Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (55913)	11/21/2008 6:38:47 PM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224648

Its not a myth. It isn't (and generally hasn't been represented as) $70/hour in wages. Its $70/hour (or a bit more) in total compensation costs per employee. And yes the current workers don't get the benefit of the amount that goes to retirees, at least not yet (and maybe not ever, since the situation appears rather unsustainable, unless the proposed bailout is going to be an annual thing from now on). But that doesn't matter, in terms of the burden placed on GM, Ford, and Chrysler by their union contracts. The cost is accurately represented. And yes the big three and the UAW did agree to change the structure for many future liabilities, but only by the big three handing over billions, that they could really use right now. Its still a cost that they had to pay. The first foreign-owned plants didn't start up here until the 1980s; many of the existing ones came well after that. As of a year ago, Toyota's entire U.S. operation had less than 1,000 retirees. Its not just that Toyota and the other companies haven't been around as long. The cost per retiree is less, and also the employment levels where not inflated as much by union contracts and other things that lowered productivity, so the spending per retiree in the future, after the plants have been around a long time, will almost certainly be less than what the "big three" pay now. And benefit (including retirement) costs for the employees are not the only problem. The union labor force has generally been less flexible, and slowed down productivity improvements. Which is not to say that the problem can all be put on the unions. Management has been poor, plus government action (like high state taxes in Michigan, state and local laws that support dealers against the manufacturers, and a number of other things) have contributed to the problem. But the unions are part of the problem, and the $70/hour figure isn't a myth.

To: tejek who wrote (55913)	11/21/2008 9:03:53 PM
From: SGJ	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224648

To post such drivel and clutter this thread with garbage shows you obviously have never run a business or even managed a department. Why, I ask again, do you think you know anything about anything?

To: tejek who wrote (55913)	11/21/2008 9:19:11 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Respond to of 224648

The cost issue can be seen in defined benefit vs defined contribution pensions. Defined contributions make the cost per hour current. Defined benefit brings the history of the company to the current workers. Similarly in health care - most companies offer a subsidy and it is used as decided. Then when workers reach 65 - on to medicare. The whole issue of defined benefit pensions will be a huge issue in coming years. I look for many plans to fail. Bob