Media figures falsely assert or suggest autoworkers make $70/hour without noting figure includes benefits paid to current retirees
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Several media outlets have used data that combines the average cost of current wages and benefits and future benefits to falsely assert or suggest that autoworkers make $70 or more per hour. But, as analysts and some media outlets have noted, the figure includes not only future retirement benefits for current workers, but also benefits paid to current retirees.
As Congress debates whether to authorize a multibillion-dollar bailout of the U.S. automotive industry, several media outlets, notably New York Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin, nationally syndicated radio host Lars Larson, and MSNBC's Chris Matthews, have used data that combines the average cost of current wages and benefits and future benefits to falsely assert or suggest that autoworkers make $70 or more per hour. But, as analysts and some media outlets have noted, the figure includes not only future retirement benefits for current workers, but also benefits paid to current retirees. Further, the "Big Three" U.S. automobile makers negotiated with the United Auto Workers (UAW) in 2007 to significantly reduce the salary and benefits packages for certain new employees, a fact that Larson and Matthews did not note.
Despite the misleading nature of the $70 per hour claim, it continues to be repeated.
In
a
November 17
New York Times column, Sorkin
described
General
Motors
employees' benefits as "off the charts": "At G.M., as of 2007, the
average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and
pension costs." Contrary to Sorkin's suggestion, the "health care and
pension costs" include health care and pension benefits for current
retirees, and not what an "average worker was paid," according to GM. The Associated Press
reported:
GM, which negotiated the four-year deal that serves as a template for UAW deals with Chrysler and Ford, says its total hourly labor costs dropped 6 percent this year from pre-contract levels, from $73.26 in 2006 to around $69 per hour. The new cost includes laborers' wages of $29.78 per hour, plus benefits, pensions and the cost of providing health care to more than 432,000 GM retirees, GM spokesman Tony Sapienza said.
On the November 20 edition of Hardball, Heritage Foundation senior research fellow James Gattuso stated, "I think that there's no reason that a UAW worker should get total compensation of $70 an hour when the average American only makes about $25 an hour in total compensation." Matthews responded, in part: "They negotiate for their salaries, and they're getting 70 bucks. So that's how the free market works." While speaking about the "unskilled, high-school graduate workers" in U.S. auto plants on his November 19 radio show, Larson said, "When you're paying $73.73 an hour to those people with salary and benefits and your competition is paying $48 to its workers, you're going to get your butt kicked in the marketplace unfortunately." Contrary to Gattuso's, Matthew's, and Larson's assertions, a UAW worker is not "get[ting] total compensation of $70 an hour."
In a November 18 post on his American Prospect blog criticizing Sorkin's reporting, economist Dean Baker wrote that the $70 figure Sorkin used is distorted by conflating "legacy" costs -- medical benefits and pensions paid to retirees -- with current labor costs:
The New York Times told readers that GM's autoworkers are paid $70 an hour (including health care and pension). This is not true. The base pay is about $28 an hour. If health care cost per worker average $12,000 per year, that adds in another $6 an hour. If the pension payment takes up 25 percent of base pay (an extremely high pension), that gets you another $7 an hour, bringing the total to $41 an hour. That's decent pay, but still a long way from $70 an hour.
How does the NYT get from $41 to $70? Well the trick is to add in GM's legacy costs, the pension and health care costs for retired workers. These legacy costs are a serious expense for GM, but this is not money being paid to current workers. The person on the line in 2008 is not benefiting from these legacy costs.
The UAW also notes that the auto companies frequently inflate their labor costs by combining all of the expenses attached to maintaining their workforce:
In addition to regular hourly pay, the labor cost figures cited by the companies include other expenses associated with having a person on payroll. This includes overtime, shift premiums and the costs of negotiated benefits such as holidays, vacations, health care, pensions and education and training. It also includes statutory costs, which employers are required to pay by law, such as federal contributions for Social Security and Medicare, and state payments to workers' compensation and unemployment insurance funds. The highest figures sometimes cited also include the benefit costs of retirees who are no longer on the payroll.
From Sorkin's November 17 New York Times column:
G.M. currently employs about 8,000 people who actually don't come to work. Those who do go to work are paid about $10 to $20 an hour more than people who do the same job building cars in the United States for foreign makers like Toyota. At G.M., as of 2007, the average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs.
Those costs are already coming down slightly because of a renegotiated deal with U.A.W. last year, but not nearly enough.
From the November 19 broadcast of Westwood One's The Lars Larson Show:
LARSON: When Detroit is making cars at $73 an hour to its line workers, its unskilled, high-school graduate workers, and I'm a high school graduate as well. When you're paying $73.73 an hour to those people with salary and benefits and your competition is paying $48 to its workers, you're going to get your butt kicked in the marketplace unfortunately.
From the November 20 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Don't we need factory workers to be a healthy society?
GATTUSO: Well, first off, in the auto industry, were -- it's not a matter of losing factory workers to keyboards. It's -- to a large extent, losing factory -- UAW jobs for non-UAW jobs. Jobs in Michigan for jobs in Tennessee --
MATTHEWS: Do you think that's a good change? That's a good --
GATTUSO: -- or jobs in Michigan for jobs in Indiana.
MATTHEWS: You like having non-union labor? Is that a healthy thing?
GATTUSO: I think that there's no reason that a UAW worker should get total compensation of $70 an hour when the average American only makes about $25 an hour in total compensation.
MATTHEWS: Well, you negotiate for your salary, and they negotiate for --
GATTUSO: And there's no reason that the average American should have to pay for that UAW worker.
MATTHEWS: Sir, you negotiate for your salary at the Heritage Foundation or wherever. They negotiate for their salaries, and they're getting 70 bucks. So that's how the free market works.
GATTUSO: And if Heritage didn't have the money to pay me -- which, you know, I hope they do -- but if they didn't have the money to pay me, I wouldn't go to the government asking for more money. I would have to take a lower salary.
MATTHEWS: Touché.
I thought the articles cited were pretty clear in explaining the $70/hour figure. Sure it includes bennies for retirees (or set asides for bennies for cureent workers), but the cost to the company is $70/hour for the big(?) three and less than $50/hr for competitors manufacturing in the US. Makes their business model rather obsolete, especially when one can see the bennie package is about 1.3 times the base wage. Is a bailout in order?? Maybe bankrupcy is the correct choice, not the most pleasant, but may be correct. It may allow them to restructure and become competitive and more flexible, foreward looking in the future. People will still buy X number of vehicles per year whether it be from the big(?) three or other manufacturers (hopefully based in the US, even though the parent co is off-shore).
Do you even realize that you make a fantastic argument in favor of universal healthcare?
I did? Give me your address so I can send my health insurance premium bill to you to pay.
Stupid one way thinking, let's trade addresses so I can send you mine.
Then you can just send me a thank you card when American companies are saved the burden of paying for employee healthcare.
My insurance premium line was to make the point that under a bailout, we (the taxpayer) will be paying the costs. Went over your head, I see. I thought from reading your posts over the past several months, you would be among the upper income earners in the country and therefore would be willing to share with those that are below you in income. I fail to see how a bailout is going to help inefficient companies, like the big(?) 3 have become, pay employee healthcare, etc as the bailout just passes the burden on to all taxpayers, rather than just those that buy products from the big(?) 3.
I earn dirt wages because the job comes with health insurance, so much for your stereotypes you "went over your head, I see," condescending punk. But I'm still more than willing to share with those that earn far above me.
What you fail to see is that the bailout needs to come with conditions, like not giving the money to the management clowns who precipitated this failure unless they have a plan to retool their product, and that absent a bailout American families go hungry.
Down to name calling, huh? What kind of strings (conditions) would you put on the bailout, other than restricting management pay? Green cars in 12 months? Government with majority seats on Board of Directors? Delta, United, etc filed bankrupcy and are still flying. Perhaps the big(?) should go through the same pain.
Thank you for your willingness to share with those in need.
Yes, they are still flying. And thanks to all of their efforts flying is so cheap, easy and efficient these days. Flying has progressed into such an opulent and fine affair that, as a service industry, as a consumer experience, it is so much better today than it was 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.
Bad example, Oscar.
You do work for the government right? I think you admitted that some many months ago. Or was that Bruce? You two, like so many "moderates" are very similar. Sorry if I'm wrong.
Maybe you should go through some of that pain? Maybe you should lose your government job? Lose your sweet retirement deal, or have it slashed? Maybe? You probably haven't worked hard enough to earn your bennies anyway, right?. That's what you're telling UAW workers. You're telling them they didn't spend their lives making cars in enough earnest work.
First of all, I do not work for a government entity, they work for me (and you and all taxpayers). I have lost jobs in past downturns, and I may lose my job in this one and it will hurt, but I won't go jumping off a bridge or high building. My parents went throught Depression and instilled in us the need to live frugally, to put aside something for the times the economy turns South (as it does on a fairly regualr basis).
So the airline comparison must have been a bad one since you can't defend it. Care to argue in favor of bankruptcy some more?
Oh, now you want to compare the difference in flying over the years? I can still get to where I want in the US by flying and although service may have changed over the years, in most cases it is still reasonable to fly long distances. Sure, maybe we don't get the peanuts, etc, but who really cares? Apparently, not much of the public, because the airplanes are still full, three or four new runways opened at airports across the country in the last couple of weeks, meaning there is an apparent demand for more takeoffs and landings (more planes, more passengers). Bankruptcy allowed them to change a non-working business model into one that is working better than it was. I would rather not see bankruptcy, but it cannot be taken off the table as an option, it may allow them to survive, albeit in a different form, whereas continuing to operate as is is assured death over the long (and perhaps short) tem.
In a different form? Like non-union, low wage, based in the red south? That would be a real nice campaign piece for Romney to run on in 2012. "Looka here suckers, I brought jobs to the south."
Anyway, who here has said continuing on the same path is healthy? Unions have already made deep concessions, it's time for management to develop a better plan as a condition of these bridge loans. But bankruptcy is not an option if it strips people of their pensions (the only property rights that conservatives hate) or living wages.
And comparisons of airlines then and now are absolutely legitimate considering that the myth of free market fundamentalists is that, when left alone, the market always approaches greater perfection over time. Clearly that is a false narrative. In an effort to create greater profits, airlines have cut back on amenities, crammed more and more bodies into planes, cut staffing, outsourced routine maintenance (to cheaper, lower standard contractors) and raised ticket prices five fold. Here, I thought competition always produced a cheaper, safer, more satisfying, more efficient product. Only stooges keep believing conservative economic tripe.
When did Southwest ever sell tickets for $14????
I don't know when did they? After 9/11, perhaps?
And please tell me that ain't the best response you got, boy.
You're the one that mention 5 fold ticket increases.
where did that 5 fold number come from?
And your silence on the bankruptcy point tells me you don't give a crap if people are robbed of their livelihoods should automakers go belly-up. How very patriotic and compassionate of you yo-yo (you're on your own) types.
I have been far from silent on the bankruptcy issue. It has to be an option or is it $85 Billion now, $85 Billion in the Spring, $85 Billion in the Summer, etc? Let's see what they bring to the table on Monday next.
oscar, here's where i see the difference in airlines and banks going bankrupt and reorganizing or being taken over. those businesses can reorganize with minimal disruption. a bank changes it's sign and puts new deposit slips in the lobby and they're open next day. same with the airlines. an airline ticket is not the same investment as an automobile. if you think that perhaps you're going to have trouble getting parts 5 years down the road because of a bankruptcy, you might be hesitant to buy that car. nor do those other bankruptcies have the potential to disrupt the economy the way that the big three failing would. it's not a question of do they deserve to fail. the question is what happens if they do. unemployment will skyrocket and the government will likely end up taking over those pension costs and then that will make the costs of any bailout look small.
You are correct sir. If this country would finally join with the rest of the industrialized world GM and all other corporations in this country would see immediate results to the bottom line. It is certainly unfair to try and blame the poor working stiff for the problems of an industry that has been behind trends for decades.
I thought the articles cited were pretty clear in explaining the $70/hour figure.
No, they are all highly misleading, because by averaging in retiree costs, and then dividing the total among present-day workers, they are making a clearly false claim about their pay. They are overstating it by a significant degree.
It's so patently phony for them to do this-- to pump it up like this-- that the only conclusion anyone can come to is that they are all guilty of union animus. What else explains the illogic? They're management flacks.
Although the articles do not say what the line worker earns as part of the $70, they do state that bennies, etc are part of the figure. (sounds rather like SS, current workers funding retirees in one way or an other).
but benefits for who? not for the worker presently working. it creates a false picture. if you say the worker gets 70 in total compensation, you think wow. but if you then say that includes what the company pays retirees, it's a totally different scenario.
But is it for their own retirement, future health care, etc. Or is that put on the next generation of workers? If the second is the fact, then the $70 figure could be said to be current fact as far as total compensation. If the first is the fact, the $70 figure is overstated by a substantial figure (like maybe $20). Accountants some times make the truth hard to find.
there is no way around the fact that present workers are not getting that compensation level. i think it's been clearly stated it is for workers already retired. are you making an extra 12000 a year because of what someone is getting in social security?
No, they are not making $70/hr, but that is their cost to the companies. Sure the companies could state it differently (i.e. $XXX/vehicle or something else), but it appears that all of them, including Toyota, Honda, etc are expressing in $/hr. Does make the comparision more equivalent
no, it is not "their" cost to the companies, not the present workers. it is the cost of present labor plus retiree obligations.
and the honda and toyota plants in this country are not nearly as old as gm, and do not have the same amount of retirees, i assume.
So how should they figure in the cost of retiree obligations??
any way but adding them as a cost of present workers.
If you re-read the article it clearly states that the line workers get $29.78 in hourly wages.
then could you explain it. because i don't see the "average worker" being paid 70 per hour. i know i would not consider myself as being paid that amount if it included a retiree's pension.
They're not. Retiree costs are being averaged in, then divided among the current workers. It's a bogus average, nothng more than right-wing propaganda.
But even if it were true, so what? I guess these guys would be happier if everyone was making $8 an hour. Like the way it used to be, where a chicken in every pot was a national goal.
Their business model is way out of wack for non skilled workers. Their current model is not sustainable. I am a highly skilled artist and I make 65-75 an hour when I work and I am self employed with no "bennies". I will work until they put me in the ground as sitting around knowing I could do what I now do would be unthinkable. This retirement thing is highly overrated and retirement pay is a free lunch and should be abolished. I can't imagine paying my emplyees a retirement. Honda just opened a new factory (I think in Indiana) and is hiring. What does that say? It tells me American cars arwe overpriced for what you get in relation to Japanese cars. We will survive whatever consequences befall the American big 3. These employess and the union(s) will have to adjust at some point or the game for them is over. How can I get a bail out, by the way?
"... retirement pay is a free lunch and should be abolished." - djasperg2761
Do you have any idea what a bizarre comment that was? You honestly think that America's workers should be forced to perform as wage slaves until they are finally ingloriously dumped... whithered and depleted of every last bit of energy that they had ever possessed... into their graves? What other progressive, pro-labor innovations do you think should be abolished? The eight hour day? The forty hour week? Vacations? The enactment of child labor laws? Overtime?
Thankfully, I'm a Teamster and have put in nearly twenty years toward a union pension, and will never have the intense bad fortune of working for an anti-labor uber-Scrooge like you.
I see the union bashing has now commenced in earnest.
I am NOT against unions. Social Security benefits should take over (and should be raised) when one retires. While I am not a total Socialist, I think an individual should be assured medical and adequate financial benefits till one dies from OUR goveernment.
That's the stupidest thing I have ever read. Mescal is right.
one of the stupidest things I ever read was: McCain and Palin 08. I failed to fully articulate my concept. No offense to you or Mescal. To pay into a union for retirement works great and I am all for it. However, when a union negotiates with management for $70. per hour wages for non skilled workers, Everybody loses. Also, there is a good chance the corporation will price their products out of the market for what they are. Of course this is provided that minimum wage isn't 65 dollars an hour.
I am very sorry, too, for my hasty post. However, union workers do not make 70 dollars an hour, not now, not ever.
With all the complaining about the auto workers (because they are unionized, I am sure is the reason) we should point out that you can pretty much use the same yardstick to claim everyone else who isn't unionized is overpaid too. Heck, I get health care just like union workers, insurance just like union workers, and even 5% company matching into my 401K. You could easily add all that up and claim I'm getting $25k a year more than I really bring home, but it won't happen because I'm not in a union. But tell ya what, sometimes I wish we were unionized, because it would sure be a lot harder for my company to outsource their production overseas if we were. The government sure doesn't have our backs.
i do not disagree that the current model is not sustainable. many of these programs were started 60 and 70 years ago when people did not live as long, and lots of people literally began their working life in their early teenage years. so i agree we cannot afford to pay someone 15,000 a year, on top of social security, for 20 or more years. however, those things were part of negotiated contracts and i am pretty sure the honda and toyota workers have some kind of pension plan. and the unions have actually made some concessions and will have to make more.
as for the retirement thing, that is already going by the wayside, as we have known it. there is a significant increase from 20 years ago in people over 65 still working. a.a.r.p. has taken polls for many years now and they show that most boomers expect, and even want, to work past "retirement". maybe not full time, but a few days a week. and that will do two things. it will delay the age at which a lot of workers begin taking social security and they will pay taxes on any of their work income.
i think most people agree that there will have to be concessions of union and management if there is a "bailout". it should absolutely come with strings attached, including raising mileage standards. [something the unions opposed as well as the companies.] and no golden parachutes for top brass who don't perform and walk away with 10 million. but the issue now is, what happens if these companies fail. it will have a chain reaction effect all the way down to the dealers, and it will take a long time to get back on track. this is not like a bank, where you change the sign and open the doors the next morning as a new company. blame? there's plenty of that to go around on all sides. the question is what are the effects of doing nothing.
Our free enterprise system is great. Adjustments must be made along the way to reflect changing times. If indeed, unskilled workers made $70 per hour, this would be out of sync with other wages for unskilled workers. In a way, Social Security is a socialistic idea. The social security benifit should be raised. It IS a JOKE right now. I am aware of what the unions have done over the years,. I used to belong to the IBEW. In some instances, they have gone too far for the good of a free enterprise system. Therefore, Free enterprise and socialistic ideals can be utilized for the benefit of ALL. That is what I meant to say and am sorry it wasn't infered. I am a marketer as well as an artist. I love free enterprise. When people retire. a system should be in place to comfortably allow someone to exist with an assurance they will have their medical , food and utility payments taken care of. If that is wrong then our system is broken to the point, we are stuck on stupid and our coinage should read: To each his own and good luck sucker.
yes, i would agree that sometimes unions have overdone it. it's like when you get an ad in the mail around election time for whatever candidate, and they say something like "endorsed by firefighters union". a lot of times that means that they have voted for increases in pensions that the taxpayers end up paying for. i'm not sure we can afford any big increases in social security though. people are going to have to save a certain amount and prepare on their own. [i know that's not possible in all cases.] if we are going to move to a national health care, i think it's going to have to cover just the basics. we clearly are unable to provide "state of the art" care to every person. some procedures are simply not worth the cost. if a treatment keeps a person alive 4 months longer than they would have other wise lived, is it worth it to pay 50,000 dollars for that?
mefirst, sometimes I think you make far too much sense to be posting here (and this in one of those times). Personal responsibility has fled the scene, so government (i.e. the taxpayer) must be our salvation (per a lot of the posters here).
That's a two edged sword your waving, oscar! ;)
Tom Delay telling us we don't need better gas mileage sure doesn't help that argument you just made, my friend.
Outside the topic slightly, but Tom Delay, in my opinion, says some rather idiotic things on a rather regular basis, but that doesn't necessarily make him an idiot.
The big(?) three are largely responsible for their problems, why should I (or other taxpayers) be liable for those problems outside of what stock we may hold in a 401(k), mutual fund or other investment tool?
Because if they do indeed collapse, then the effect that that will have on our economy will be horrendous. It will shove unemployment up several points (considering all of the dependant jobs that will also be lost), and therby cost the federal treasury billions in lost revenue. It will greatly strain attendant government programs, such as unemployment insurance, wellfare, emergancy room costs, the criminal justice system, etc. It will devastate the Michigan economy, requiring billions of federal dollars to make up at least a percentage of their inevitable short-falls.
In other words, do we want to spend the money keeping people working and earning, or do we want to spend it dealing with the catastrophic results of allowing one of our few remaining production industries go down the f*kcing drain?
Oscar, the smartest argument I've heard suggested only giving them the money necessary to retool their plants for greener technology and then tag on a repayment plan to force the big three to pay back the loan. Now, as often happens with grandiose plans it will work for awhile until some scheming politician gets the kickback of a lifetime and all of a sudden pushes for cancellation of any further paybacks, but I'd hope that our new batch of politicians would somehow write that bill to make it difficult if not impossible for that to happen?
Let's see what kind of plan the big(?) 3 bring to the table on Dec 1. I'm not even sure that they are lean and mean enough to even get that done. Chapter 11 may still be an option, government loan vs. grant (bailout) may be an option. Things going forward as they are is not an option. There will still be a demand for X number of vehicles in the US in any given year, whether they are made by the big(?) 3 or made by the foreign owned companies in US plants. I realize its on a much different scale, but there was a change in the US as we made the transition from horse driven transportation to the automobile. How many buggy whip and harness manufacturers went out of business in the early part of the 20th century? Parts manufacturers will have to re-tool also, do we guarantee them the $$ to do so? Dealerships will undergo substantial changes, do we provide them the $$ for retraining, etc. Where does it stop? Where should it stop?
thanks oscar, i just really find myself having to say what i think. my opinions span a broad range. but i absolutely think government has it's place and it's function, it just can't do everything. we cannot continue to pile up debt at the rate we are going. i do think we are headed toward a major health care crisis in this country. we now have young children getting kidney stones because of all the processed foods they eat. we have a huge obesity epidemic because of things like cases of soda sold for next to nothing at wal-mart. and that is where personal responsibility comes in. [and by the way, the most over weight states are the red southern states.]
G.M., as of 2007, the average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs. I thought it was self explanatory, as well.
That is just not true. It is a bald-faced lie. This figure is arrived at by lumping in retiree costs, and then dividing it among the present workers.
Why don't they divide this total among all their employees on the books?
The reason is obvious-- it would deflate the average pay, to have the total divided among more people. The MSM's goal is to inflate union pay because-- well-- they're all management flacks.
This is just another reframing.
Just as the high gas prices were NOT about supply and NOT fixable by more drilling, the Big 3 are NOT in trouble because their cars are too EXPENSIVE!
Go out to the dealerships. Pull out flyers. Were Toyota and Honda undercutting the big 3 on price? Are you kidding?
That wasn't why Toyota and Nissan took marj By buying in to this argument, we buy their argument that if only the unions were busted everything would be fine.
Union contracts do not cause bad planning. Union contracts did not have the big 3 churning out gas-guzzling SUVS when they were doomed.
If GM were making the EV-1 right now, they'd be in great shape. They STILL have no hybrids on the road. They did not anticipate market condition and were churning out product nobody wants.
If these multimillion-dollar-a-year executives could not see what a high-school student was coming, they've simply steered the company over a cliff.
Unions have NOT ONE THING to do with it.
That line in the fourth paragraph shoould hve been."That wasn't why Toyota and Nissan took market share away from the big 3 in the 80's, and that isn't why they're beating them now."
Don't know where that went.
PBG--you said it! How many millions of dollars in bonuses have the executives given themselves over the past 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? But somehow, despite the inflated exec pay, they say that the unions are to blame? Crap. This is anti-union PR. The $70/hour figure is not accurate--$29.78 is the real figure. Adding in the retired workers is not accurate. But is anybody surprised at their lies?
Effin' A, brother.
And to follow up, who cares if they are unskilled? This myth that skilled workers are somehow more deserving of a living wage makes me cringe. What's the implication? That unskilled laborers don't work hard enough to deserve a wage they can raise a family on and send their kids to school so they can do better than their parents?
It's ridiculous how elitist, how condescending to labor this country has become.
People who complain about how the auto workers make far too much money, usually consider themselves underpaid. Even though many of them make more than the average auto worker.
These same people enjoy the standard of living to which they've become accustomed because of union workers like those in the UAW.
Yeah, they're solution to making a great country is to reduce everyone's wages, not raise the lower ones so they can afford to buy new cars.
It's hilarious-- Republicans always talk about the glories of economic success, unless it's someone else's. Then it's culpable.
The logical conclusion to their grand theory on workers compensation is to take the lowest paid workers in the world and find the median income between them and American workers. That will be the new average American wage. Organized labor built the middle class and now the right has done their best to destroy it.
Their ideas sound a lot more socialistic than the president-elects.
their goal actually is to get us back to the way life was between about 1900 and 1940-- where everyone barely got along, most people were tenants, and only the rich got all the goodies.
If republicans don't like this, they should push for bigger government and more social engineering.
No corporation should have to pay "benefits", as most benefits are just basic quality of life that is government's responsibility to its citizens. Anyone who frets about how government social programs will be payed for should realize that they're already being paid for, by the holiest of entities, the corporation.
At least if it's in the government's hands, the Fundamental Theorem of Liberalism can be applied. And nobody would be left out.
-- At least if it's in the government's hands, the Fundamental Theorem of Liberalism can be applied. And nobody would be left out. -- steeve
Government is the least efficient business model...particularly when compared to the big bad boogey man called free enterprise. Sure there are badly run private companies...but ridiculous bailouts aside...they fold and go out of business.
When govt. programs and agencies perform badly...they go on for ever.
Here's a prime example of why govt. programs don't work. NYC has declared that all faith based homeless shelters must close if they aren't open at least 5 days a week. What's the reason? The govt. says they have plenty of shelters in place...at taxpayer expense...to handle all the shelter needs.
It's nothing more than govt. perpetuating themselves with silly laws. The height of stupidity and arrogance...turning down help...because it might negatively impact their staffing and budget...which is the main thing that govt. agencies care about.
http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20081123/UPDATES01/811230385
Idiot. Government is so inefficient that Medicare operates at about a 4% overhead while the most efficient insurance company operates at about 16%. The difference? The drive to push up executive salaries.
They also actively try to increase their profits by finding any way possible to deny a claim or service. I think the best solution to this problem is to have the federal gov't compete with private insurers. The public will have the choice of either going with a private insurer or government insurance and we'll find out which one the public prefers.
We, the people, should not have to decide between the best of 2 evils. I am really curious as to how Obama will infuse "change" in our Gvt. If he fails to perform, I will capitulate any hope in our Gvt. ever doing the right thing for us, we the people. Should I hold my breath?
We, the people, should not have to decide between the best of 2 evils.
Well that's what you're gonna do. The health insurance industry is too powerful and why would you want to limit someone's choice?
BTW, gov't is only evil when republicans or republican acting Democrats are in charge. We have to stop electing people that don't believe in government.
I am not suggesting limiting choice. Right now our Gvt. is broken and the so called health care (actually it's an industry designed to diagnose a disease caused by nutritional deficiencies and prescribe a pharmaceutical to mitigate the symptom) industry. In both systems this applies: Build something on negative principles and it will colapse under it's own negative weight. It is a law of the universe. Sort of like gravity or inertia.
This is repug Ronnie Rayguns wet-dream come true. Bust unions, that's all this is about. That 70.00 an hour figure is of course misleading and doesn't explain that entry workers make much less now. Auto workers don't come to work and tell their supervisor what kind of car they are going to build. Upper management (REPUG) blew it all these years but of course it's the worker that gets screwed.
Again, if you re-read the article it clearly states that the autoworkers is question make $29.78 per hour.
PGB and others are pointing to the propaganda campaign by the Reps to "reframe" or "spin" as Orally would put it. Republicans are looking for a society that rewards work, where anyone can start at $5.00/hr and move their way up to $11.00--or even $12.00--and even cut down the $1.00 used for withholding. A true vision for a middle class that rents $500.00 a month apartments and drives used cars until they are permanently parked in the middle of the street. A nation where the middle class can begrudge the immigrant or minority who makes $13.00/hr. A nation where 80-90% of its citizenry call the ER their personal family physician. A nation where the vast majority of its citizenry cower in fear that a Muslim will bomb their local Walmart if we lose the war in Iraq. A nation where the rich ruling class can meander out of their multi-million dollar condo and trickle down the fine wine they just drank on some homeless beggar.
Rhetorical, I know, but...
Where was all this anger from the right over worker pay during the finanacial bailout?
Why didn't the mid-level managers and cubicle dwellers in the banks receive any scorn over how much they are paid?
Good question, Pete.
Shhhhh!!!! Don't ask that question! It makes too much sense!
If I and Bill Gates were the only people in the room , on average, I would be worth billions.
The fallacious logic is even more absurd.
If GM lays off ALL their employees, their retiree costs continue, therefore the hourly labour rate approaches infinity (How did he folks at Heritage and AEI miss that statistic!)
If GM lays off only half their employees, the labor (Lr) rate would effective double - again, the fixed cost of retirees (R) stays the same, but the current labor hours (L) diminish. (R+ Lr)/L=apparent hourly rate
Simple stupid math. I love this stuff. Joe the Plumbers (as well as the Chris Matthews types) eat up Heritage and AEI stats, but they're so easy to expose as fallacious.
I see that Romney ( already campaigning for 2012 ) is in favor of letting the Big 3 go bankrupt, thereby shedding all of those 'legacy costs'.
When the union negotiates a contract they give up something NOW to have pensions and healthcare for retirees. Those costs would go away in a bankruptcy.
When MANAGEMENT negotiates a deal, they set up a golden parachute, meaning, when they leave, they get theirs in CASH, not promises of future payments.
Just because they took part of the remuneration for their years of labor in the form of pensions and retiree health-care, why should workers get cheated out of it?
Of course, one thing Romney (and others) aren't saying is that, if the Big 3 walk away from their pensions, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Fund would have to step in to pay the workers. That money comes from.....the government.
"That money comes from.....the government." wrote albertsenj
C'mon Albert, you should write "taxpayers" or better yet, "you and me."
Heads: Romney and the hedge fund guys win, tails: we lose. Gotta love it.
Sometimes lifes a bitch. Taxpayers, you and me, will be footing the bill for all of the economic malfeasence that has transpired over the last eight years. I just heard Obama is going to delay restoring taxes on the wealthy to the former bush reich 'till 2011. This is really going to be interesting indeed. MMFA is going to be very busy indeed. Think about buying American when possible. I remember sometime in the not to distant past that this concept was being promoted. Prosperity built on debt is a ponzi.
i heard that also about the delay in restoring those taxes. i totally disagree with the delay. it's buying into the trickle down theory.
We agree, such a delay would be irresponsible, but maybe Obama is making one of those concessions you think are so great.
do you know how childish that answer is? what does that have to do with the auto industry? what is it a concession to?
I see that Romney ( already campaigning for 2012 ) is in favor of letting the Big 3 go bankrupt, thereby shedding all of those 'legacy costs'. -albertsenj
Which is the the thing about this that puzzles me the most (not really). Because if the big 3 fail and all these parts suppliers fail afterwards, my state of Michigan will sink deeper into the financial pit it is already in.
1. Too many people (Republicans) in Michigan believe Romney is the second comming of christ. Just because his father was the Governor of the state 63-69. They voted for him, because they called him a son of Michigan. Why? When was the last time he lived here? When has he even showed an interest in our state (before the election of course)? But of course with this statement he lost most if not all that support.
2. A lot of conservatives in my state blame our current problems on the current Democrat governor Jennifer Grandholm. When in reality the probelms started because of the terrrible financial policies of the last Governor John Engler and the failure of the big 3 to adapt to a changing world. (And not only did he have a hand in this mess, you should the effects of his closing of many mental institutions in the state. unless of course your a Devos or Engler, who think its fun to have mentally ill people homeless, untreated and living/dying in the streets. As long as it dosn't raise taxes.)
3. If people think the largest piece of the failure of the big 3 wasn't thier ability to adapt to the changing needs of the car buyer....come to Michigan. I'll show you the "storage lots" at each of the big 3. They are filled with thousands of SUVs and huge pick-up trucks, that can't be sold, no body wants them. And the workers are still building more of them! Not because they want to, the exec's at these companies don't give them anything else to build.
4. And most important. When you think about the Big 3 failing, please think about the side effects of that failure. Not only do those companies fail, but many small cities and towns in Michigan have companies that build parts and provide services to the Big 3. Those companies will also fail and so on and so on...all the way down to the companies that supply the raw materials (metals, chemicals, etc.) which are not in the state of Michigan (maybe your state?)
You make a good point. One that's ignored by the free marketeers and the media.
The collateral damage to the economies of every city and town near an auto plant will be devastated. These are the same people who've sold us on our global economy and how everything is related. They don't seem to understand the relationships of auto makers and their families to local and national part suppliers, advertising agencies, bankers, brokers, real estate agents, printers, plumbers, electricians, painters, retail stores, restaurants, food service industries, etc.
Everyone will be effected when the big 3 declare bankruptcies. There will be a total collapse of the economy. And it will be not only nationwide, but worldwide.
So everyone who feels the auto workers make too much money and that we should just let the market work will be joining the rest of us on the soup lines.
God help us if the 21st Century Hoovers prevail.
"God help us if the 21st Century Hoovers prevail." - worrierking
We're just finishing an 8 year preview of being ruled by such a guiding philosophy, King. The only difference is that... unlike Hoover... today's 'free marketeers' believe in collectivism for the wealthy, and social and economic Darwinism for the rest of us. Our government bails out banking and insurance behemoths without any requirements of limiting executive compensation, luxurious perks, or 'golden parachutes', but these same pols and media talking heads gnash their teeth and rend their garments on the subject of union pay and benifits. EXECUTIVE pay is accepted as a natural byproduct of the holy Market... even questioning it is sort of like questioning the will of God... while negotiated contracts that allow WORKERS a comfortable life is decried as ridiculously expensive, and far beyond what society can afford. We've been told for years that universal health care, the rebuilding of public education, and infrastructure repair was just too damned expensive for the nation, but suddenly TRILLIONS of dollars were available to bail out Wall Street.
The rule of thumb seems to be that if it benifits the public, then the coffers are close to empty. If it maintains or... better yet... EXPANDS the wealth that is increasingly concentrating into obscenely huge private fortunes, then the check book is readily produced... NO QUESTIONS ASKED!
I like your style, man.
i hadn't scrolled down to your post, m mcain. we agree on a lot of the same things. there is no doubt that there are going to have to be major concessions all around. but the costs of doing nothing outweigh the comparatively small amount that will be needed to get through this crisis. 25 billion is a lot, but so is 700 billion for banks. i am a guy who has harped on balancing the budget for years, but for the next year, we may have bigger worries.
Concessions? OK. The unions have made many concessions. They have slashed entry level wages by 50%, new hires do not get any guaranteed retiree benefits...How much more should auto workers give up and what have/should management give up?
Well, here is part of Ron Gettlfinger's (UAW president) prepared testimony before the COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS, UNITED STATES SENATE :
"The truth is that in 2005 the UAW agreed to reopen the contracts mid-term, and accepted cuts in workers’ wages and in health care benefits for retirees. Then, in the general 2007 collective bargaining negotiations, the UAW agreed to what industry analysts have called a "transformational" contract that fundamentally altered labor costs for the Detroit-based auto companies. This contract slashed wages for new hires by 50%. Furthermore, new hires will not be covered by the traditional retiree health care and defined benefit pension plans. In addition, this contract stipulated that beginning January 1, 2010 the liability for health care benefits for existing retirees would be transferred from the companies to an independent fund (a Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association, or VEBA). This agreement has subsequently been approved by federal courts, which have appointed a majority of the trustees who will be independent of the UAW and responsible for managing the VEBA. Taken together, the changes made by the 2005 and 2007 contracts reduced the companies' retiree health care liabilities by fifty percent.
As a result of all these painful concessions, the gap in labor costs that had previously existed between the Detroit-based auto companies and the foreign transplant operations will be largely or completely eliminated by the end of the contracts. [emphasis added] Indeed, one industry analyst has indicated that labor costs for the Detroit-based auto companies will actually be lower than those for Toyota’s U.S. operations. Thus, the truth is the UAW and our active and retired members have already stepped up to the plate and made the hard changes that were necessary to make our companies competitive in terms of their labor costs.
It is also important to note that union negotiated work rules cannot be blamed for the current problems facing the Detroit-based companies. According to the Harbour Report, the industry benchmark for productivity, union-represented workers are actually more efficient than their counterparts at non-union auto plants. And union-made vehicles built by the Detroit-based auto companies are winning quality awards from Consumer Reports, J.D. Power, and other industry analysts."
Awesome post, RH.
Well done.
actually i was aware that the unions have made concessions, but they might have to consider cuts in present benefits and present retiree payments. nor have i suggested that management is immune to anything. i said concessions "all around", and i noted in a post above that there should be no golden parachutes for executives that fail. i have also said several times that any aid should be tied to improved mileage standards. i also noted in a post above that is was the unions and management together that opposed increased mileage standards. and if you read further into mr. gettlfinger's testimony, you will see that he rejects any such linkage with this aid package. the companies are mandated now to raise standards to 35 mpg by 2020 and that is far too long a time to wait for that. it was accomplished far more quickly when carter passed the standards in the 70s that we have now.
actually i was aware that the unions have made concessions, but they might have to consider cuts in present benefits and present retiree payments.
Once you make concessions you might as well kiss whatever was conceded goodbye forever. Plain and simple, the auto industry has to come up with a better business model. If they fail to do that, no amount of concessions by the union will save them.
so are you saying don't ever make concessions? because they already have in some areas. nor is anything permanent. if the companies return to making money, the unions would demand more. and i've pointed out twice that it is not just the companies that need a better business model. the unions have long opposed any meaningful increase in mileage standards. why i don't know. it was certainly not in their own best interest to let the japanese companies by themselves make and sell fuel efficient vehicles. it's easy to blame the companies and you haven't seen me make any excuses for them, but the union did not object to the emphasis on producing gas hogs.
so are you saying don't ever make concessions?
Yes.
because they already have in some areas.
If I were in their position, I wouldn't have conceded anything but I understand why they did it. We live in a time where unions are constantly being attacked by politicians and corporations and we have a media that always seems to frame unions in a negative light.
nor is anything permanent
I think it is. If the union doesn't get dismantled they could probably get back some of their wages but the benefits they conceded are gone. It happened to my union.
but the union did not object to the emphasis on producing gas hogs.
The gas hogs were selling and now they're not. The probably thought it was in the company's best interest to produce the gas hogs.
Oh, yes, we were sold on the SUV, Big Truck scenario by the car companies and the ad agencies, primarily I believe because the profit margin was higher on those vehicles. That may be because they (the car companies) created a demand that allowed them to charge a higher price. I'm surprised by the number of large pickups (usually 4 X 4s) in the company parking lot. I know a lot of the employees are hunters and spend a lot of time off-road, etc, but if it were me, I would have a smaller, fuel efficient vehicle for commuting.
but the union obviously made those concessions for a reason. they would not do it otherwise. if the company goes under, then those contracts are worthless and no one is getting paychecks. it's happened with a lot of the parts suppliers.
as for the gas hogs, there was no reason why we could not develop engines that got much better gas mileage. obviously it was not in the best long term interest to keep producing those. eventually we will reach peak oil,, if we have not already. there's no reason, none, that the mileage standards cannot be higher than they are. no reason at all, unless you buy into the limbaugh line of "it's your american right to own that gas guzzler". fuel efficiency is both a matter of our economic and national security. and the union and management still oppose tying aid to any new standards. they're both wrong.
You're right that you said, "concessions all around." However, I DID give you specific examples of what the union has given up. I DID ask you what management has/should give up and you only gave me what they should give up, in your august opinion. What HAS been given up "all around?" It should be a no brainer answer for a man who so loudly touts his opinion that no side has made enough concessions.
save me the, 'i never said i knew what all sides have given up, i just said i knew not enough was given' up style answer. it's an old routine.
first there have been lots of management jobs eliminated. second, you know what you can do with your attitiude.
You got caught blowin' smoke, so you can get over yourself and answer the question.
i did. i said a lot of management white collar jobs have been eliminated. as in out the door. but because i didn't answer with something you liked, you ignore it, as per your usual selectivity. i already said several times that golden parachutes should be eliminated, so obviously i am in favor of limits on management compensation. but again, you ignore that. as for getting over oneself, you might want to try it. you talk about someone "loudly" proclaiming things? as if your posts are like the gentle passing of a butterfly? you try getting over your self-righteous self, and then come to me.
Oh, I get it. I give you specifics, I ask for specifics. You give me generalities and claim I ignore your specifics. You're an idiot. You're the one who was talking like more concessions need to be made all around without even having a clue what actual concessions have been made on any side. You got caught talking crap so get over it.
the exact figure was 20 percent of white collar workers in july. and that has happened before. it's no generality to say a lot of white collar jobs were eliminated. they were. i also knew the union had made some concessions on health care. so don't pretend i did not give you an answer. as for your namecalling, that's typical of anyone you disagree with. you do it constantly because you think only you have any real answers. you're arrogant and self righteous.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/business/10gm.html?_r=1
to be precise, it was pay reductions of 20 percent, with staff reductions also.
the staff reductions were 15 percent.
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/23/gm-cutting-more-white-collar-jobs-and-employee-benefits/
"you're arrogant and self righteous." and seldom wrong.
So why didn't you just post this info as part of your rebuttal earlier? You wouldn't have come across like an uninformed git. My guess is you were simply spouting off without any actual information, just a gut certainty that your middle way is always right.
I just wish we liked each other's personalities because we could be a good tandem on these threads. If you notice we agree more often than not, I just think you're a pushy jerk. I know, I know it's mutual. At least, I know I'm a jerk on these threads. Then you grouse about me name calling like some thin skinned conjob but turn right around and call me arrogant and self-righteous. You're a hypocrite. Own it.
i call you arrogant because you are. you just apologized to me and brabantio for your tone a few days ago, so spare me the innocent act or that it's just "thin skinned conjobs". you also accused brab of calling me biased, when he didn't, and i did not take his words that way. i called you what i did after you called me an idiot. if you want to agree to being a pushy jerk, i can't argue. that doesn't mean i am.
i already knew that there had been white collar layoffs because i had read about them at the time, but i did not remember the exact figure. i would not have made the statement if i knew i couldn't back it up. so your "guess" is wrong. if you want to talk about "spouting off", you were the one who made the remark above about airline fares increasing five fold. that is wildly inaccurate to my knowledge. where did that come from?
You are right, 2020 is too long to wait. As I suggested to our friend, Oscar, auto makers need to redesign their their product with no less urgency than they did when they converted themselves because tanks, not cars, were the national priority. Because should these companies go belly-uo people's lives are in jeopardy. Bankruptcy or corporate Marxism or whatever it is they call it when rich people hugely fail, could very possibly absolve automakers of their obligation to pay out the retirement benefits that workers sacrificed and payed into all their working lives. That is wrong. So very wrong and it doesn't matter to me what anyone says in favor of that kind of bankruptcy. Allowing companies to jettison pensions is the the kind of cowardly shedding of moral contract that conservatives are so quick perform while simultaneously feigning obedience to personal responsibility.
as usual, you read what you want. i never said to "jettison" pensions, i said there might have to be "cuts" in the amount paid on our present pensions.
As usual, you project your ignorance onto others. I never said that your position was that we ought to jettison pensions. Read it again: Bankruptcy or corporate Marxism or whatever it is they call it when rich people hugely fail, COULD very possibly absolve automakers of their obligation to pay out the retirement benefits...Allowing companies to jettison pensions is the the kind of cowardly shedding of moral contract...
Please take note that I was making a case against a bankruptcy that includes shedding pension obligations, as usual, you apparently are guilty of reading what you want and project your bad habits outward. But since we're on the topic, if you're talking about cutting pensions of current retirees, that is despicable. Those men and women spent their lives sacrificing and paying for those pensions. They earned every damned penny and if they pensions are cut we more than likely will be paying for it through medicare and medicaid, anyway. If you're talking about cutting future benefits for current workers, that's the kind of concession that has ALREADY been made by the union. No. Why don't CEO's take deep cuts in salary, bonuses and pension?
if that is what you meant, then i accept that. but i thought you were applying that to me, because i said that there might have to be cuts. and my one and only interest here, as i have repeatedly stated, is that i do not want these companies to declare bankruptcy because of the effect it will have. it's great to say no concessions, but if they do go out of business, no one is getting anything, paycheck or retirement. the pensions are also a different subject than the health care. and why are the new hires any less deserving than the retirees? is it fair they get 50 percent less and no retirement? that's putting it all on their shoulders. are they working less hard. as for the ceo compensation, i've already said: "obviously i am in favor of limits on management compensation". do i have to make that any clearer?
You are not exactly right that pensions and healthcare are separate, they are a package deal, but you make a persuasive argument otherwise. Is it fair for current workers to get a bum deal in comparison to current retirees? No. It's not. i think pay and benefits concessions are a necessary item here, i just don't think management have made sacrifices commensurate to labor, especially given this tidbit from Ellen E. Schultz, "When General Motors cites retiree costs, the giant auto maker has a point: It owed nearly 700,000 U.S. workers and retirees pensions that totaled $87.8 billion at the end of last year.
But $95.3 billion had already been set aside to pay those benefits when due.
All of these assets are earning investment returns, which offset the pensions' expense. GM lost $10.6 billion in 2005. But deep as its losses have been, they would have been far worse without the more than $10 billion per year in investment income that the GM pension plan for the rank and file generates.
The pension plan for GM executives is another matter. Unfunded to the tune of $1.4 billion, it detracts from GM's bottom line each year. This is criminal. The workers' pensions--their money that they agreed to forego in each paycheck so they would have a decent living down the road during retirement--is generating cash for GM, while the executives' pensions is truly the drag on the company."
It's time for a bailout, like the Wall St. bailout should have been, that comes with strict conditions of economic transparency on pensions, bankruptcy reform and a commitment to retool their product to what consumers need, not what marketers have convinced us we want.
is it money they agreed to forego or simply money that the company put in the fund? the point still stands that the company is burning through 2.5 billion a month. and is it really "criminal" that the management pensions were unfunded. the company simply cannot pay these costs for everyyone, worker or white collar, for 30 years and more. they have more people on retirement than active workers.
"i do not want these companies to declare bankruptcy because of the effect it will have."
Amen.
We lost the railroads, steel, and textile industries...how did we ever survive?
We became a low wage, service industry society. Congratulations, we have gone in a generation, from a country that believed the next generation will do better than the last, to a country that now believes the next generation will not do better.
If you think that losing industries has had no detrimental effect on the economy then you have lost your connection to reality.
Touche my hind end. The claim of $70 per hour is obviously incorrect. This type of misrepresentation has been used for decades to deride union membership and conflate the problems of management into a labor problem. I've been retired for 7 years now from the Teamster's Union and I'm well aware of this old carnard. If fact just before I retired the new chief executive of my company advised me that my living wage (less than $20 per hr at the time) was the problem the company was having. This coming from someone who just received a 350K raise in one year. You can guess where I told him to stick it!
Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see that the republican plan of attack is to bash and bust unions. They HATE unions with a passion. Their limited memory has allowed them to forget who gave them the eight hour day, laws against child labor, the opportunity to bargain for decent wages, etc. So they will campaign hard aginst helping the Detroit auto companies. You have people like former Democratic, now Republican Senator Shelby campaigning hard for his foreign masters who have four auto plants in his state. America will ask itself what happened and how when the ripple effect of not helping Detroit hits home.
The CEO's should either be made to resign or put on a specific compensation package for the duration of the crisis. The companies should meet mandated CAFE Standards and begin to design and build fuel efficient automobiles. If Honda, Toyota and Nissan can do it, so can the American workers. Republicans have no problem with Wall Street making millions but are obssessed with keeping regular workers at $8/hour.
Thanks to Messrs Boehlert and Foser for pointing out a fallacy that has been circulating as fact in media outlets that have an undeservedly high reputation, such as the NYT. The legacy costs of a retired worker are essentially "overhead" and are no more a part of a current worker's costs to the company than is the electricity used to heat the building in which he works.
It is true that if there were no workers in the building the utility costs of the building would go down, but it is not easy to compute each worker's share of that cost, since some utilities vary according to man-hours while others are flat until you get rid of the entire workforce.
In a similar way, the current worker IS associated with the future costs of his own eventual legacy benefits, but the total cost of present legacy benefit recipients cannot simply be divided up among the workers who are still employed by the company. Doing so could put the costs of several workers into the calculation of the cost of one worker.
Addressing total labor costs is a necessity for every company and every economy, but what is needed in such analyses is facts, not phony figures that serve only to make people angry at the "fat cats" of the assembly line who seem to be impoverishing the rest of us by making supposedly outrageous wages.
Calculated in a similar way the wages of all of us could be made to sound much larger than they really are. My boss once bought everyone in the office a custom-fitted ergonomic chair; I suppose I should have calculated this expenditure as part of my wage.
And while we're figuring out how much we get paid let's look at the Boss who bought those fine chairs. What is the hourly wage of someone who makes a million dollars a year? Or two million. Or ten. Or 200--Million.
The figure for one million earned over 52 weeks at 40 hours per week comes to an hourly rate of $480. You can do the math yourselves, but just to get you started I'll tell you that the auto executives who made 50 mill last year were earning at the rate of... $24,000 per hour.
That's 340 times the rate of a $70 per hour worker. And I'll bet his LEGACY benefits could make you faint.
Good post. This resentment the right is drumming up would not work on a nation of people if we weren't all making Wal-Mart wages. It's amazing that a person making $10 an hour can get so angry that another guy makes seven (7) times more in total compensation, 2.9 times more in real compensation, that they ignore that this resentment only serves the interest of the guy who makes 500 times more.
Republicans hate the not-rich and not-connected, us.
What else can explain them being OK with the 700B baliout of Wall Street (which some say is > 2100 B dollars) but asking semi-logical questions like 'how come Honda is not asking for bailout', for a paltry 25B.
Bis 3 are not asking for a bailout. They are asking for a loan. If you want a collateral, specify it.
Granted, Big 3 makes lousy automobiles. But the current situation is not their making. Even Honda, Toyota are selling less tha they used to.
Stupid Republicans want to make a point that unions are responsible for the Big 3's plight. Unions are a small part of their problem. The same stupid Republicans did not insist that Wall Street firms will emerge better if they go bankrupt. At that time everyone was in lockstep with 'they are too big to fail'.
Rightwingers are contemptuous of people who actually WORK for a living. Auto workers must, then, be demonized.
Don't ever dare to mention the "compensation" packages enjoyed by the executives, though. Good golly, that makes you a "class warrior" who only wants to interfere in business matters best left to business men.
But those damn auto workers ... how DARE they make a wage higher that "the average"? They must be greedheads and resposible for every financial problem our auto makers are experiencing.
If the auto companies just had FREE LABOR, maybe they could afford private jets for their CEO's.
And the rightwing's hostility to the middle class continues, and they wonder why they were handed a bloodbath this last election. They think it's because they weren't "conservative" enough! Not anti-union enough, not MORE cruel to average Americans, not dealing out enough goodies to their rich pals. I hope they keep thinking this way ... they'll be in the wilderness forever.
Are you saying only 52.5% of voting Americans actually work for a living? Man, I need to get out more to seek out those other 47.5%.
No, I think Tex is saying that millions of voters are regularly hornswoggled by conservative rhetoric and the corporate media into voting against their own economic interests.
Did you not get that point this election?
Total BS that the automakers have been paying their workers $70/hour. The Japanese make a better car anyway and so will the Chinese. This country should get the hell out of making cars.
Makes me sick that our hardworking, migrant-illegal aliens will work in the farm fields for pennies with no benefits yet these "G.E.D." dropouts at the auto plants make $70/hour.
but they don't make 70 per hour.
One more time. It CLEARLY states in the article that the autoworkers in question make $29.78 per hour.
Makes me sick that no talent musicians make and sell albums for and to idiots, but I generally keep that to myself.
It won't go out of business. It is well funded by wealthy neo-fascist billionaires and Zionists. As is the American Enterprise Institute. The greed of the rich knows no bounds. They don't give up, ever. They know better how to destroy than create. There should be a cap on wealth as they is, supposedly, a safety net for poverty.
Why is it "class warfare" for President-elect Obama to suggest letting the Bush tax cuts on those making more than $250,000 a year expire, but it's OK for the Republican party, the Conservative movement and their minions in the media to attack hourly workers?
It's only "class warfare" when those at the bottom questions those on top.
You're post is right on the nose, King.
This is standard procedure for the media propagandists, they always inflate the highest number for wages when trying to destroy good union jobs in the United States.
Steve Jobs is paid $646 MILLION per year. Citigroup's Vikram Pandit is paid $30 MILLION a year to oversee a failing company. Even if the autoworkers are paid $70 per hour (including ALL their perks and benefits and retiree payments) they bloody damned well deserve it ALL and then some. Anyone who has worked as a mechanic or GM assembly worker knows what I'm talking about. It I were King for a Day I'd bring the talking head pundits salaries down. Joe Scarborough (who should still be investigated for the murder of Lori Klausutis) makes six or seven figures. Why? He's relatively worthless.
Boy, the Board of Directors of the Heritage Foundation is chock full of old rich white people, mostly really nasty looking old white men with pinched faces and vacuous, acquisitive beady eyes. There are a few really old rich hags and one token black. Their diversity is remarkable...not solidly white anymore! Richard Scaife the bastard is on their board. Al Franken lays at his fee the low level of political discourse in America today and for the past 28 years. He's the one who called a reporter who was interviewing him a "communist c**t".
Reminds me of an old joke...I'd never belong to a club that would have me as a member. (thanks Groucho)
I know what you're saying... the employee cost is $70. But you missed the point of the complaint. Read this:
James Gattuso stated, "I think that there's no reason that a UAW worker should get total compensation of $70 an hour when the average American only makes about $25 an hour in total compensation."
Mr. Gattuso says 'a UAW worker.' The 'a' is the definate arcicle. When the facts mean the way you (reasonably) take it: employee cost (included retired) / number of employees. If they also use THE SAME comparison to other manufacturers... no harm. But Mr. Gattuso is clearly FOS here.
Let's see, both Iacoccoa and Carter are up there in age. Could we trust their judgement any more? Seriously, I think Iacoccoa could offer some serious input to the equation. I watched a video of a recent presentation of his and it was eye-opening, even though I only got snippets.
I wonder if they folded the CEO's wages in as well? After all they work for the company too, don't they?
The retirees and their families have medical insurance paid for life. I will hve to deal with the Medicaid and this guys want money from the taxpayers?
Why are you going to bail out a business model that does not work? American cars are not as reliable and as fuel efficient as the japanese cars. That is a fact that 25 billion will not cahnge.
How come KIA, Toyota, Honda are succesful with their plants in the USA? Simply because they do no thave unions.