but you should try it at least once.

See above post. Also research as to how many labor hours it took to produce a car in 1960 and how many it takes today.

[BoulderDawg]

Pension plans are different than 401k and retirement plans. Again, Economics 101.

And yes, if the employees are guaranteed a certain amount, and the retirement plans do not earn/mature enough to cover it, the difference does indeed come out of the 'revenue'.

Who said anything about pension plans being different from 401K or retirement?

By the way, what percentage comes from revenue? Do you even know that? I highly doubt it the hundreds of millions GM is losing every quarter.

[1bad65]

top 5 selling cars in america for 2008 were all japanese models.

The 2 top selling vehicles were American. The Ford F-150 PU, and the Chevrolet Silverado PU.

Labour costs the problem at the big three? nope, it was a matter of greed, debt driven revenue and poor planning.

Do you have any proof of that? You know, actual figures and such. Since GM is a publicly traded company, it should take you all of 5 minutes for YOU to prove YOUR assertions.

being the financiers and leasers of vehicles was where they totally messed up.

they financed bad debt, the leased cars that were returned and couldn't be sold, they didn't move fast enough on research of alternative fuel vehicles, they ran their business model based on debt.

Again, can you provide some proof of those assertions?

... the sub prime mortgage fiasco implemented by the bush regime is fixed...well, it adds up to poor business practice.

Not to sound like a broken record, but can you provide some proof of that assertion as well?

now, it is just easy for a bunch of corporate to blame the people who build the cars for the problems they themselves created.

Dude, they are overpaid. It's really that simple. People like Drake and Sanjuro with actual experience in that industry agree on that.

in fact, having an economy that runs on generated revenue weighed against debt handling capability, it's only a matter of time before that house of cards collapses.

So you admit the Obama economy is doomed to fail?

[1bad65]

Also, as far as labor is concerned, with the advancements in the work place so much more of the work these day is mechanized. Robots do the work. I don't have the facts and figures in front of me but I would bet it only takes a small fraction of the workers to produce a car today than it did fifty years ago. Therefore the percentage of labor as an actual expense would be down and the total numbers of retirees less than in the 50s/60s/70s.

Hmmmm....a kink in badomonics?

See above post. Also research as to how many labor hours it took to produce a car in 1960 and how many it takes today.

Not a kink at all. I admit you are 100% correct that is more automated now and it takes less man hours to make a car.

Now answer this: How easy is it to just layoff union workers because there are too many workers? Hint: Think of the 'job banks' the union demanded and received.....

[Drake]

Has it occured to the village idiot that GM is slightly larger (sarcasm) and makes a few more (sarcasm again) cars than it was/had 50 years ago?

Honestly.... are you THAT dense?

[BoulderDawg]

Now answer this: How easy is it to just layoff union workers because there are too many workers? Hint: Think of the 'job banks' the union demanded and received.....

Must be pretty easy. They're doing it right now by offering early retirement.

[Drake]

"The last major strike by the UAW also occurred in 1970. After that, management continually gave in to the union demands in all future contract negotiations. They promised tremendous pension benefits, lifetime healthcare benefits, huge pay increases, and onerous work rules that gave management no flexibility. GM evidently didn’t have any bean counters who could extrapolate past a five year horizon. If they had, they would have seen that they would eventually have an unsustainable cost structure with more retirees being paid than workers on the assembly line. The troubling facts were ignored because GM still had a 45% market share during the 1970s. GM's U.S. employment reached 618,365 in 1979, making it the largest private employer in the country. Worldwide employment broached 853,000. It has been downhill ever since."