• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

An Example Of "Obamanomics"

Mike

Well-known member
Mayor Rahm Emanuel closed the books on 2012 with $33.4 million in unallocated cash on hand — down from $167 million the year before — while adding to the mountain of debt piled on Chicago taxpayers, year-end audits show.

Last week, Moody’s Investors ordered an unprecedented triple-drop in the city’s bond rating, citing Chicago’s “very large and growing” pension liabilities, “significant” debt service payments, “unrelenting public safety demands” and historic reluctance to raise local taxes that has continued under Emanuel.
 

Steve

Well-known member
The liberal pension liabilities alone will sink most of the liberal organizations...

when the post office was required to fund their pension at a sustainable level.. they went into the red.. and haven't even come close to digging out of that pit...

If I was going to buy municipal bonds.. I would look at the cities unfunded pension liability first... and that alone is enough to scare off any bond buyer these days...

you can't promise golden parachutes and retirements without accumulating a pile of unfunded liabilities..

here in New Jersey it isn't uncommon for a person to make more in retirement then when they worked for the goverment,, ... how long can you sustain that?
 

Steve

Well-known member
When you consider retirement costs.. you can see how Ford is one great company... to stay in business and still maintain a profit those guys are one hell of a management team...

Retiree Costs

Here's how it breaks down: An hour of labor at a U.S. auto plant costs around $74, while the same hour of work at a Toyota or Honda plant is closer to $50. That $24 difference is cited as one reason Detroit has had trouble competing in the car market. Take-home pay is comparable, averaging around $29 per hour for GM, Chrysler and Ford, and around $27 an hour for the Japanese manufacturers.

But, as part of their contract agreements with the United Auto Workers, the Detroit Three also pay the cost of health care for life for their retirees, along with a generous pension package.

Those retiree "legacy costs" mean an extra $16-$18 per hour in costs compared to the $3 per hour that the Japanese automakers spend in retiree benefits

That differential reflects two distinctions between U.S. and foreign automakers, First, the foreign manufacturing plants tend to be newer than the Detroit Three's U.S. plants, meaning there are fewer retirees who need benefits.

The Union Difference

Second, the workers at the foreign auto companies are not unionized, which means they have not bargained for the generous retiree benefits of a UAW worker. That means no defined pension plan and no health care for life. So even as the number of foreign autoworker retirees increases, the legacy costs should not reach those of the U.S. automakers.

In 2007, the extra legacy costs amounted to an additional $1,800 for each car the Detroit Three produced. But now, with the auto market suffering and production down significantly, the retiree costs are spread out over fewer cars. A drop in production has also meant fewer workers are needed. The companies are encouraging early retirement, increasing the number of retirees even further.

$3,000 More Per Car

Legacy costs now tack on an additional $3,000 to each American car that rolls off the assembly line,

Another weakness, he says, are the work rules that make it "significantly harder to put workers on actual production jobs."
the jobs bank program, which guarantees laid-off workers benefits and most of their wages while they wait for work. it has "historically required the Detroit Three to pay for more hours of work in order to get an hour of work on the assembly line accomplished," and has therefore made it difficult for the U.S. automakers to compete with foreign manufacturers.

to think that Ford is still in business and competing is a tribute to the American management of bloated unions...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Steve said:
to think that Ford is still in business and competing is a tribute to the American management of bloated unions...

To think that the foreign companies are still in business, without being union is also surprising.

Who's taking those jobs? Why would they work for less than min. wage? Where's TSR to explain it to us?
 

Steve

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Steve said:
to think that Ford is still in business and competing is a tribute to the American management of bloated unions...

To think that the foreign companies are still in business, without being union is also surprising.

Who's taking those jobs? Why would they work for less than min. wage? Where's TSR to explain it to us?

the employee takes home about the same amount.. union of non union...
Take-home pay is comparable, averaging around $29 per hour for GM, Chrysler and Ford, and around $27 an hour for the Japanese manufacturers.

the union guy just has to support a retiree, a furloughed union guy, several union bosses and all their pensions... (which costs the company more)
 

Traveler

Well-known member
Steve said:
hypocritexposer said:
Steve said:
to think that Ford is still in business and competing is a tribute to the American management of bloated unions...

To think that the foreign companies are still in business, without being union is also surprising.

Who's taking those jobs? Why would they work for less than min. wage? Where's TSR to explain it to us?

the employee takes home about the same amount.. union of non union...
Take-home pay is comparable, averaging around $29 per hour for GM, Chrysler and Ford, and around $27 an hour for the Japanese manufacturers.

the union guy just has to support a retiree, a furloughed union guy, several union bosses and all their pensions... (which costs the company more)
It's like redistributionist Obama government being practiced in the private (more or less) sector. What's not to like? :roll:
 

TSR

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Steve said:
to think that Ford is still in business and competing is a tribute to the American management of bloated unions...

To think that the foreign companies are still in business, without being union is also surprising.

Who's taking those jobs? Why would they work for less than min. wage? Where's TSR to explain it to us?

I seriously doubt there are any workers in U. S. plants making less than min. wage- foreign or domestic car lines considered. Missed me to explain things to you Hypo?lol
 

TSR

Well-known member
Steve said:
hypocritexposer said:
Steve said:
to think that Ford is still in business and competing is a tribute to the American management of bloated unions...

To think that the foreign companies are still in business, without being union is also surprising.

Who's taking those jobs? Why would they work for less than min. wage? Where's TSR to explain it to us?

the employee takes home about the same amount.. union of non union...
Take-home pay is comparable, averaging around $29 per hour for GM, Chrysler and Ford, and around $27 an hour for the Japanese manufacturers.

Take home pay would be the primary concern of most workers, imo. The reason these two examples are so close is because of the threat of unionization as I have said many times. Its not as if the workers making the Japanese cars have 0 benefits--just not as many as the big three. BTW Where had you rather work?

the union guy just has to support a retiree, a furloughed union guy, several union bosses and all their pensions... (which costs the company more)
 

Steve

Well-known member
TSR said:
Take home pay would be the primary concern of most workers, imo. The reason these two examples are so close is because of the threat of unionization as I have said many times. Its not as if the workers making the Japanese cars have 0 benefits--just not as many as the big three. BTW Where had you rather work?

sometimes it comes down to the simple things in life location and principles..

I like the south alot more then I like the north... so given the choice,.. I would take a southern right to work state...

and I do not like supporting the union politics.. which is basically what you do when you are forced to give them a bribe to work...

given the rest is about the same... the choice is easy.... non-union..
 

TSR

Well-known member
Well I can only say that you would be in the minority ( I could be wrong of course) I doubt anyone would take a job for less pay and fewer benefits in today's world unless they had something to fall back on such as what my stepfather had after having retired from the military at age 39. Tricare for life etc.
I also meant to ask also where do you live, considering your fondness of the south?? I love the south too, but I also love the laid back people of the western states.
 

Steve

Well-known member
I doubt anyone would take a job for less pay and fewer benefits in today's world

the article clearly states comparable pay and benefits..

so it isn't less pay or less benefits.. at least not when you consider location and cost of living..

Living in the south is way cheaper then living in the north east for example..
 

Steve

Well-known member
TSR said:
I also meant to ask also where do you live, considering your fondness of the south?? I love the south too, but I also love the laid back people of the western states.

not to point out the obvious.. but in the location line below my name.. Wildwood New Jersey.

I grew up in South Dakota,.. and am just stuck here for the time being..
at least it is a rural county with a republican leaning population.. for now...
 
Top