"I saw both the $78 and $48/hour figures, but in the article I read they were the average total cost per hour to build one vehicle, not hourly wages. I don't remember who wrote the article, but it was in the Wash. Times last week."

I did a little research on that yesterday not believing those could be wages only. Both figures are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and are the average composite cost of employees that includes wages and benefits.

ravensfan, $28 can't be the average hourly wage for UAW/GM workers because it's the former rate paid to new hires. The last contract reduced the new hire wage to $14-$16 depending on the occupation. Statistically, the average wage was to be higher than $28/hour unless everyone has equivalent senority and all occupations pay the same rate (regardless of your source). Here's the highlights of the last UAW/GM agreement: http://www.uaw.org/contracts/07/gm/gm02.php

Edited by author 11-19-2008 06:10 AM
Thanks "ravensfan". After thinking about those being operating costs per hour, I didn't think that could be correct but last night I couldn't find the article I had read. Those figures had to be part of operating costs. Was just coming on to say that and saw your post.

Oct.4,2007..."The average UAW-represented GM assembly line worker makes just under $28 per hour now before health-care and other benefits that take total hourly labor costs to $73, the automaker has said.

By contrast, Toyota's average hourly cost for workers at its U.S. plants was under $48 per hour including benefits."
http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSN0432128020071004

Nov.9,2008...
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/11/should...-7320-per-hour.html

Edited by author 11-18-2008 08:33 PM
"Ben", thanks, I hadn't yet seen that one. It pretty much speaks for itself. Glenn Beck, for about 2 weeks before the election, was doing random phone interviews of everyday people asking similar questions. After hearing many of the answers to his questions I pretty much knew then that McCain was toast. The uninformed (could use a more direct term) were clearly out and motivated to vote for "change" even though none of them knew what it meant. Pretty damming of the mainstream media.
 They pretty much got the guy elected by NOT reporting much about him. Gotta kick out of, I believe, Tom Brokaw actually saying, just before the election, just how little he actually knew about Obama. Reminded me of how they used to marvel at how well Clinton lied. Never mind that they should be actually be learning and reporting about Obama's past or about what Clinton was actually lying about and why. They're completely mesmerized by style over substance........but only with Democrats.

 I saw both the $78 and $48/hour figures, but in the article I read they were the average total cost per hour to build one vehicle, not hourly wages. I don't remember who wrote the article, but it was in the Wash. Times last week.

This is hilarious: http://www.howobamagotelected.com/

"Anyone besides me think we've been, and are being, lied to?"

Yes. And I really wonder how much anyone really understands what is happening to the economy. It's a little scary when well educated insiders seem to shift their positions like the wind, not to mention the president-elect has delegated the day-to-day oversight of economic matters to a staffer while millions of Americans are watching their life savings evaporate. His response is wait and see. That's leadership?

I heard yesterday the average GM employee is paid $73/hour. The average Japanese competitor's wages are $48/hour. Both are ridiculous rates, but it isn't too difficult to see why GM is begging for government assistance or as liberal gadfly Michael Moore would call it, corporate welfare.

 Now Paulson, our newly appointed Treasury "Czar" says on one of the weekend shows that the financial situation is much worse than thought when they asked for the $700 billion. Duhhhh, where has HE been hiding?
  Now they aren't going to buy up the bad mortgages, but he can't seem to explain exactly WHAT he's going to do with all that taxpayer debted money or exactly WHO he's going to lend/give it to.

 Anyone besides me think we've been, and are being, lied to?

I'm in favor of letting GM go also. They (and their union) created this mess. It's not the taxpayer's job to subsidize it. Hopefully the Republicans won't sign on to this; the Democrats are on board because the unions MUST maintain it's deathlock on GM. If they let GM fail, all those union jobs will have to go searching elsewhere.

I say let it go. Every closed door is a new opportunity for someone to pick up the slack and do better.

I don't think it's a good idea for the government to think they can head off every recession. The economy ebbs and flows all the time. That's the natural order of things. Tinkering with it to stop the low tide is just going to screw it up even more.

Edited by author 11-17-2008 08:42 AM
I've heard the same thing about GM's sunk costs. GM (Detroit in general) has been in trouble for a long time. The only reason it's asking for a bail out is the government is suddenly in the business of giving money it doesn't really have to anyone who says they're too big to fail. I'm against giving GM anything until they make a sincere effort to be a competitive, world class company (they're currently introducing a new Hummer?). If they don't make the cut, let their investors take the hit. I've heard the 1-10 American jobs will be effected by their insolvency BS, which doesn't matter to me. They aren't a business worth subsidizing with a bigger government deficit--not to mention it begs the questions: when does government intervention end and who'll be next to ask for tax payer assistance? Someone more creative and innovative will fill GM's void.

I forgot to say, anyone who thinks we should bail out GM can just buy stock in the failing company. It's only about $3 bucks a share. Interested? I didn't think so. I don't have that much confidence in GM either.

Edited by author 11-16-2008 10:49 AM
 Is the government taking financial control of GM what's best for the country?
 They did a hell of job with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. How has that $700 billion+ bailout been working?
 Can't wait to see what they do with health care.

..."The issue boils down to a historic proposition: Is what's good for GM still good for the country?"

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1858702,00.html

 If they're making cars nobody wants (which I don't believe), then they should go chapter 11.

 What an item sells for does not have a TOTAL bearing on what it costs to produce it. How much does Toyota make on a Camry compared to what GM makes on a comparable Impala?

Edited by author 11-16-2008 12:17 AM
if Toyota does have that extra cost (1500.00 per car) how come thier cars are generally more expensive across the board?

Big 3 don't make cars any one wants....thats the bottom line.

"Ben", isn't it great when the government decides who is "financially viable"? Kind of like Al Capone getting to decide what's legal.

 I read yesterday that health ins. costs alone for union workers and retirees adds an estimated $1500 to every GM vehicle. Naturally Toyota doesn't have that cost.
 They need to be made to declare chapter 11 and re-organize, which would mean re-negotiating the union contract which is now killing them.

Capricorn, you'll appreciate this.

On November 12 the DOE published a new $25 billion loan program for auto manufacturers of advanced technology vehicles (basically retooling money for production of hybrids, etc.--which is part of what the other bail out is supposed to do). In any case, there's a requirement that states any manufacturer "must be financially viable to receive a loan."

Made me chuckle. I guess they can qualify for the loan if they get a bail out. :)

 Our illustrious representatives in Washington have added $5 trillion to our collective debt in just the last 3 months.
 
 The auto industry is being bailed out as payback to the UAW. Can't let those 45,000 retired and collecting pensions and paid health care take a cut.

 AMEX gets the o.k. to become a bank and immediately applies for bailout money.

 Do we have a great government or what?

"From what I heard today, maybe the Borough should just apply to the government for a bailout."

Why not. Just consider it a grant. :)

Where does anyone think we're getting all this money? Amazing days.

Let's see how long this "95% of working Americans will get a tax cut" promise holds up. It looks like they meant to say "95% of Americans will be getting a tax increase to cover the bail outs."