O'Reilly latest to advance UAW pay falsehood
SUMMARY: On his radio and television shows, Bill O'Reilly advanced the falsehood that "the average autoworker now makes 70 bucks an hour." In fact, a recent Barclays Capital analysis reportedly found that the average U.S. autoworker is paid "an average of $55 an hour in wages and benefits."
During the February 24 edition of his Fox News television program, Bill O'Reilly asserted that "[w]ith health and retirement, the average autoworker now makes 70 bucks an hour -- far more than their counterparts at the Japanese companies." O'Reilly made similar comments during that day's broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, saying, "Now, when you add up all the perks -- the salaries, the benefits, the retirement package -- it comes to $70 an hour for autoworkers." He added, "They're making $70 an hour." In fact, as Media Matters for America noted, a recent Barclays Capital analysis reportedly found that the average U.S. autoworker is paid "an average of $55 an hour in wages and benefits." The $70 per hour figure -- which General Motors reportedly puts at $69 -- represents the automakers' total labor costs per worker-hour, which includes retirement and health-care benefits to current retirees and does not reflect the compensation of the average worker.
Both The Washington Post on February 12 and The Wall Street Journal on February 6 reported that UAW members earn on average $55 per hour in wages and benefits, citing an analysis conducted by Barclays Capital, an international investment bank. Similarly, on December 9, 2008, The New York Times' David Leonhardt calculated that the compensation of unionized autoworkers is "roughly $55 an hour or so," including wages, overtime and vacation pay, health insurance, and benefits.
As Media Matters noted, during the final months of 2008, dozens of media figures and outlets advanced the falsehood that autoworkers employed by the domestic automakers are paid $70 or more per hour in wages and benefits without noting that this figure includes current retiree costs. According to Leonhardt, the added cost of retiree benefits "isn't mainly a reflection of how generous the retiree benefits are. It's a reflection of how many retirees there are."
From the February 24 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Now, why are Chrysler and GM in such trouble? Well, they're in such trouble because they pay enormous labor costs to the UAW.
Now, this is -- you know, follow me here. It's important. Sounds boring, it isn't boring. All right, the United Autoworkers Union is a big Democratic machine fundraiser and all kinds of -- so the Dems owe them. They owe them big, which is Obama is going to do pretty much what the auto companies want.
Now, when you add up all the perks -- the salaries, the benefits, the retirement package -- it comes to $70 an hour for autoworkers. They're making $70 an hour. Japanese automakers make about 55. So it's a 15, $16 difference an hour. Now, that's why Detroit can't compete -- can't make any money. Their nut is too big.
Now, the UAW has given back a little bit -- pay freeze, some layoffs, limited overtime -- but not much. Not much. And I do not expect them to. They're going to try to hold the line, and the Democratic Party is beholden to them.
All right, so everybody getting the picture here?
LIS WIEHL (co-host): I'm getting the picture.
O'REILLY: Seventy dollars an hour for the automakers. And they just can't compete in the worldwide market with that -- simply can't. So no matter how good the cars are -- and the cars are good; I drive a GM car. I have for years -- they're not going to make any money because of all of this stuff that the unions negotiated. Everybody clear?
From the February 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: The president should also address the autoworkers union, which has not given back nearly enough. With health and retirement, the average autoworker now makes 70 bucks an hour -- far more than their counterparts at the Japanese companies. At $70 an hour, there is no way General Motors and Chrysler are going to make money, no matter how much the taxpayer lends them.
Hey! Somebody predicted this thread earlier. I feel like I've witnessed a miracle.
Who was that? The Amazing Bruce1Ace? I'm asking him about some ponies.
Let it ride on Old Fashioned in the Kentucky Derby. You heard it here first.
I'm glad I got your tip before I went and paid this month's mortgage.
Instead of making the payment I'm putting it all on Old Fashion. You're in for a cut of my winnings Bruce.
Awesome. Kentucky Derby in 2 months! I hope he makes the race.
I thought nobody had to pay their mortgage anymore? I'm going to put all of my bets on the credit cards. Thanks, Bruce!
Just remember: Past performance is not indicative of future results and people CAN and DO lose money.
blah blah blah, whatever, the fine print bores me.
That's what all those forclosed homeowners said...
And my homeowner's association...
Gladys: [On phone] The homeowners charter, which you signed, says the grass is supposed to be two inches, and according to my measuring stick, yours is two-point-five.
the point is at $70, or $69, per labor hour, GM cannot stay fiscally competitive. And considering Democrats are linked at the waist to unions and their donations, Obama can't say much. We can keep throwing money at the automakers until the cows come home, but unless the UAW stops walking away from talks, as in the link mmfa provides, nothing will change.
The solution is staring us in the face, but the Republicans will fight to the death to prevent it; universal healthcare.
If the Detroit automakers and other businesses were relieved of the health insurance burden, it would be a huge stimulus. Of course, the Republican solution is to let the "free market" work... i.e. if you can't afford it, too bad.
GM cannot stay fiscally competitive
It seems like almost every post by conservatives here includes the word "can't" (or "cannot). Everything is based on a defeatist, quitter mentality. Out of the way, surrender monkeys.
But Colonel, but, but.....
FoxNews et al is telling us that it's Obama that's the pessimist. That it's the left that wants to accept defeat in Iraq and surrender to the terrorists.
Funny, I just heard Michael Medved talking about Obama's speech. Medved was overall more reasonable than he usually is, agreeing with a lot of Obama's points. Then, of course, Medved had to point out where Obama failed; We can't do everything at once.
Of course, nobody's talking about doing everything at once, or a quick fix, except for the conservative critics, but leave it to them to start talking down anything aspiring to accomplish anything.
It's the "goal post syndrome", Col. For Bush and the righties, you move them back when failure is imminent. For Obama and the lefties, you move them up when trying to correct those failures. The same analogy can be made with raising or lowering the proverbial bar.
No, the point is that GM isn't paying $69 or $70 an hour. It's been debunked.
It's another ploy by the wealthy to deny dignity to people who punch a clock.
And by the way this dirtbag isn't lookin' out for ya, he's looking out for those who profit from your labor.
I didn't say they paid workers that amount, but the total labor hour for all employees, current and retired is $70 per hour. my original point remains.
Your point seems to be that GM cannot stay fiscally competitive paying their workers and retirees what they currently pay them. Your point seems to be that GM should take some of the food of the tables of their workers and retirees. Your point is most likely being made while the job you’re paid to do is not getting done.
your presumptiveness is only outdone by your idiotic posts.
My mistake, I thought you were suggesting cuts in pay and benefits for current and retired automakers.
Whatever. Why don't you go to work tomorrow and offer to take a pay cut so your boss can make more money. Better yet, ask your boss to take a pay cut, too.
If my employer was asking for federal money because he can't pay his bills, then I would rather take a pay cut than be unemployed. in fact, many people I know have taken pay cuts.
On your mark! Get set! Go!
(start of jamesb's race to the bottom).
"I would rather take a pay cut than be unemployed."
So would members of the UAW, in fact, they haven't been given much of a choice when it comes to government help for their employers:
Chrysler LLC and General Motors Corp. were required to obtain contract concessions from the UAW under terms of the $13.4 billion in loans the two automakers have received from the government.
The United Auto Workers, which once set the standard for organized labor for wages and job protection, said yesterday that it is making concessions as part of the recovery plans submitted by General Motors and Chrysler.
The plans are expected to accelerate wage reductions, job cuts and loss of benefits, changes already spurred by foreign competition, declining sales and the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression.
oh, so the UAW said that it is making concessions? well, that's good enough for me then.
Did you even read the links? Did you even bother to notice that new UAW workers receive about half the pay and bennies of senior employees?
You're so woefully uninformed that you should beg forgiveness for your ignorance.
i read it, obviously it's not enough. If GM and the others can stand on their own without my money bailing them out, then fine. Until then, I expect the company to do what it takes to be solvent, and stop asking for govt. money.
Right. What you are saying is that companies like Blackwater should get out of the killing business because they can't turn a buck from war by themselves.
Anyway. There isn't a company going that could remain solvent without government aid.
So supporting military contractors with massive government handouts is the appropriate role of government, but keeping millions of autoworkers employed with government funds is inappropriate?
Hypocrite.
hmm, i don't recall talking about military contractors, can you point out where we had that discussion? you can't argue this so you introduce something i never said and you call me a hypocrite? your a mess.
It's the same discussion, same principle. It comes back to government utterly propping up a private industry with total financial support (which by the way, the auto industry has managed to do well for itself, in the past, in the absence of public support.) Blackwater are vulgar corporate Marxists in that regard. Yet you, the oh so concerned defender of free markets, have no contempt for this form of socialism, probably because the end result of murder for hire keeps you from watering your bed sheets at night.
It's the same principle at work; private industry sustaining solvency through government support. Then again, having no principles yourself, it's easy to understand your blind spot to principled reasoning.
It has nothing to do with federal money. The UAW has made deep concessions in the name of staying, "competitive." Just go ask for a pay cut in the name of making the business more, "competitive."
Also, those pensions that retirees draw are there because of sacrifices they made in putting aside some of their wages while they were on the job. Those pensions are funded by their own sweat. Now, how about those CEO benefits? Do they put aside portions of their income to fund the liability of their retirement, bonuses, etc. You conjobs want to rag on workers and guilt them for earning a good standard o iving, but you won't go near the pirates at the top who steal the profits and pass the cost onto consumers. Screw that noise.
You cons are sick in your full frontal assault on working class families. How do you live with yourself in your resentment of living wages?
oh all your class warfare rhetoric fazes me zip, I have heard it all before from liberals. nobody wants to hurt anyone, or deprive anyone of anything, stop whining and acting like a baby. the fact is some people in this economy would like to have any living wage, or any standard of living, they have been laid off. Many companies need concessions from employees otherwise they close their doors, can't you understand that or is it all about bashing CEO's, again. Fact is the Democrats are dependent on union donations, so they can't ask for anything from them. It's politics and cronyism in a time when according to OBama, we should put politics aside. ya right.
It's always class warfare when workers speak out for worker's rights, but it's just smart business when workers are exploited. Got it.
You're sick, dude.
really. Well, if I was unemployed and just recently laid off, and I read this thread and just found out that GM workers are paid on average $55 an hour, and someone had the condescending nerve to post here how they are "exploited", your words, I would say you are the sick one, dude.
If I were just laid off and unemployed and found out that GM workers earn a good living, instead of being resentful, I'd try to get a job there.
Anyway, what about all the hard working people who are exploited in non-union, dirt wage jobs? Do they have no right to well-being?
nobody's exploited in any job unless they are forced to work there. keep whining.
You don't think people get exploited in their places of work because they could quit at any time? Boy oh boy. I've got a bridge to sell you somewhere.
Exploitation happens all of the time. One example. The workers at Wal Mart who weren't getting paid for their overtime, because they were not allowed to claim it. Exploitation.
Or how about an example from my own life. My last job, when I first started there, there were 7 people working in my department. After the New Year, there were 3. We were told, that we were to work, at least 12 hours per day, and that was expected. Exploited. We didn't really have a choice, because all of us have families to provide for, houses to pay for, bills, etc. etc..
You think people don't get exploited? You've got another thing coming. Lots of times, people have to stay in their current positions, because they really have NO choice. Got to pay the bills right?
people make choices and have choices every day. unless you are forced to work somewhere, you have a choice. And if you have a choice, then you can't dismiss that choice and say you're exploited. it doesn't work that way, especially to those living elsewhere in the world who do not have that choice.
"nobody wants to hurt anyone, or deprive anyone of anything, stop whining and acting like a baby. the fact is some people in this economy would like to have any living wage, or any standard of living, they have been laid off."
"unless you are forced to work somewhere, you have a choice."
So in the same atmosphere that people are wanting for any standard of living, nobody else can possibly be exploited because they have options where they want to work?
i stand by what i said. just because the choices are slim in today's economy doesn't eliminate the choice altogether. I don't buy the term exploit, sorry.
And if choices are slim then obviously people aren't going to be able to move anywhere. If you have a company that's exploiting people, the employees can't all just walk out and go somewhere else.
the ones that are crying they are being exploited absolutely can do just that. it's called quitting.
And then what? If you can't find another job, they just have to take money from the big, bad government, right?
if they are laid off then they can collect unemployment, you really didn't need that explained to you, did you?
For starters that's still relying on the government, which isn't something you'd seem to be in favor of. Why not strive for better business practices instead of putting the burden on the taxpayer?
More obviously, you said they could quit. I guess you think that forcing management to fire you looks great on your resume, right?
The point he is missing is that labor fought hard for a lot of the things we enjoy today and they weren’t just handed over by the corporate elite. If labor is not diligent, we'll go back to a time where it didn't matter what job you possessed because all of them paid sh!t wages coupled with no benefits.
If we followed your way of thinking we'd all be making sh!t wages.
"nobody's exploited in any job unless they are forced to work there. keep whining."
Whatever, tommy. Way to ignore the broader point in the post that, instead of being resentful of union employees, the better option is to join or organize a union.
thanks for the compliment. I would advise you cease using the word exploit when speaking of workers who are free to "unexploit" themselves at any moment. you demean the word.
You know given the choice between staying employed, no matter how crappy the circumstance, or going on the dole, or worse; that most Americans will chose employment. That's who we are.
Now your smarmy retorts are plain ignorant given that real wages have stagnated, that health insurance is unaffordable and the cost of higher education is astronomical. Where is one to go to do better when it's a nation of dirt wages for most folks?
oops, you forgot a third choice besides staying in a crappy job or going on the dole, which would be to seek another job that is better for you and your family.
In a bad economy with all those people laid off? What do you think is out there?
I hear Bobby Jindel needs a new speechwriter.
we already had this discussion up above. you know, about slim choices.
Tommy, the government is going to continue to take some of your money and give it to other people. Sorry.
either you miss tommy, and thanks again for the compliment, or you are lonely and trying to jumpstart some nonsensical conversation with me. Either way, I don't care.
And you just capitalized another sentence.
I DID, DIDN'T I? HOW ABOUT THIS?
Very unhinged, nice work.
That was funny! At least I thought so.
Duh, you're here and you're committing perhaps the highest form of hypocrisy by posting here under a new name since getting banned. There's not much to miss.
What did Tommy get banned for?
Good question. I don't think he was. I just assume he left us without as much as a goodbye :o( or is taking an extended break.
JamesB has been around a while, although he didn't comment regularly until recently. In the past his comments were usually in defense of Tommy. I'm familiar with the concept of sockpuppetry, but IMO Tommy and JamesB are two like-minded individuals.
I have insight on this topic if anyone wants to email me at brabantio2@gmail.com.
and you call me unhinged?
Exactly jamesB. I mean really, who takes discussion on a website so seriously? I never really knew that participating on the discussion board at MediaMatters is such an important part of ones life.
" I never really knew that participating on the discussion board at MediaMatters is such an important part of ones life."
Phony.
After chat-room bouts right here between you and I, you've said that had we been face to face that you would have, "kicked my a**."
Stop lying. You take this crap to heart more than anyone here.
you are free to call me whatever name you feel like, if it's tommy then as I said before, I am flattered. If it's something else, do that too.
Ha, still telling people what they're free to do. Hilarious!
i am telling you I don't get all crazed because some name I am called here, unlike you baby boy.
Um, how on earth could you get crazed by the names you choose for yourself?
And you said people could quit and live off of unemployment Now you're talking about a third choice of finding a better job. That's not consistent.
where did I say they could "quit" and live off of unemployment?
Example, I have been out of work now, laid off, for 2 weeks. I have sent out probably around 40 resumes, and, nothing...
I'm starting to look at crappy retail jobs to make ends meet shortly, but I haven't lost hope yet. Probably what is going to happen is that I will have to work in another State while my wife stays in NC, so it will work out, but that sucks.
There's not a lot out there right now.
much good luck to you.
And where might one find one of these fictitious jobs in an economy spiraling towards the drain?
this entire conversation about crappy jobs and what not is the result of the word "exploit", which I do not accept. that is not to say that people don't work crappy jobs or jobs they hate, of course they do. we all have done that, I have. My Father has, and so on. But to use the word exploits is misusing the word. I wish nobody had to work crappy jobs, but some do for a variety of reasons. But most of the ones that do suck it up and scrape and work hard to get a better one, or improve themselves so they are more marketable and skilled to get a better one. They don't sit around and whine and moan that they are exploited, because they have a choice, as I said. It's not always an easy choice, or even a fair one, but they make the best of it. And they build character on top of it.
"work hard to get a better one, or improve themselves so they are more marketable and skilled to get a better one."
Which brings us back to the question you ignored...
Where might one find one of these "better ones" in an economy spiraling towards the drain?
Come on, pete, join tommy's cult of personal responsibility.
ignored? I just said it was not easy, but are you saying that there are no better jobs to be had in an economy spiraling downward? None.
I don't think anyone's saying there are no better jobs, but there's a big difference between saying that someone might be able to get one and saying that if people are unhappy with crappy work conditions that they can get one. The mere possibility for a select few does not make it a viable option in general.
i have already explained about crappy jobs, the operative word was from the beginning, is now and forever shall be - exploit. I stand by my statement, nobody is exploited unless they have no choice
But when the options aren't viable, then realistically there is no choice. Are you talking about slavery or child labor, or what? That's the only way to possibly say workers are getting exploited?
because you cannot be exploited unless you choose to stay working for someone who seeks to exploit you. Don't tell me people don't have choices, their choices may be limited, or as a result of some previous bad or good choice they may have made, but we make choices all the time, and with choices come consequences.
Well, if you're in a position where you just need to keep your job, whether you put yourself in that position or not, you can still be exploited. It's not like that concept disappears because it's a consequence of your own actions.
How about someone who has to pay child support? Now you can say they're responsible for their own behavior, and that's fine. But if they're in a position where it's either work or go to jail, then the latter isn't exactly an option. That person can't quit and hope they'll find another job. So if that person's boss takes advantage of the fact that they don't have any decent options, that can't be labeled "exploitation" because of that person's past actions?
you can find anyone with enough financial obligations to not make it easy for them to up and quit, of course that's true, whether it's child support or a ton of credit card bills. and a person's choices may be slim, or limited, or nearly nonexistent, but that doesn't negate from their ability to make the choice nonetheless. If being exploited at a job is unthinkable then each person weighs their options and makes a choice of whether or not to stay with that employer or not. The choice isn't eliminated because the options are reduced, it just makes it a more difficult choice to make. life ain't easy, we all make tough choices.
So someone choosing between jail and work would simply be failing to "unexploit" themselves if they decided to keep working? How about robbing banks, is that a choice? How about suicide? If a choice isn't realistic and isn't viable, then it's not really a choice.
you've crossed over into loony nutty land now where I won't follow. sorry.
What's nutty is to say that some uncertain future after quitting a job is something that can be reasonably be considered as a choice. Try thinking about how people actually live their lives for a few seconds.
oh no, an uncertain future, the very definition of exploitation.
Now you're just confused. I didn't say an uncertain future was the definition of exploitation.
Not one of the posters above said anything about sitting around, whining and moaning that they're exploited. You said that. Nobody but you said anything about quitting a job where they don't like the work, or where they feel exploited. You advised them to quit. But you don't accept the word 'exploit' because that would tacitly mean that companies are indeed guilty of exploitation and that unions and other worker-centric organizations who fight for the rights of workers, are indeed necessary. Someone has to fight for the little guy. You corporatists just don't understand that without the worker, you have NOTHING.
Exploitation means something different to everyone. It's all in the degree of it. Some, like one of the posters above, mentioned that he was asked to work 12 hour days. He probably was not compensated for his longer days (he's probably a salaried employee with no overtime). If he didn't like working 12 hour days, he could quit. Then there would be yet ANOTHER unemployed American citizen. Do you think his boss would fill the position, or do you think his boss would hold off until economic times were better? My opinion is the latter. So yes, it is exploitation. The boss knows that the company wins either way: increased hours for the workers means more productivity, but since the employee is probably salaried without overtime, the company makes more off of harder work and longer hours by the worker. If the worker quits, well, he can ask that others take up the slack of the newly vacated position - and the boss won't fill it - as it's another salary that he doesn't have to pay. If that's not exploitation, I don't know what is.
"Exploitation means something different to everyone"
ok, I will agree with that, so for me, I don't use that term to apply to people who are free to "unexploit" themselves.
Tell you what, we'll start taking you seriously when you forgo and repay any kind of benefits you get or have taken advantage of from any employers that you or your parents have worked for.
tell you what, when you have any clue about my financial situation, or my employment situation, then any comment you make about either may have some relevance.
So you're the only one allowed to say that others make too much money and benefits.
And you're the only one allowed to talk about class warfare.
As long as we understand where you're at.
look, i have no bone to pick with unions or any bargaining measures taken by individuals or private companies when it comes to wages, benefits or any of that. But when that company comes to the govt. to ask for money, then that is an entirely different situation. And we as taxpayers have every right to demand that company, and it's employees, do whatever they need to in order to become financially independent and solvent. Once they repay what they've taken, my voice is out of it.
So what issue do you have with a demand for CEOs to take cuts when they're coming to the government asking for money?
absolutely. I totally agree with OBama on their salary cap.
"Many companies need concessions from employees otherwise they close their doors, can't you understand that or is it all about bashing CEO's, again."
That's what I don't get. Why can't people say that CEOs should take cuts without it being class warfare?
simply saying CEO's should take cuts is not class warfare and not what I responded too at all. This was what I called class warfare, and it is.
"You conjobs want to rag on workers and guilt them for earning a good standard o iving, but you won't go near the pirates at the top who steal the profits and pass the cost onto consumers. Screw that noise"...by roundhouse
You want American autoworkers to get paid less and recieve fewer benefits simply because a couple pennies of your tax dollars are invloved. That's not class warfair, it's petty 2 cent ideology.
Well, if you agree that they should take cuts, then that's all you have to say. The context is the auto industry here, so it seemed to me that's who he was talking about.
i am not the one who when on about pirates at the top stealing profits, that is class warfare, so when you said you don't get it, i cleared it up for you.
You didn't clear up anything. If CEOs are taking such high salaries that prices have to be raised, that would seem to be a legitimate concern. If saying that is class warfare, I don't see why salary caps isn't class warfare as well.
stop being obtuse. I already cut and pasted what is absolutely class warfare, and explicitly said what is not.
And I explained why your cut and paste didn't address the question. You can explicitly label anything to be anything, that doesn't make it legitimate.
We have always been engaged in class warfare and it has been a constant struggle for workers since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
let me help you out a little more.
"If CEOs are taking such high salaries that prices have to be raised" - not class warfare but I agree with you, a legitimately argued and coherent point worth discussing.
"pirates at the top who steal the profits and pass the cost onto consumers. Screw that noise" - inflammatory nonsense, class warfare, discussion thwarted.
If you can't see the difference in the two, too bad.
To "pass the cost onto consumers" would be to raise prices. Otherwise there's no cost to pass on to speak of.
You're pretty much a liar. You're using this recovery package as an excuse to bash unions. Fact is every company is dependent on government aid. from an educated workforce to the bridges and roads they use to conduct commerce is a form of government aid.
Just be honest. You love your Reaganomics cold and hard.
you're the liar, unions have every right to negotiate and exist as they see fit. it's when their employers ask for government bailout money to stay afloat, not an educated workforce as you seem to compare somehow. you know the context of this entire discussion. trying to conflate govt. handouts to educating people is asinine, and you know it.
You're asinine. Merely because a company does not ask for an educated work force does not make public education a lesser form of government aid. You are deliberately confusing raw dollars with externalized costs of doing business. Very tommy-esque of you. Companies reap the benefits of government funded programs and projects every day.
Nice shift in argument, by the way, lying union hater. You say unions have every right to negotiate contracts from one side of your mouth and trash them out of the other side by blaming them for being too good at negotiating living wages. Chump.
if the companies they work for come asking for my money, it's a new ball game. sorry you can't see that.
Sorry you can't see common sense. Sorry you love that dishonest conservative corporate accounting that privatizes profits and socializes cost.
Also, tommy, wages are the engine that drives demand. So what if a company needs to take some temporary assistance to keep afloat? What else would you have our government do to help? More tax cuts? Tax cuts don't help millionaires and tax cuts don't help the unemployed.
I like the way he sometimes forgets his jamesb disguise of starting sentences in lowercase.
Nice isn't it?
temporary assistance? they've already been back twice asking for money, do you really think it's making a difference?
If you haven't noticed, we're in a bad economic period.
They who?
And if Americans are still employed, then yes. A difference has been made.
You must have some gripe with the tens of millions of Americans who work for the government. You do realize where their paychecks come from, don't you? As for the backbone of this country who make American cars, and your advocacy that they should make less money simply because federal funds are involved, why don't you take it a little further and tell the workers how to spend their paychecks? They may not be as smart as you and might appreciate your prudent opinion.
Actually, jamesb is not suggesting cuts in pay and benefits for current and retired automakers (see a few post above). He's just having fun typing contarian thoughts on an internet discussion forum.
The point is that the big three can't be competitive because the never really learned anything from the oil embargo and resulting gas lines of the early 70's. Sure they tried, they gave us the Pinto, the Vega, The Escort, the Omni, and my personal favorite the Cavalier. This was their answer to the obvious inability to match the Japanese made cars. We all know how Japanese cars become bestsellers in America.....reliability, affordability, and efficiency.
Sure the big three have made strides in quality and efficiency, but really, what happenned during the good economic times under Clinton? They moved away from efficiency and focused on the same old tired posture of bigger is better. While they did well with SUV"s and large trucks, they never had anything to fall back on when oil prices were manipulated. their cash cows were big gas guzzling behemoths which now nobody can even sell. So James, the reality is this: it's not the fact that the big three pay too much which has caused this problem; it is poor economic forecasting and futures planning amongst other things. In the end, they didn't learn a friggin thing.
I'd be willing to bet that if they re-tooled to electric and more fuel efficient cars 15-20 years ago they'd be selling cars like candy bars. So don't tell me it is the labor costs killing them. Labor sure wasn't being talked about when everybody was buying 15 mpg Escalades and other behemoths. Tell me where I am wrong.
i don't disagree, you make excellent points. And the reason nobody talked about labor costs then was because they weren't in Washington with their hands out asking for billions of dollars or taxpayer bailout money, that is the difference. When they do that, they open up their entire business structure to scrutiny. we have that right and the obligation, just as we have the right to limit CEO salaries to companies that come to us for assistance. our rules.
"And the reason nobody talked about labor costs then was because they weren't in Washington with their hands out asking for billions of dollars or taxpayer bailout money, that is the difference."
We'll have to disagree on that one. I would submit that nobody talked about labor costs becasue they were selling SUV's out the ying yang and profits were good so everybody was happy. My point is that is seems somewhat disingenious to start blaming labor costs now, especially when the only change is that they can no longer sell ineffecient and expensive vehicles.
BTW, if you are Tommy and had to change your name to post here I say "so what?" Now you're JamesB. Tommy always did a great job of inciting red faces and increasing blood pressure. This site wouldn't be any fun if everybody simply got together in a circle jerk of agreement.
One issue would be that Tommy said he would never come back under another name if banned. Also it would be awfully hypocritical for him to harp on Victor for being Governor so often as well.
Why is that REALLY an issue? Maybe he changed his mind and if so; so what? Don't pretend that you don't enjoy being able to have long winded disagreements. The evidence points to you jumping right on top of anyone who posts here when they don't agree with the majority. Obviously there is nothing wrong with seeking out debate, but to seek out ways to chastize the very same people you depend on for your fun is just plain bizarre. Just admit that without people like Tommy or JamesB you would get awful bored at this site.
Whatever. Tommy spun out many a thread when he was behind in the argument by calling disagreeable posters, 'sue.'
Where were you defending other posters on that account?
Nowhere.
Stinkin' hypocrite.
understood. as for tommy, if people want to call me that to make some point, I am hardly offended. I hope he posts soon.
Hey Chris, how have you been?
I don't think JamesB is Tommy.
Say what you will about Tommy but he was a pretty decent guy with some faults. OK, a lot of faults (half kidding). I'm sure he thinks the same of me. As much as he and I argued he was cordial. Half of the time we wanted to strangle each other, but he usually laid out his reasoning pretty well. I'm still waiting for that from James.
One thing that isn't like Tommy is the lack of capitalization. If you check his old comments, he you'll see what I mean. Tommy would never not use it.
And he used some words and phrases just about every day that I don't see JamesB using.
I hope my fellow Commies and moonbats forgive me for giving a little praise to Tommy.
jamesb sure does like to engage in endless thread hijacking through the parsing of words just like Tommy used to do. They may not be the same person, but they are cut from the same cloth.
Worrier,
I too have always enjoyed Tommy's participation at this site. The reality is that no other poster was able to rile the "regulars" like he could. I disagreed with him as well on some issues, but I found his insight to be interesting and hilarious at times. My position is that disagreement is what makes this site interesting. As far as I am concerned I could care less if people post under different screen names. It's not as if anonymity is scarce here anyway.
I happen to enjoy his special brand of unbridled hypocrisy.
The big 3 would save about $800 per car if labor costs were equalized with their competitors. But they undersell their competitors by $2500 already. Labor doesn't have a lot to do with being "fiscally competitive".
As others have pointed out, removing the burden of health care from the corporations would be better, I think $1500 per car.
your schtick to needle "brucie" is tired. you look foolish, just so you know.
Look who's talking about looking foolish.
Let's be fair. From all indications Bruce sent in a tip about this item, but Coop is lashing out that he's going to blame MMfA for forcing O'Reilly to lie. That's pretty severely unhinged, no matter who points it out.
That's fair. I have nothing against, bruce. I like Bruce even though I ride his a** a bunch.
No, I'm talking specifically about, and to, the idiot JamesB.
Coop and I go way back to the beginning of when I started posting in 2005. He's harmless. If he's reading me maybe he's learning something...;-)
I learned not to read your delusional dreck with a mouth full of black coffee a long time ago.
Apart from you providing me with a convenient excuse to get a new monitor, just what is it that you think you can teach me with your "yeah, maybe it wasn't Jindal's finest hour, but Obama is the one who's really to blame" song and dance, brucie?You've been recyclin' the same gop-slop nonsense since ya got here.
I mentioned this thread would appear in a response to Coop in yesterday's final posted thread. I can't stomach Olbermann any longer so I went to (gasp) O'Reilly instead and saw him say this. Don't tell anyone.
Gee, I hate to keep confusin' ya with the facts, brucie, but ya told me that last night when I sent ya in for Jeter with instructions to go watch the factor so we don't have to.
Feel free to check. Clearly, even you're not buyin' your shtick any more, pal.
Bruce:"I mentioned this thread would appear in a response to Coop in yesterday's final posted thread. I can't stomach Olbermann any longer so I went to (gasp) O'Reilly instead and saw him say this."
----
you:"You're in for Jeter. Go watch billo so we don't have to."
Bruce:"I already did and there will be an O'Reilly thread tomorrow on MMFA because he repeated the $70/hour autoworker falsehood in his talking points memo."
I have no idea how you think you're correcting him here. He said it in response to you on yesterday's final thread.
I think Jeter is in semi-retirement or something. He hasn't been around much the past few months.
Too bad.
He's canoodling with another woman. You know, being a good conservative father and husband... with another woman.
After reading your posts above, I don't think you should be calling anybody else foolish.
I don't think that this piece of misinformation is ever going to go away. Too many people want to believe it for them to hear what the truth really is. I see people quoting the $70 an hour myth in the letters to the editor and the article comments in my local paper's online site almost every day.
Yo, Billy Boy. From what I understand, NewsCorp, the company that you work for, really isn't doing so well. So why don't you offer to take a pay cut to help offset the massive losses that Murdoch is taking, especially on his print business ventures. I figure, you make about 10 million per year, which is:
$4808/hour.
So stop crying about fictional workers, who actually add something to our world, as opposed to you who adds really nothing of substance, who make $70/hour. They don't make that much. That's not what they take home, and normally when people talk about "what they make" it means, what they get in their paychecks. No way they're seeing the kind of cabbage that you guys think that they are.
James
"where did I say they could "quit" and live off of unemployment?"
"the ones that are crying they are being exploited absolutely can do just that. it's called quitting."
Then you said if they get laid off they get unemployment. I'm not sure how you think that all fits together, but it seems to be your view nonetheless.
exactly, laid off, not quit.
But you said "it's called quitting". And for our purposes here, what's the difference? You said people could try to get a better job, now you're talking about getting laid off and living off the government. The point remains.
i said quitting, you then introduced government assistance and I specifically said laid off. if you don't know the difference between quitting and getting laid off, look it up.
But you were talking about what people who felt exploited could do. If you mean they can intentionally get themselves fired, then that's just another form of quitting. Otherwise it's got precisely nothing to do with what you were talking about. And it still doesn't answer the question of where you think people are going to go as a "third option" of getting a better job.
what the hell does intentionally get themselves fired mean? yes, people who feel exploited can quit, or not. do you understand that? That is their choice, do you understand that?
Then you said people can quit, and you didn't mean they could get laid off. Why did you ask where you used the word "quit"?
i can't even follow your convoluted nonsense anymore, it makes no sense whatsoever. Let me break it down for you; roundhouse said people have two choices; working at a crappy job or going on the dole, i said they have a third choice, another job. If there is something about that you find inconsistent that is your business.
Before that, you said people could quit, and when asked what they were supposed to do then you said they could get unemployment if laid off. What I really want to know is how people are supposed to find better jobs in this market if they quit/get laid off.
and I have already told you that whether or not the choices are slimmer in a downturned economy is irrelevant to the word exploit. of course it's harder to find a better job, or any job, but that doesn't mean they are nonexistent. the choices are slimmer, as I've said three times to you already.
The job market is absolutely relevant to whether someone is exploited or not. Obviously if people don't have as much of an option to go elsewhere, then it's easier to take advantage of them.
You're making a general statement about what people can do that's not supported by reality. You have choices, but when that means you can either quit and have a slim chance of finding something else or get laid off and get unemployment, those are not particularly viable options.
He's right about how and what he wrote in this instance Brab.
I don't believe you have followed the conversation completely.
you are so condescending and insufferable it's amazing. he followed it just fine.
If he goes through it again and can explain how you're being consistent, he's free to do so. Otherwise, he didn't read everything you wrote.
I'm just telling you the way I see it. Simply because my view doesn't support yours doesn't automatically mean that I failed to follow the conversation completely. How narcissistic can one be?
Anyway, I'm simply saying that JamesB never indicated that being "laid off" and quitting were synonomous, in fact, it seems quite evident that he related distinction between the two. So, if the point of your argument here is to cling to the idea that JamesB essentially made no distinction between the two, then you are merely arguing for arguments sake. I think we all know that you would rather burn in hell before admitting a mistake anyway, so in the end what is the point of further discussion with you on this matter?
The way you pointed out specific flaws in brab's post was amazing You're awesome, Chris.
That's what this is about isn't it? All about you, right? Your indulgent use of "I," "me" and "my" reveals your narcissism.
Looking around the Web I find that the labor costs associated with a new vehicle run anywhere from 8 to 10 percent of the vehicle's price - depending on the vehicle. I've also found that it takes approximately 30 hours to build a new car, on average (once again, it depends on the vehicle). So, even if Billo were correct in his rantings, the total (average) labor cost per vehicle would only amount to $2,100. But, since we all know that bill is blowing smoke, let's use a more reasonable figure of $55 per hour. That drops the average labor cost per vehicle to $1,650.
90 percent of the price of a new car is related to something other than labor costs. Perhaps we should look to reducing those factors first, rather than reducing the purchasing power of more of middle-class America.
Works for me.
Me too.
Chris
"I'm just telling you the way I see it. Simply because my view doesn't support yours doesn't automatically mean that I failed to follow the conversation completely. How narcissistic can one be?"
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt as an objective observer. There's no way to read the full conversation and not understand what I'm pointing out.
"Anyway, I'm simply saying that JamesB never indicated that being "laid off" and quitting were synonomous, in fact, it seems quite evident that he related distinction between the two. So, if the point of your argument here is to cling to the idea that JamesB essentially made no distinction between the two, then you are merely arguing for arguments sake."
My point is that he's being inconsistent. And then he doesn't explain exactly how he thought people were going to "quit", which was the word he used. Let me give you some context.
Me:"If you have a company that's exploiting people, the employees can't all just walk out and go somewhere else."
James:"the ones that are crying they are being exploited absolutely can do just that. it's called quitting."
Then he talked about getting laid off. So what I'm saying is that if he's talking about getting laid off, that's not voluntary. That's not walking out and going somewhere else. He said people can do just that.
"i said quitting, you then introduced government assistance and I specifically said laid off."
Now that sounds like he meant to say "laid off" to begin with, which is clearly not true, or that "laid off" is some subset of "quitting" ("specifically", as if "quitting" was vague and might include that). But the thing is that James is making no effort to explain what he originally meant. Do you see that? When I ask him about the inconsistency, he doesn't answer. So what am I supposed to believe, and why am I supposed to give him some benefit of the doubt if he can't make an effort to clarify what he says?
"Why is that REALLY an issue? Maybe he changed his mind and if so; so what?"
As I said, it's hypocritical, and it is dishonest. I can go further into that elsewhere.
"Don't pretend that you don't enjoy being able to have long winded disagreements. The evidence points to you jumping right on top of anyone who posts here when they don't agree with the majority."
That's simply not true. I've disagreed with the majority on numerous occasions, if you really think I'm beholden to majority opinion you are simply ignorant.
"Obviously there is nothing wrong with seeking out debate, but to seek out ways to chastize the very same people you depend on for your fun is just plain bizarre. Just admit that without people like Tommy or JamesB you would get awful bored at this site."
Not at all. First off, I'm damn near impossible to bore. Secondly, I've enjoyed the threads without Tommy or James much more.
If you want insight into the matter, email me at brabantio2@gmail.com. I won't discuss aliases here for reasons that I will explain in private.
"That's simply not true. I've disagreed with the majority on numerous occasions, if you really think I'm beholden to majority opinion you are simply ignorant."
True that.
So this is Bull O'Really's? take on America in 2009 - your salary is a "perk."
As Al Franken says, "Wow!"
Oh my goodness, how embarrassing for you... you're wrong, that figure comes to $55 an hour. Sorry.
Resentful much?
Why would you begrudge another middle class American their ability to have a secure future?
Is unequal prosperity so important to you that you place the labor of one human being so far above another?