OT: does obama bring change?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Let's start with the fact that it's not $70 per hour in wages. According to Kristin Dziczek of the Center for Automative Research--who was my primary source for the figures you are about to read--average wages for workers at Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors were just $28 per hour as of 2007. That works out to a little less than $60,000 a year in gross income--hardly outrageous, particularly when you consider the physical demands of automobile assembly work and the skills most workers must acquire over the course of their careers.

Sounds about right, that is, by the way 28 per hour for what would be UNSKILLED work anywhere else.
Not including over time of course.
And I almost blew chunks with this part:
"hardly outrageous, particularly when you consider the physical demands of automobile assembly work and the skills most workers must acquire over the course of their careers."

LMAO !!!

[Reverend Tap]

Sounds about right, that is, by the way 28 per hour for what would be UNSKILLED work anywhere else.
Not including over time of course.
And I almost blew chunks with this part:
"hardly outrageous, particularly when you consider the physical demands of automobile assembly work and the skills most workers must acquire over the course of their careers."

LMAO !!!

Considering that the $28/hour figure is an average of all autoworkers, saying that it only amounts to unskilled labor is preposterous, unless you're going to go ahead and say that all aspects of autowork are unskilled.

The editorializing about the physical demands of the work is kind of goofy, yes, but the point stands that the autoworkers really aren't making the outrageous amounts people like to claim they are.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Considering that the $28/hour figure is an average of all autoworkers, saying that it only amounts to unskilled labor is preposterous, unless you're going to go ahead and say that all aspects of autowork are unskilled.

The editorializing about the physical demands of the work is kind of goofy, yes, but the point stands that the autoworkers really aren't making the outrageous amounts people like to claim they are.

28 is the average for your typical assembly line work, the one that doesn't have any "special skill", ie: painting, electrical, welding, etc.
Having dealt with the plants here in Oshawa, Brampton and Cambridge, I can tell you the VAST MAJORITY is NOT skilled work and is hardly "physical".
But don't take my word for it, go see for yourself.

[sanjuro_ronin]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_d...utoworker_earn

A UAW assembly worker's hourly rate is approx. $28.50

Newly hired non-core assembly workers earn approx. $14.25 per hour

GET THE FACTS! ... www.JoeTheAutoworker.com

The corporate media are perpetuating the false perception that the average GM worker costs more than $70 an hour, once you include health and pension costs. The primary reason they spread this propaganda is to paint the UAW workers as a bunch of highly overpaid workers. The corporate media is not your friend. They are being deceptive for a reason because they have an agenda.

The average GM assembly-line worker makes about $28.50 per hour in wages, and by no means are they being payed $44.50 an hour in health insurance and pension plan contributions. The so-called $73 per hour figure is a ridiculous number obtained by adding up GM's total labor, health, and pension costs, and then dividing by the total number of hours worked. In other words, it includes all the healthcare and retirement costs of retired workers.

The primary reason for the difference in compensation between GM autoworkers and foreign company autoworkers is largely due to 'legacy' costs, the cost of a 100-year-old company honoring it's commitment to pay its retiree an surviving spouses pensions.

The hourly wage for a newly hired non-core assembly worker is $14.25, with minimal benefits.

Joe 1-5960

a Joe Autoworker


This was from a google search.
Truth be it told, 15-17 sounds about right for that kind of work.
I can see one of the highly skilled guys making in the high 20's, but not the average worker.

[SimonM]

it's rather disingenuous to compare the two on business's terms; i could very easily reverse the argument, after all, and talk about how badly business does at providing public services to all regardless of income level.

qft

1234567

[sanjuro_ronin]

The main issue is SALES !!
When GM was selling, it didn't matter what they were making, and we forget that.
And unless GM and the other Automotive CO get back to selling, it won't matter how much the new guys are making either !

[1bad65]

So, bad brings up that already disproven $75/hour number...

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...more_than.html

The he comes with

"I'll give him his 4 years."

Actually, the voters in the US GAVE him his 4 years and it had nothing to do with 1Bad - and unless he is talking about a military coup (high treason by the way) or some other violent means of preventing any current administration from working its full term in office, he is not GIVING anything...and actually has no choice about it at all... so - as the Neocon repugs stated 8 years ago:

"You lost the election, the other guy is the president now, deal with it..."

Are you a ****ing illiterate moron?

We were talking about what figures I would use when determining Obama's success or failure on the economy, NOT how long he will serve his term.

My point was that I am giving him the full 4 years for his economic plans to work.

If you think I said or implied anything else, you need to take a Remedial English class.

[1bad65]

The union is not responsible for bad business decisions made by management. The contracts were negoiated in good faith. It's not the unions fault greedy management ran the company into the ground.

I think management should be down on their hands and knees thanking the union for making concessions. They were under no obligation to do so.

I see you drank the Marx Kool-Aid as well as your poseur buddy's.

Have you ever heard of labor strikes? Or picket lines? Or work slowdowns? You know, those tactics unions use to get the money they demand.

[1bad65]

It does, but it's still not answering the question I posed. You're discussing the benefits of going about it in one way (lowering taxes) while the question I asked was basically what the problem is with doing it the other way (government spending).

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.

[SimonM]

The problem with the system as it stands is that stock brokers, bankers and financiers all are operating under the illusion that they CAN create wealth. Frankly they do not. They only steal it from others.

A government, by funding employment, can do quite a lot more to allow workers to create wealth than a banker can ever do.

[1bad65]

Having dealt with the plants here in Oshawa, Brampton and Cambridge, I can tell you the VAST MAJORITY is NOT skilled work and is hardly "physical".
But don't take my word for it, go see for yourself.

You're experience means nothing! A Marxist who idolizes a fake Indian will no doubt know more about the automotive industry than you.

The main issue is SALES !!
When GM was selling, it didn't matter what they were making, and we forget that.
And unless GM and the other Automotive CO get back to selling, it won't matter how much the new guys are making either !

GM is still selling the 2nd highest selling vehicle in the Silverado PU line, and the best selling car in the Malibu. Sales are not their problem, labor cost is. Although you appear to fully understand that. Too bad others don't.

[1bad65]

The problem with the system as it stands is that stock brokers, bankers and financiers all are operating under the illusion that they CAN create wealth. Frankly they do not. They only steal it from others.

100% wrong. Can you tell us how wealth is created?

government, by funding employment, can do quite a lot more to allow workers to create wealth than a banker can ever do.

Yeah, bankers financing entrepreneurs has nothing to do with it. Dell and Microsoft were started with money from loans. The founders of those companies CREATED those billions in wealth, from money lent to them by these 'evil, greedy' bankers.

[SimonM]

Wealth is created by adding value to a good.

The provision of services of an immaterial nature in exchange for said value-added goods can circulate existing wealth but does not create new wealth.

And a little note I intended to add to my previous post:

The fact that the goal of government should never be to make a profit makes it more fit to create work than the private sector during times of fiscal hardship.

The government CAN take a loss without harming greedy shareholders.

[BoulderDawg]

Yeah, bankers financing entrepreneurs has nothing to do with it. Dell and Microsoft were started with money from loans. The founders of those companies CREATED those billions in wealth, from money lent to them by these 'evil, greedy' bankers.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

[BoulderDawg]

GM is still selling the 2nd highest selling vehicle in the Silverado PU line, and the best selling car in the Malibu. Sales are not their problem, labor cost is. Although you appear to fully understand that. Too bad others don't.

Then why did the company negoiate the contract with the labor union if they could not make money? Sales is not their problem....right?