General Motors on Life Support???

[Rawja]

Something a bit more factual to chew on:

$73 an Hour: Adding It Up

[Guest Reatta1]

According to everythig I'm hearing, it isn't just a Republican point of view. Quite a few Democrats, at least the purported responsible ones, are very against it too, as is the huge majority of the general public which would include a majority of Democrats. I am one that generaly agrees with that point of view.

[Guest John Chapman]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rawja</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Something a bit more factual to chew on:

$73 an Hour: Adding It Up </div></div>

Good posts, both. I'm happy that somebody is actually begining to figure out the definitions of compensation and what those numbers <span style="font-style: italic">really </span>mean. We sure won't get it from the MSM.

What hasn't been discussed is the relative efficency of the two sets of manufacturers. The B3, having made tremendous strides in productivity, still have many near-obsolete factories. This is opposed to the nearly new infrastructure that has been developed by the 'import' brands.

Cheers,

JMC

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"It’s a sad story, in many ways. But it can’t really be undone at this point. If we had wanted to preserve the Big Three, we would have bought more of their cars." </div></div>

I can't say that this is true based on the millions of cars they did sell. There are still those that prefer cars from the B3..

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: John Chapman</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I'm happy that somebody is actually begining to figure out the definitions of compensation and what those numbers <span style="font-style: italic">really </span>mean. We sure won't get it from the MSM.

Cheers,

JMC </div></div>

John, this is also a reflection on <span style="font-style: italic">all </span> unions throughout this country both in government and in the private sector.........it's going through this country like wildfires.

[R W Burgess]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It’s a sad story, in many ways. But it can’t really be undone at this point. If we had wanted to preserve the Big Three, we would have bought more of their cars.

E-mail: leonhardt@nytimes.com

</div></div>

There's the part that I understand. It doesn't matter how much money you throw at an enterprise. If it doesn't sell, it'll never fly....end of story.

Wayne

[Guest Skyking]

Wayne, the fact is they sold the cars. The problem is they didn't make any money in the process. Why?

Get rid of the unions and CEO payrolls, period. I think we all agree on that.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rawja</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Something a bit more factual to chew on:

$73 an Hour: Adding It Up </div></div>

It's apparent that people are only reading what they want to read. To wit:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Get rid of the unions and CEO payrolls, period. I think we all agree on that. </div></div>

Baloney!

From Roger's link:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So here’s a little experiment. Imagine that a Congressional bailout effectively pays for $10 an hour of the retiree benefits. That’s roughly the gap between the Big Three’s retiree costs and those of the Japanese-owned plants in this country. Imagine, also, that the U.A.W. agrees to reduce pay and benefits for current workers to $45 an hour — the same as at Honda and Toyota.

Do you know how much that would reduce the cost of producing a Big Three vehicle? Only about $800.

That’s because labor costs, for all the attention they have been receiving, make up only about 10 percent of the cost of making a vehicle. An extra $800 per vehicle would certainly help Detroit, <span style="text-decoration: underline">but the Big Three already often sell their cars for about $2,500 less than equivalent cars from Japanese companies</span>, analysts at the International Motor Vehicle Program say. <span style="font-weight: bold">Even so, many Americans no longer want to own the cars being made by General Motors, Ford and Chrysler.</span> </div></div><span style="text-decoration: underline">Everybody</span>, here and in hearing rooms in Washington (this mean's you Senator Shelby!), are using this crisis to feed their favorite monsters to rally other's to <span style="text-decoration: underline">their</span> aid <span style="font-style: italic">instead of Detroit's</span>. B*tching about unions, CEOs, some political party or other, or some company or other is all just p*ssing upstream on this.

This will end when "Buick" means "Buick" again. It'll be years before that happens, but it's deadly important to the nation that it does. In the mean time it helps no one to spin the attention needed for them away to fight other unnecessary battles.

Note to Detriot: <span style="color: #3333FF"><span style="font-weight: bold">IT'S THE PRODUCT, STUPID!</span> </span>

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some of them (I'm looking at you, Senator Shelby) have a great deal of personal interest in seeing the domestic industry fail, although they're too short-sighted to see the long term ramifications. Toyota, Honda, VW and Mercedes made you rich, Shelby, but they are going to have a hard time getting parts made for their factories in your state and may pack up and leave if you botch this. But it's just a Detroit problem, isn't it, dummy?

</div></div>

Amen!

[Guest simplyconnected]

Do you really believe, at the end of the day, car prices will go down??? Oh, no. The Japs have dumped here for years, trying any way they could to get into our market. If we say, bye-bye to the B3, prices will certainly go way UP.

The same Japanese cars purchased in Europe (without US EPA and safety equipment) always sold for much more than in the US.

Rawja's article avers, only 10% of manufacturing costs are labor. The article touches on legacy costs, too. That's not the end of this story. I worked at Ford's Scientific Research Staff and Manufacturing Development facilities. Most of those employees had doctorate degrees in each of their fields: Metallurgy (foundry, powdered metals, draw-able steels, forgings, heat-treat, welding, etc.), Chemical ((Paint) powder, electro-coat, electro-prime, waterborne, base/clearcoat, etc.), Mechanical (Material handling/dunnage/transporting, etc.

Most consumers only know about crash tests, EPA/OSHA costs, and wind tunnels. That's a tiny tip of large production manufacturing. What goes on behind the scenes is an unknown mystery, but professionally executed incognito. There are problems implementing new technology in manufacturing. These guys straighten them out.

Do you really want to bust a union? Or, all of them? Do you want to start with seceding from the United States (like Canada nearly did a few years back)? Remember the USSR (when there was one)? Maybe your state will do better on its own. I prefer solidarity, but many Americans don’t realize we’re all in this together and they want to point blame on someone else. Oh, no. It’s truly our own fault because NONE of us stuck together over the past eight years. Look around your house. How much content is American? No wonder there aren’t any jobs. Now, hurry up and get that new HD TV made in, well, not here! All of our factories are GONE! Brace yourself for very turbulent and expensive times ahead. Congress is telling GM to re-establish abroad because there will be no support here. Another country will suck them up in a minute, and we're going to let them. Just watch.

- Dave Dare

[Dave@Moon]

For those that didn't read the figure in Roger's link:

===========================================================

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For those that didn't read the figure in Roger's link:

===========================================================

</div></div>

Doesn't this relate with the <span style="font-weight: bold">union? </span>

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

This will end when "Buick" means "Buick" again. </div></div>

So what Buick are you talking about Dave, a fancy four door hardtop with tri-color exterior and mulit-color interior, or a fancy Skylark convertible, or maybe boattail Riv.

Forget it! Those days are over..........

[Reatta Man]

Some facts to consider:

1. If unions are NOT the problem, then why have the overwhelming majority of non-US brands located in non-union right-to-work states? And, why are THEY making money on cars that cost less and have longer warranties?

2. Who else, besides the unions, get free health care for life, with virtually no limits on medical tests, prescriptions, no copay, no deductible? Oh yeah, I remember, CONGRESS! Of course, their bennies will never go away, THEY control the printing presses that make the money!

3. If GM is so lousy, then why are ALL three companies in pretty much the same boat? If this were a Buick or Chevy problem, then Ford and Chrysler would be smiling and gaining market share... The fact is, they were ALL squeezed between artifically inflated $4-5 per gallon gas, $5 or more diesel, and THEN the MSM trash-talking the economy into a recession in order to prop up their candidate for president. While I wish him well, he will NOT be the salvation of this nation.

These markets are being driven by FEAR, and the media is trucking FEAR out to the public in huge piles.

4. Oh, and if GM is so lousy, and the union is so great, then HOW does the company make money overseas WHERE THERE IS NO UAW??????

5. One more thing; the cars ARE overpriced. Just noticed an ad for a Cadillac DTS at a Detroit dealership on the Detroit News web site. GM offers a $10K rebate there, $6,500 in the rest of the country. Bottom line; a Caddy with a $49K MSRP sells to a GM employee for $29K there. Can't get that deal in the rest of the country......

http://www4.print2webcorp.com/news/detroitnewspapers/mkt_auto/1875007-

http://www.print2webcorp.com/mkt/detroitauto/main/View.aspx?k=&i=1292544&e=46062

So, bust up the socialist unions with their job banks and spread-the-wealth pay, medical and retiree plans, and the Big 3 will survive...AFTER they bring their prices down to realistic levels.

[Larry Schramm]

Would like to give you a couple of things you might want to consider by answering your questions above.

1. The southern states bought the plants. It is estimated that in the state of Alabama, they spent over 1 BILLION dollars tax credits, infrastructure, land, training, etc..... to have the plants located there. And that is just Alabama.

2. You do not have to be in the union to get lifetime health care. Have you looked at the benefits of your local government officials, teachers, and not to mention the federal government members??? Compared to the auto industry, the auto workers benefits are average at best. I know, I just had my benefits deleted after age 65 and I retired from an auto company.

3. It is not just the domestic manufacturers in this quagmire. The US car sales rate a couple of years ago was about 17.5 million vehicles. At the rate it is going the US market seems to be headed to about 10.5 million vehicles. Toyota is eliminating truck production at one of their plants and stopped building the new Prius plant in Mississippi because of lack of demand.

4. You do not have all of the rules and regulations that are here in the US by the east and left coast. And as for no unions overseas, have you not heard of IG Metal in Deutschland???

5. As for the price of cars in the Detroit metro market, is is a distortion that does not reflect reality. The majority of the car sales are employee purchases. Not the real automotive retail world.

[Guest simplyconnected]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some facts to consider:

1. If unions are NOT the problem, then why have the overwhelming majority of non-US brands located in non-union right-to-work states? And, why are THEY making money on cars that cost less and have longer warranties?</div></div>

Your question should be, Why aren't the B3 closing shop up north, and moving to Texas? Seems to me GM just announced a new engine plant in Flint, in partnership with the UAW. GM must either be real stupid (considering these hard times), or they reap benefits from the UAW that are invisible to you.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some facts to consider:

2. Who else, besides the unions, get free health care for life, with virtually no limits on medical tests, prescriptions, no copay, no deductible?</div></div>

Are you on drugs? I never enjoyed FREE health care. Every time I go to the doc, I have a co-pay, and the emergency room costs me $50 up front. Co-pay for any prescriptions, too. Where do you guys GET this CRAP???

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">4. Oh, and if GM is so lousy, and the union is so great, then HOW does the company make money overseas WHERE THERE IS NO UAW??????</div></div> Europe's workforce has ALWAYS been more unionized (percentage wise)than the US. Japan has it's auto unions too. MOST Japanese auto workers belong to one. They come HERE to get away from the ones back home because we invite them. Check it out.

Your first site doesn't work. (What's up with that?)

Your second site is no better GM deal than anywhere else.

First of all:

* you must have a current lease ending before June 30th 2009 or any non GM vehicle lease ending before June 30th, 2009 and purchase a 2008 DTS.

You are buying a year-old car, and ending a current lease six months early!

[Guest imported_Thriller]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: simplyconnected</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you want to start with seceding from the United States (like Canada nearly did a few years back)? </div></div>

Je ne comprends pas. We can't secede from the USA since we aren't a part of it....

The graphic in the one article quoted is telling...if the worker gets roughly the same take home pay, and the primary difference is on the pension side, if the government were to take it over, would you be (horror of horrors) in a more socialist state? In fact, you'd look a lot more like Canada.

That being said, there's something I don't get. If the labour cost is only about 10% of the value of a new vehicle, how is it that the imports are selling for so much less, while making comparable products (granted, not the same, but in size therefore material costs, economy, quality...relatively comparable products) for an average of $2500 less? Not only that, how can they sell the same number of automobiles for less money and make profit while the American has losses of double the amount (the Toyota vs. GM). There's something funny in the numbers. Toyota has to do similar level of research as Ford does, do they not? So, if it isn't about wages and benefits, where is the difference? Ultimately, profit (positive or negative) is revenue minus expenses. If Toyota sells the same number of vehicles as GM, for an average of $2500 less each, and makes money while GM loses, then Toyota's per vehicle expenses also needs to be considerably lower than that of GM.

Unless of course, things like shareholder dividends are taken out of GM without a care for the stability of the company. Of course that gets into the "paper money" funny business that got the economy into the mess it is in.

Something smells here....

[Guest simplyconnected]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Thriller</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: simplyconnected</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you want to start with seceding from the United States (like Canada nearly did a few years back)? </div></div> Je ne comprends pas. We can't secede from the USA since we aren't a part of it....

</div></div> Thriller, it was meant for Yanks. Lincoln tried to "..form a more perfect union." (Gettysburg Address).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Thriller</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

If the labour cost is only about 10% of the value of a new vehicle, how is it that the imports are selling for so much less, while making comparable products... ...If Toyota sells the same number of vehicles as GM, for an average of $2500 less each, and makes money while GM loses, then Toyota's per vehicle expenses also needs to be considerably lower than that of GM... Something smells here....

</div></div>

Canada has the CAW, right? Doesn't Canada have socialized medicine? Therefore, doesn't Canada pick up all the workers' health care, LIKE JAPAN DOES???

The B3 have been pushing for US Government health care since before Hillary got shut-down over the issue. It would mean the B3 could pare that cost off employees' benefits, right?

We can juggle these numbers all day. I have heard inflated slams against Assemblers' wages, but what about the BIG BOYS (the board members)? Each one gets many millions; they and salaried employees get thrown into "WAGE COST$," amd everyone wants a piece of the UAW. Go figure!

You can cheat workers out of their earned pensions, but know this, Social Security is next because we're all in this together. Call it whatever you want, retirees will need money, housing, healthcare, etc. Someone will provide it.

In a few short years, all those workers at Japanese plants will retire, too. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

[Reatta Man]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: simplyconnected</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some facts to consider:

1. If unions are NOT the problem, then why have the overwhelming majority of non-US brands located in non-union right-to-work states? And, why are THEY making money on cars that cost less and have longer warranties?</div></div>

Your question should be, Why aren't the B3 closing shop up north, and moving to Texas? Seems to me GM just announced a new engine plant in Flint, in partnership with the UAW. GM must either be real stupid (considering these hard times), or they reap benefits from the UAW that are invisible to you.

<span style="font-weight: bold">I can't speak for GM as to why they located an engine plant there vs. a southern state. Ask GM. Could be, that they figured either the delivery time (everyone is using 'just in time' manufacturing now) or the cost to ship the engines outweighed the benefit of being located somewhere else. Or, maybe the state of Michigan made them an offer they 'couldn't refuse.' Like I said, ask GM that question.....</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some facts to consider:

2. Who else, besides the unions, get free health care for life, with virtually no limits on medical tests, prescriptions, no copay, no deductible?</div></div>

Are you on drugs? I never enjoyed FREE health care. Every time I go to the doc, I have a co-pay, and the emergency room costs me $50 up front. Co-pay for any prescriptions, too. Where do you guys GET this CRAP???

<span style="font-weight: bold">No, not on drugs, well, except for that Flowmax thing..... As for your free health care, I have several retired UAW family members. I KNOW what they have paid for years.....nothing! And, this formerly free, but now with ridiculously low copays has been documented before:

<span style="font-style: italic">Under the terms of the deal, health care will no longer be free for hundreds of thousands of hourly retirees, their spouses and dependents.</span></span>

http://redorbit.com/news/general/302937/gms_uaw_workers_ratify_healthcare_cuts/index.html

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">4. Oh, and if GM is so lousy, and the union is so great, then HOW does the company make money overseas WHERE THERE IS NO UAW??????</div></div> Europe's workforce has ALWAYS been more unionized (percentage wise)than the US. Japan has it's auto unions too. MOST Japanese auto workers belong to one. They come HERE to get away from the ones back home because we invite them. Check it out.

<span style="font-weight: bold">OK, here are the stats for foreign country auto workers compared to the U.S., based on Bureau of Labor Statistis numbers for 2002, the latest numbers they have posted. The only European country with higher labor costs than the U.S. is Germany. (117% compared to U.S.) Italy's wages are 51%, Korea is 43%, Spain, 47%, UK, 67%. </span>

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ForeignLabor/ind3710.txt

Your first site doesn't work. (What's up with that?) <span style="font-weight: bold">Don't know; I tested it after I posted it, worked fine for me. Ask your ISP. </span>

Your second site is no better GM deal than anywhere else.

First of all:

* you must have a current lease ending before June 30th 2009 or any non GM vehicle lease ending before June 30th, 2009 and purchase a 2008 DTS.

You are buying a year-old car, and ending a current lease six months early! </div></div>

<span style="font-weight: bold">So? The point is, GM is discounting that new car $20K; I don't see Cadillac dealers discounting their cars $20K in my market or other major markets. The POINT is, all of the big three could be discounting their cars a lot more to the American market.</span>

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That being said, there's something I don't get. If the labour cost is only about 10% of the value of a new vehicle, how is it that the imports are selling for so much less, while making comparable products (granted, not the same, but in size therefore material costs, economy, quality...relatively comparable products) for an average of $2500 less? Not only that, how can they sell the same number of automobiles for less money and make profit while the American has losses of double the amount (the Toyota vs. GM).</div></div>

<span style="font-style: italic">How are you people not getting this????</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">An extra $800 per vehicle would certainly help Detroit, but the <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="color: #CC0000"><span style="text-decoration: underline">Big Three</span> already often sell their cars for about $2,500 less than equivalent cars from Japanese companies</span></span></span>, analysts at the International Motor Vehicle Program say. </div></div>

The days when "import" cars were cheap alternatives to "American" cars died <span style="font-weight: bold">A GENERATION and/or DECADES</span> ago!

Consumers are paying <span style="text-decoration: underline">MORE</span> for Toyotas and Hondas in preference to buying what they believe are inferior products from GM. You can debate whether they're correct in their assumptions, but you cannot debate the results of their actions.

Cars last 15 years now. If you built a piece of crap car 15 years ago, it's still running around advertising your incompetence to today's buying public. If you want to overcome that, it'll take 15 years. Right now we're in about year 3 or 4, assuming the Uplander minivan line was the last bad car GM built. <span style="color: #6633FF">Welcome to the world of durable goods marketing!</span>

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The POINT is, all of the big three could be discounting their cars a lot more to the American market.</div></div>

Oh good. GM is the new Kia. I can't wait.

[Guest Reatta1]

OK guys, here is a sneak preview of the 'car of the future' aka a Congressional bailout and take over of the big 3.

31678.txt

[R W Burgess]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Congressional Motors Announces The First Car for 2012, The Pelosi

It's in the way you dress. The way you boogie down. The way you sign your unemployment check. You're a man who likes to do things your own way. And on those special odd-numbered Saturdays when driving is permitted, you want it in your car. It's that special feeling of a zero-emissions wind at your back and a road ahead meandering with possibilities. The kind of feeling you get behind the wheel of the Pelosi GTxi SS/Rt Sport Edition from Congressional Motors.

All new for 2012, the Pelosi GTxi SS/Rt Sport Edition is the mandatory American car so advanced it took $100 billion and an entire Congress to design it. We started with same reliable 7-way hybrid ethanol-biodiesel-electric-clean coal-wind-solar-pedal power plant behind the base model Pelosi, but packed it with extra oomph and the sassy styling pizzazz that tells the world that 1974 Detroit is back again -- with a vengeance.

We've subsidized the features you want and taxed away the rest. With its advanced Al Gore-designed V-3 under the hood pumping out 22.5 thumping, carbon-neutral ponies of Detroit muscle, you'll never be late for the Disco or the Day Labor Shelter. Engage the pedal drive or strap on the optional jumbo mizzenmast, and the GTxi SS/Rt Sport Edition easily exceeds 2016 CAFE mileage standards. At an estimated 268 MPG, that's a savings of nearly $1800 per week in fuel cost over the 2011 Pelosi.

Even with increased performance we didn't skimp on safety. With 11-point passenger racing harnesses, 15-way airbags, and mandatory hockey helmet, you'll have the security knowing that you could survive a 45 MPH collision even if the GTxi SS/Rt were capable of that kind of illegal speed.

But the changes don't stop there. Sporty mag-style hubcaps and an all-new aggressive wedge shape designed by CM's Chief Stylist Ted Kennedy slices through the wind like an omnibus spending bill. It even features an airtight undercarriage to keep you and a passenger afloat up to 15 minutes -- even in the choppy waters of a Cape Cod inlet. Available a rainbow of color choices to match any wardrobe, from Harvest Avocado to French Mustard.

Inside, a luxurious all-velour interior designed by Barney Frank (AKA: "Lollipop")features thoughtful appointments like an in-dash condom dispenser. A special high capacity hatchback holds up to 300 aluminum cans, meaning fewer trips to the redemption center. And the standard 3 speaker Fairness ActoPhonic FM low-band sound system means you'll never miss a segment of NPR again.

Best of all, the Pelosi GTxi SS/Rt is made right here in the U.S.A. by fully card-checked unionized workers and Detroit 's famous visionary jet-set managers. Even if you don't own one, you can enjoy the patriotic satisfaction that you're supporting the high wages, good benefits, and generous political donations that are once again making the American car industry the envy of the world.

But why not buy one anyway? With an MSRP starting at only $629,999.99, it's affordable too. Don't forget to ask about dealer incentives, rebates, tax credits, and wealth redistribution plans for customers from dozens of qualifying special interest groups. Plus easy-pay financing programs from Fannie Mae.

So take the bus to your local CM dealer today and find out why the Pelosi GTxi SS/Rt Sport Edition is the only car endorsed by President Barack Obama. One test drive will convince you that you'd choose it over the import brands. Even if they were still legal.

</div></div>

Hard to read Jim! This help?

Wayne

[Guest John Chapman]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Some facts to consider:

2. Who else, besides the unions, get free health care for life, with virtually no limits on medical tests, prescriptions, no copay, no deductible? Oh yeah, I remember, CONGRESS! Of course, their bennies will never go away, THEY control the printing presses that make the money! </div></div>

Joe, you're dead wrong on this one. Congress uses the same Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP) that most other Federal employees are eligible to receive. The FEHBP is actually quite a good model for health care reform, being one of the most cost effective of it's kind in the country.

FEHBP is not lifetime, and not 'free', there are copays and reasonable management of medical proceedures. Premiums vary by locations, but for Washington, DC, they range from about $80-200/month depending on plan selection.

The concept you describe is part of the internet myth that congressional reps retire at full pay for life after one term. Just not true.

Cheers,

JMC

[Guest John Chapman]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: simplyconnected</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ...Lincoln tried to "..form a more perfect union." (Gettysburg Address).</div></div>

Uh.... <span style="color: #FF0000"><span style="font-style: italic">wrong</span></span>!

That's the Preamble to the US Constitution...

[Guest Skyking]

The problems they are having now are not new.................

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Thriller</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Toyota has to do similar level of research as Ford does, do they not?

</div></div>

What research are you talking about? They wait for us to do the research, copy it and produce their product. Every product they have on the market was a copy-cat of one of ours..........

[Reatta Man]

John,

As far as I can find out, you are right; Congress does participate in one of the OPM listed health plans. So, yes, I was wrong about that.

Now, Congress DOES have other different options than the rest of us. Here are several other facts to consider:

1. I don't get to vote on my own annual pay raise. Congress does. Right now, their pay is at about $170,000 per year, plus a ton of perks. By comparison, a GS-15, Step 10 makes about $124,000, and it takes a long time to get to GS-15. Most people probably retire from civil service at the GS-9 to 11 range.

So, even if they do pay exactly the same premiums as Federal employees, their percentage of their pay that goes toward premiums is ridiculously low. And, before you ask the question about whether people who make more should pay more, that is EXACTLY what Obama and Biden were saying all through the campaign. Biden even insulted people by suggesting paying more taxes is 'patriotic.'

2. They also get free outpatient care at either Bethesda Naval Hospital or Walter Reed Army Medical Center. For a small annual fee ($275 for the House; $520 for the Senate) they also get on-site treatment from the Capitol Office of the Attending Physician. Do you have your own private doctor at your office building? Didn't think so.....

3. As for the pension thing, Rep. Ron Paul seems to be one of the very few who is willing to disclose details about that:

<span style="font-style: italic">"Rep. Ron Paul of Texas tells Insight he was strongly opposed to the congressional pay raise and is outraged at the scheme for making it seem that congressmen are not voting themselves pay raises. The 3.4 percent increase was attached to a COLA, he says, because "we have a `fiat currency'" so that when an individual's salary does not increase to accommodate inflation it loses value.

Paul even rejected his congressional pension because, he says, it's the "most outrageous of all the benefits." The taxpayer-subsidized private pension plan is based on a member's length of service. Members are required to pay a small initial contribution, but taxpayers subsidize the rest, and with COLAs the payoff is very big indeed. Members of Congress become vested in the pension plan after five years, which can include years from previous federal employment or military service. They become eligible for benefits after age 62 or a total of 25 years on the federal payroll.</span>

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_10_16/ai_60130260

4. I also don't get free cars and gas, paid by the taxpayers, as members of the house do:

What would you drive if the taxpayer paid?

Here's some examples:

Charlie Rangle, Cadillac Deville, $777 per month

Michael McNulty, Mercury Mariner, $816 per month

Edolphus Towns, Lincoln Towncar, $845 a month (changed to something more 'economical'....a Lincoln MKX, at $715 per month)

And, these prices do NOT include gas and maintenance, which you and I pay.

So, yes, Congress in many ways is still a very exclusive club. Just remember, only a couple of decades ago, before it was exposed, a member of the house could write a bad check to the House Bank and it was paid anyway.

[Guest Reatta1]

Hey Wayne, thanks!! My skills at attaching things and quotes is woefully lacking.

Jim

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Cars last 15 years now. If you built a piece of crap car 15 years ago, it's still running around advertising your incompetence to today's buying public. </div></div>

You better read that again! It doesn't make any sense.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Skyking</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Cars last 15 years now. If you built a piece of crap car 15 years ago, it's still running around advertising your incompetence to today's buying public. </div></div>

You better read that again! It doesn't make any sense. </div></div>

They're called "used cars", Bob!

[Guest imported_Thriller]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: simplyconnected</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Thriller</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: simplyconnected</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you want to start with seceding from the United States (like Canada nearly did a few years back)? </div></div> Je ne comprends pas. We can't secede from the USA since we aren't a part of it....

</div></div> Thriller, it was meant for Yanks. Lincoln tried to "..form a more perfect union." (Gettysburg Address).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Thriller</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

If the labour cost is only about 10% of the value of a new vehicle, how is it that the imports are selling for so much less, while making comparable products... ...If Toyota sells the same number of vehicles as GM, for an average of $2500 less each, and makes money while GM loses, then Toyota's per vehicle expenses also needs to be considerably lower than that of GM... Something smells here....

</div></div>

Canada has the CAW, right? Doesn't Canada have socialized medicine? Therefore, doesn't Canada pick up all the workers' health care, LIKE JAPAN DOES???

</div></div>

Yes there is the CAW, but I don't know any details about their deals. No, not all health care is covered...it isn't a blank cheque. Basic health care is covered and many elective stuff is too, but some things like dental and eye very from province to province (primarily federally funded, but provincially implemented). Drug costs are generally covered in hospital, but not outside. There are of course exceptions, often based on income.

That all being said, the CAW shouldn't need to negotiate significant health care coverage and with some Canada Pension Plan / Old Age Security, the pensions don't need to be quite as lucrative either, although these items aren't huge dollar amounts.

Dave - if you are correct about the premium for Honda and Toyota, then the error I made was in referring to something someone else posted prior to me. I don't know what the imports cost...I haven't looked since 1999...when the Honda Odyssey was overpriced and the Toyota Sienna was missing features the domestics had. I guess if someone had corrected the prior information before I posted, I needn't have been lambasted by you.

As for some of the comparisons, what proportion of US-bound "imports" are manufactured / assembled in North America? On the one hand people are talking about the Japanese system of social health, and in the next breath (or post), it's about setting up plants in union-unfriendly states. Back in 1990-91, I toured the Honda plant in Alliston, ON...at the time, they built all the Civic hatchbacks for the North American market. So, if the workers building the cars are from Kentucky or Tennessee, why are we talking about Japanese social policies? Of course, if a large proportion of the vehicles come from offshore, then it makes perfect sense.

Still, the basic question persists...if only some 10% of the value of a car is labour costs, and raw materials are purchased on the market (e.g. steel, aluminum for the same price), where is the difference? If it is entirely in the retail price, as Dave suggests, then the task is one of "unbrainwashing" the public...not sure how you do that when winning quality awards leads to automotive journalists talking about the crappy gas hogs you are building....

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...what proportion of US-bound "imports" are manufactured / assembled in North America? </div></div>

It's hard to get an exact number for this because "North American" made cars aren't necessarily all sold in the U.S. Some sell in Canada, Mexico, Japan, South America, and even Europe.

Honda says it builds 1.4 million cars annually in North America. They sell about 1.55 million cars in the U.S. annually. Toyota produces a little over 1.5 million vehicles in North America annually, and sell about 2.5 million cars in the U.S. To the best of my knowledge none from either manufacturer are made in Mexico. (All data from 2006 or 2007)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...why are we talking about Japanese social policies? </div></div>

Because people spin whatever they want to suit their preconceived notions. When people are told bad news they want to assign fault to an enemy or a competing mindset, not to themselves, their friends, or the ideas they share.

The next time you hear someone whining about people wanting to "blame America first", assume they will accept no blame whatsoever for the U.S. for anything and you'll almost certainly cut to the core of their argument. Ditto for people who can't accept that GM ever made a mistake.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...the task is one of "unbrainwashing" the public...not sure how you do that when winning quality awards leads to automotive journalists talking about the crappy gas hogs you are building.... </div></div>

Do you read <span style="font-style: italic">Washing Machine Monthly</span> or <span style="font-style: italic">Corn Flake World</span>? No? Well than why would you buy either item?

The world is not made up of cognoscenti with regard to cars. We are a TINY minority among automotive consumers. If Budweiser tasted like crap for the next 25 years, would you be eager to try it again in 2038 when it's new formula transformed it into ambrosia? The 50 year olds not buying Malibus today were the 30 year olds burnt by Somersets in 1988.

(<span style="font-style: italic">And silly bragging over highway mileage few people regularly get aside, most "American" cars still lag slightly behind most equivalent "import" cars in gas mileage. 30 mpg on the highway is <span style="text-decoration: underline">no big deal</span>! Almost any non-specialty car will do that these days. Get me 35 mpg stuck in rush hour traffic and I'll start paying attention. And no--that's not only possible but is available in a fair number of mid-size cars already, including a Ford Fusion as of 2009.</span>)

[old-tank]

Interesting ...This is a video of a new Ford plant in Brazil .

One look at this and you will be able to tell why there will probably never be another one built in the USA .

It will also point out why more assembly plants will go offshore.

and.. pay attention to the last few words. It says a lot!

Video

[Reatta Man]

Like I said.....

No UAW, profits....

With UAW, layoffs and bailouts.....

[Guest John Chapman]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 1. I don't get to vote on my own annual pay raise. Congress does. Right now, their pay is at about $170,000 per year, plus a ton of perks. By comparison, a GS-15, Step 10 makes about $124,000, and it takes a long time to get to GS-15. Most people probably retire from civil service at the GS-9 to 11 range.</div></div>

True, they <span style="font-style: italic">can </span>vote a pay raise, but so far have been pretty responsible about keeping it reasonable. If you do a cross check of corporate executive compensation for similar responsibility and job content, you'd wonder <span style="font-style: italic">why </span>anyone would spend millions to win one of these offices.

All of the perks you discuss are completely in line with the practices of industry in general. Many large corporations have on site medical facilities, commissaries, and cafeterias that are company-subsidized (not free) and available to all employees. The idea is to facilitate keeping producing workers on site, eliminating outside trips, and making the work environment 'convenient'. Hence, the appearance of on-site day care, gyms, van pools, dry cleaning, photo development, gift stores, etc.

I’ve yet to do work with a medium to large corporation that did not provide executives cars (or access to a motor pool), aircraft, drivers, and staff. The idea is to keep the ‘big earners’ doing what they need to do, not twiddling their thumbs in traffic, looking for a parking garage, or clearing TSA at the airport. Basic pay for a representative at $170K/yr (~$85/hr). The burdened rate (including all overhead, staff, etc) is probably closer to $2000/hr. We should maximize the work time.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">3. As for the pension thing, Rep. Ron Paul seems to be one of the very few who is willing to disclose details about that: </div></div>

With respect to the pay raise, Paul was doing a bit of grandstanding, you think? Does 3.4% seem unreasonable?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Paul even rejected his congressional pension because, he says, it's the "most outrageous of all the benefits." ...taxpayer-subsidized private pension plan is based on a member's length of service. </div></div>

True. Most members of Congress are now under the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS). The FERS is a major change from the older, more 'generous' CSRS (no new participants since 1984). The FERS is a three part system: Social Security (yes, they pay just like you do), the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP, same basic rules as the 401K plans), and FERS, the defined benefit portion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Members are required to pay a small initial contribution, but taxpayers subsidize the rest, and with COLAs the payoff is very big indeed. </div></div>

Sorta correct. The employee pays 1.5% of pay (GS is 0.8%). But, see the next...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Members of Congress become vested in the pension plan after five years, which can include years from previous federal employment or military service. They become eligible for benefits after age 62 or a total of 25 years on the federal payroll.</div></div>

Vesting for the FERS is five years. Before that, you get nada. And you give up your contribution.

You can count previous federal employment (creditable service), but so what, you were going to get that anyway, and you can only count the time for which you were contributing to the FERS. You can count military time... but, frequently you have to 'buy' that time back for it to be counted. It's complicated and may or may not be a 'good deal' depending on individual circumstances.

There are three different times that receipt of retirement can begin, but your 'age 62' is pretty good. The formula is simple: (Years of Service) x (1.7%) x (average of high three salary years). So, let's say you're a Representative that has been elected five times (10 years) and you retire this year. You'll get 17% of $170,000(assumed H3 average) per year ($28,900) from FERS. <span style="text-decoration: underline">Party </span><span style="font-style: italic">ON!</span>

There are very few of the old fossils under CSRS that will ultimately achieve the huge retirement benefits. George Mitchell, Sen Byrd, Sen Kennedy, etc.

Boring details at: http://www.opm.gov/retire/pubs/pamphlets/fers.asp

and: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL30631_20070209.pdf

Cheers,

JMC

[Reatta Man]

The deal is done; the money will start to flow to GM in a few days.

Now, we get to sit back and see if they are just going to be a pass-through and send the money to the UAW, or if they are actually going to fix GM.

One other thing of note; they must fix things by 31 March 09, or give the money back. But the current bunch that is making all these conditions leave office in a few weeks.....

Anyone here think Obama will make anyone pay anything back?

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Anyone here think Obama will make anyone pay anything back? </div></div>

We'll see.............

[old-tank]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The deal is done; the money will start to flow to GM in a few days.</div></div>

So now my money is going to a black hole of waste, inefficiency, entitlement, incompetence and corruption. It also happens that they have have very good lobbyists and of course politions in pocket...sounds like the old USSR. And we know how that turned out. I would rather GM and others fail than the whole country.

Willie

[Guest my3buicks]

So when has our money not gone to a "black hole of waste" when we pay taxes?

I for one rather bail out the auto industry, rather than throw the economy into the tailspin that their demise would cause.

We help every other cause across the world, might as well spend the money at home for a change.