General Motors

[BlackLantern]

well the CEOs are in front of Congress again today....it's intriguing to watch grown men in 3-piece suits beg for money

 

[Paradoxium]

Anyways the median wage of America is around $15/hr, meanwhile autoworkers are at $27/hr. And this statistic does not make any distinction between trades, skills and occupational requirements nor does it distinguish union or non-union workers.

But this link will provide more details

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_336100.htm#b51-0000

On the other hand, I believe it is from GM themselves:

According to a GM, "Base wages average about $28 an hour. The average reaches $39.68 an hour, including base pay, cost-of-living adjustments, night-shift premiums, overtime, holiday and vacation pay. Health-care, pension and other benefits average another $33.58 an hour

So its like $72.26/hr in actual overhead.

 

[BlackLantern]

edit...I'm dumb

 

[The Senator]

and that number is for the big 3....other automakers like Toyota or Saturn are at about $42-44 an hour

Saturn is a subsidiary of GM...

 

[BlackLantern]

Saturn is a subsidiary of GM...

Sorry....everyone is just throwing auto maker names around....I do know, I'm not sure which Senator had the numbers, but was making the point that the big 3's labor costs are well above that of any other automakers that have facilities in the US

 

[Marx]

well the CEOs are in front of Congress again today....it's intriguing to watch grown men in 3-piece suits beg for money

It was even more amusing to watch them all get out of hybrid cars in front of the capital like we're supposed to forget that they all took private jets the time before.

 

[Marx]

Sorry....everyone is just throwing auto maker names around....I do know, I'm not sure which Senator had the numbers, but was making the point that the big 3's labor costs are well above that of any other automakers that have facilities in the US

20,000 POSTS!!! CONGRATULATIONS BL!

 

[BlackLantern]

20,000 POSTS!!! CONGRATULATIONS BL!

Oh...I did not even notice...thanks

 

[Handsome Rob]

You are believing the negative hype. The truth of the matter is that the average auto worker's salary is less than $44K/year (this info is coming from the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics). Just to put that in context, the weighted average poverty threshold for a family of four in 2007 was $21,203 as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Then median income in the United States is a little over $43K. If you made that much money and wanted to send your kid to Harvard, they would waive the tuition fees since your household income would be less than $60K. And you want to say that unions are the problem? That is hardly the case.

The salary of an employee is NOT the cost of the employee to the company--it's only a part of it.

For instance, let's say you have your $44,000 per year auto employee. The employer is responsible for paying 50% of the Social Security and Medicare Taxes (that's right: your paycheck only shows half of the total SST/MRT tax paid on your behalf). So, that's another $3,366.00. You now cost the company $47,366.00 to employ.

But, there's more. Let's say that you are one of those (like me) who pays half of your health insurance premium (while the company takes care of the other half). And, per your family plan, you're paying $400 a month out of your paycheck for premiums (which is not an unreasonable premium). That works out to $4,800 a year more that the company is paying on your behalf. So, you now cost the company $52,166. And, that's not taking into account pension or other benefits that may be provided by the employer.

BL's stats a few posts up is a perfect example of the fallacy of arguing salary alone as evidence that the unions don't bear some responsibility for the financial problems the automakers are facing. When your benefits are nearly 85% of what your salary is, the salary alone argument is wholly inadequate.

 

[Handsome Rob]

If more people made enough money to afford one then there would be more cars on the road. That's the truth of the matter pure and simple. Over the last 30 years, salaries went up by 30%. That's a 1% increase annually and hardly enough to match inflation. That's your real problem. The wealthy have gotten wealthier while the poor and middle class have basically gotten shafted.

So let's give everyone in the lower and middle classes enough of a pay raise to buy a new car. I'm sure that adding all that additional expense to the payrolls of businesses across the country won't have an effect on the price of goods and services that those companies provide . . . right?

 

[Marx]

A major concern I have about this 'bailout/loan' is obviously the management of the money. What is to stop these companies from investing in their plants in Mexico, instead of the United States?

 

[Handsome Rob]

A major concern I have about this 'bailout/loan' is obviously the management of the money. What is to stop these companies from investing in their plants in Mexico, instead of the United States?

Marx, I would sincerely hope that there would be federal oversight for this "bailout" that would prevent new overseas investment. However, I doubt it would be feasible to tell the companies that they have to limit the bailout money to already-existing operating/non-operating costs and investments that are exclusively domestic. I'm not sure how it would be done, if it could be done.

And with that, I am leaving Starbucks and heading back to the office to do some revenue/expense analysis of my own . . .

 

[SuBe]

A major concern I have about this 'bailout/loan' is obviously the management of the money. What is to stop these companies from investing in their plants in Mexico, instead of the United States?

Marx, I hate to say this (not really), but, if we had a FairTax, none of this would have ever been an issue.

 

[BlackLantern]

No...we would only have to deal with severe price gouging if there was a FairTax

 

[SuBe]

That not true because Competition would be in place, forcing the prices down, just like today. But, people would have 100% of their Paychecks, and $13,000,000,000,000 would be re-invested back into our economy. That is 26 TIMES the about that GM and the auto makers are asking for, and that is PRIVATE dollars, not Confiscated wealth through Income Taxation.

 

[Marx]

Marx, I would sincerely hope that there would be federal oversight for this "bailout" that would prevent new overseas investment. However, I doubt it would be feasible to tell the companies that they have to limit the bailout money to already-existing operating/non-operating costs and investments that are exclusively domestic. I'm not sure how it would be done, if it could be done.

And with that, I am leaving Starbucks and heading back to the office to do some revenue/expense analysis of my own . . .

It just doesn't seem right to me that these companies could potentially invest this money outside of the United States. I understand what you're saying about feasability but there is also alot to be said about common decency.

Marx, I hate to say this (not really), but, if we had a FairTax, none of this would have ever been an issue.

Ohhh SB (er, I mean SuBe) you have such dedication!

 

[Kelly]

I'm interested to see which of these men perjured themselves today.....only time will tell.

 

[Paradoxium]

Sen. Bob Bennett actually said the auto industries' cars are too well built so no one ever replaces their old cars, hence no profit.

 

[SuBe]

Sen. Bob Bennett actually said the auto industries' cars are too well built so no one ever replaces their old cars, hence no profit.

That's funny.

 

[BlackLantern]

I'm interested to see which of these men perjured themselves today.....only time will tell.

....maybe they should call Patty Hewes

 

[Kelly]

....maybe they should call Patty Hewes

Nah, she works for the employees to sue the employer........t: and then sue the employee representing another employee....

 

[dnno1]

The salary of an employee is NOT the cost of the employee to the company--it's only a part of it.

For instance, let's say you have your $44,000 per year auto employee. The employer is responsible for paying 50% of the Social Security and Medicare Taxes (that's right: your paycheck only shows half of the total SST/MRT tax paid on your behalf). So, that's another $3,366.00. You now cost the company $47,366.00 to employ.

These figures are raw annual wages. They are not reduced for taxes.

But, there's more. Let's say that you are one of those (like me) who pays half of your health insurance premium (while the company takes care of the other half). And, per your family plan, you're paying $400 a month out of your paycheck for premiums (which is not an unreasonable premium). That works out to $4,800 a year more that the company is paying on your behalf. So, you now cost the company $52,166. And, that's not taking into account pension or other benefits that may be provided by the employer.

BL's stats a few posts up is a perfect example of the fallacy of arguing salary alone as evidence that the unions don't bear some responsibility for the financial problems the automakers are facing. When your benefits are nearly 85% of what your salary is, the salary alone argument is wholly inadequate.

$69/hour (and that is what GM is paying right now - it was a little over $73 two years ago) is comparable to other industries. The aerospace and defense industry pays about $72/hour and they are doing a lot better than the automobile industry. Face it, had the automakers made their projections this would be all water under the bridge. The truth of the matter is that fewer people are buying cars and other factors like unemployment, the fear of higher gas prices, and the fact that it is very difficult to get a loan nowadays is what is hurting everyone all over the world. Blaming it on unions is just a scape goat.

 

[Handsome Rob]

These figures are raw annual wages. They are not reduced for taxes.

I know. And my calculation of the employer's share of the Social Security/Medicare Taxes (SST/MRT) reflected that. The employer's liability for SST/MRT is made by taking the employee's gross wages (their raw annual wage, as you call it) and multipling it by 7.65% (the combination of SST and MRT). $44,000 * 7.65% = $3,366.

Their share of your SST/MRT tax liability is not part of your hourly rate, nor is it part of your salary. It is an additional expense that is solely borne by your employer. It is an economic cost to him, and it exists in addition to your gross salary that you are paid.

The $69/hour you quoted would not include the employer's share of SST/MRT, either . . . and, benefits would exist on top of this hourly rate that would add to the cost borne by the employer

 

[SuBe]

Robbie dropp'n some science!!!

 

[Kelly]

No wonder I have no idea what the hell that says........I teach Social Studies.