Obama fires GM CEO!!!!

Yeah...what will all those Union workers do with their 70/hour wages and their 20 year retirement programs. :rolleyes:

I find it curious that you need to lie to make your point. Do you have any evidence that workers are making $70 an hour?

I suspect when you research this you will either quickly realize you were lied to.

Or perhaps you know it's untrue and you chose to use it anyway?
 
Oh, screw it. Just for the record, here is the truth, along with the highly deceptive method for arriving at the $70/hour lie.

Let's start with the fact that it's not $70 per hour in wages. According to Kristin Dziczek of the Center for Automative Research--who was my primary source for the figures you are about to read--average wages for workers at Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors were just $28 per hour as of 2007. That works out to a little less than $60,000 a year in gross income--hardly outrageous, particularly when you consider the physical demands of automobile assembly work and the skills most workers must acquire over the course of their careers.

More important, and contrary to what you may have heard, the wages aren't that much bigger than what Honda, Toyota, and other foreign manufacturers pay employees in their U.S. factories. While we can't be sure precisely how much those workers make, because the companies don't make the information public, the best estimates suggests the corresponding 2007 figure for these "transplants"--as the foreign-owned factories are known--was somewhere between $20 and $26 per hour, and most likely around $24 or $25. That would put average worker's annual salary at $52,000 a year.
 
I find it curious that you need to lie to make your point. Do you have any evidence that workers are making $70 an hour?

I suspect when you research this you will either quickly realize you were lied to.

Or perhaps you know it's untrue and you chose to use it anyway?

I find it curious that you instantly assume I'm lying rather than more reasonably assume that perhaps I was misinformed? Now maybe you'd like to address the 20 year retirement program which I would argue is even more detrimental.
 
I find it curious that you instantly assume I'm lying rather than more reasonably assume that perhaps I was misinformed? Now maybe you'd like to address the 20 year retirement program which I would argue is even more detrimental.

Why? Debunking $70/hr didn't make you reconsider your position. If whatever details of the retirement plan you think are ludicrously outrageous are debunked, will you stop thinking the UAW is asinine or just cycle to a new rationale for the belief?
 
Why? Debunking $70/hr didn't make you reconsider your position. If whatever details of the retirement plan you think are ludicrously outrageous are debunked, will you stop thinking the UAW is asinine or just cycle to a new rationale for the belief?

You mean my position that the assembly line workers aren't being treated as unfairly as lefty thinks they are? Because I sure as hell don't recall making any statements otherwise. Sure, if that's debunked too I don't have a problem with it. I still won't think that the workers at GM are being as abused as lefty seems to think but I suppose that's besides the point here.

ETA: As a matter of fact, if GM employees are doing better off then the average assembly line worker for other companies than lefty was wrong afterall. I don't hold any ideological or emotional investment in the $70/hour wages or the 20 year retirement program claim, even if the latter does turn out to be baseless then I was misinformed and that's the end of it. My basic claim that the GM employees are still doing good for themselves despite the concessions the previous CEO of GM had them take is still true. But that seems to be besides the point as the goal here seems to get me to rethink my ideological affiliation.
 
Last edited:
Joe the carassembler $60,000 a year

G Richard Wagoner Jr $8.5 mil a year


:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I think that $70 figure includes benefits, like health insurance, pension contributions, etc.

Could be wrong, though.
 
I think that $70 figure includes benefits, like health insurance, pension contributions, etc.

Could be wrong, though.

Did you read the link I provided? Shorter link: yes, you're wrong. Benefits are $10 an hour, average wage is $28 an hour.

The $73 per hour is an unadulterated lie, and I have a hard time forgiving the purveyors of it, since it's such an obvious one.
 
Last edited:
I find it curious that you instantly assume I'm lying rather than more reasonably assume that perhaps I was misinformed? Now maybe you'd like to address the 20 year retirement program which I would argue is even more detrimental.

Considering that the lie has been debunked for months, I wasn't feeling charitable. If you honestly never heard the debunking, then I'm glad to set you straight and I'll trust you'll never pull that number out again in a debate.
 
yeah sure, i didnt really expect that you would think about it :)

This coming from the guy who wants to set a maximum wage. Thus eliminating all incentive to climb the ladder, seek higher education in business, or keep a competitive edge amongst nations.
 
Considering that the lie has been debunked for months, I wasn't feeling charitable. If you honestly never heard the debunking, then I'm glad to set you straight and I'll trust you'll never pull that number out again in a debate.

No I won't be pulling it out again, if it's wrong it's wrong and I won't knowingly use wrong information. But my argument didn't hinge on the number being accurate. The statement I was refuting is still refuted even if they only made a few bucks more an hour.
 
You mean my position that the assembly line workers aren't being treated as unfairly as lefty thinks they are? Because I sure as hell don't recall making any statements otherwise. Sure, if that's debunked too I don't have a problem with it. I still won't think that the workers at GM are being as abused as lefty seems to think but I suppose that's besides the point here.

Lefty always overdoes everything, so I get why you could overswing in response. But you can't deny that GM execs cut benefits to the workers while still taking millions for themselves.

For what it's worth the retirement plan is 30 years and out (eta: further corrected by unabogie below). Still a generous deal and something that could probably be rolled back, but I'd find it really slimy if the company backtracked on the promises made to people already retired.

Full-disclosure: I'm a big fan of unions. While I disagree with lefty on days work=day's provisions and feel that the value of labor can be determined by the markets, I also think unions help labor to achieve fair value within those markets. A worker with no job still has bills to pay, loans to repay, and mouths to feed. A corporation of any size can last longer without a single worker than any single worker can last without a job.

This means that regardless of the value of the labor and skills a worker brings to a job, a company can pay less than it is ultimately willing to simply because companies are collectives of profit producing employees/management; they big/we little. They have less desire to compromise on compensation because worker as individuals don't have the leverage to demand the full value of what the company would be willing to pay. Workers as a collective often do, and thus unions are born.

In the auto industry, the UAW drives wages up to that point across the industry as Honda and others have their wages close to what Chrysler and the others are paying. Now that unionization is cracking, they're trying to get clever:
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/2007/10/neal-boudette-w.html
 
Last edited:
Did you read the link I provided? Shorter link: yes, you're wrong. Benefits are $10 and hour, average wage is $28 and hour.

The $73 per hour is an unadulterated lie, and I have a hard time forgiving the purveyors of it, since it's such an obvious one.
I remember reading somewhere, though I'm racking my brain where, that the $70 figure came from an analysis that included pensions, and what have you, for ex-employees. If I recall correctly someone took the budget for pay and benefits for current AND retired employees and then divided it by only the current to get the mythological number.

Of course without being able to remember where I read that I could easily be wrong.
 
No I won't be pulling it out again, if it's wrong it's wrong and I won't knowingly use wrong information. But my argument didn't hinge on the number being accurate. The statement I was refuting is still refuted even if they only made a few bucks more an hour.

You wrote:

Yeah...what will all those Union workers do with their 70/hour wages and their 20 year retirement programs.

But now you claim that $28/hour is somehow the lap of luxury?

Now, as to the pension issue, that's also false.

If you read the link I provided, you'd learn:

Notice how, in this article, I've constantly referred to 2007 figures? There's a good reason. In 2007, the Big Three signed a breakthrough contract with the United Auto Workers (UAW) designed, once and for all, to eliminate the compensation gap between domestic and foreign automakers in the U.S.

The agreement sought to do so, first, by creating a private trust for financing future retiree benefits--effectively removing that burden from the companies' books. The auto companies agreed to deposit start-up money in the fund; after that, however, it would be up to the unions to manage the money. And it was widely understood that, given the realities of investment returns and health care economics, over time retiree health benefits would likely become less generous.

In addition, management and labor agreed to change health benefits for all workers, active or retired, so that the coverage looked more like the policies most people have today, complete with co-payments and deductibles. The new UAW agreement also changed the salary structure, by creating a two-tiered wage system. Under this new arrangement, the salary scale for newly hired workers would be lower than the salary scale for existing workers.

So the workers made huge concessions over two years ago, and aren't making $70 an hour.

Aside from that, you've really nailed it.
 
No I won't be pulling it out again, if it's wrong it's wrong and I won't knowingly use wrong information. But my argument didn't hinge on the number being accurate. The statement I was refuting is still refuted even if they only made a few bucks more an hour.

You wrote:



But now you claim that $28/hour is somehow the lap of luxury?

Now, as to the pension issue, that's also false.

If you read the link I provided, you'd learn:



So the workers made huge concessions over two years ago, and aren't making $70 an hour.

Aside from that, you've really nailed it.
Jeez-us-christm on a POGO stick!
\Don't you folks ****ing know when a guy admits hye's wrong!
Get the **** over it, OK?
 
This coming from the guy who wants to set a maximum wage. Thus eliminating all incentive to climb the ladder, seek higher education in business, or keep a competitive edge amongst nations.

So if the max is say $300,000 a year no one is going to find the incentive to climb the ladder, seek higher education in business, or keep a competitive edge amongst nations?
 
Jeez-us-christm on a POGO stick!
\Don't you folks ****ing know when a guy admits hye's wrong!
Get the **** over it, OK?

He wasn't admitting he was wrong aside from, in his view, a very minor point. In fact, he made sure to say that he was still right in the meta sense.

So I made sure to point out that his assertions regarding pensions were just as wrong as his assertions regarding wages, and I included a source.

What should I have done differently, let him continue basing his argument on falsehoods?
 

Back
Top Bottom