On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:26:26 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:26:26 -0500, "Buerste" wrote:


"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
t...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
snip--------


That's typical. Even when everyone knows that the reason the "Big 3"
are
losing money is because of the horrible way the management has run the
companies and the lousy decisions they made over the years some people
still
think it's the fault of the people who work for them. Blame the
victims.
Even today I heard right winger Bill Krystol say on Fox News that the
workers only account for ten percent of auto costs. So, the fact is
it's
not
the workers who brought down the auto companies it's their management.
But
the knee jerk reaction to blame unions by right wingers never goes away
despite the facts that say otherwise. I think they would still blame
unions
for things going wrong if they didn't exist.

Hawke


Are you implying that unions have played no role in the decline of our
way
of life in recent times? You think it's perfectly fine for people
making a decent salary to picket their place of employment, demanding
yet
more money, when if they are successful you will pay more for their
goods
and services? Think of workers at unionized grocery stores. If
their
demands are met and they get yet more unearned money, who do you suppose
is going to pick up the tab? Seems to me, it's the customer. Screw
unions, and union members. These are the very people that are
dragging
is further into the abyss.

Can I safely assume that you think a guy with no qualifications of any
kind, no education, possibly unable to sign his name, is worth more than
$30/hour? Where does it end? Everything for everybody, even those that
haven't earned it?

Where do you suppose the money comes from that pays these unworthy
people
their unearned salaries?

I don't give a damn if it's only 10% of the cost of an automobile-----I
don't enjoy paying that amount over real value, let alone the money
stolen
*legally by upper management through totally unreasonable salaries and
bonuses. Fire the entire lot of these *******s and let them grovel in
the real world, where they can't hold anyone hostage.

Harold



But, the basic laws of supply and demand are so inconvenient to some.
Unfortunately those laws ALWAYS apply sooner or (too) later. Maybe
Americans will be forced to buy a "Big-3".


Whoever says labour is only 10% of the cost of a vehicle has NOT done
their homework.
What portion of the cost of steel is labour? Go back one step farther
- what percentage of the cost of coal/coke and iron ore is labour?
What portion of the cost of tooling is labour? How about the cost of
building/maintaining the plant?

I MIGHT believe the "direct" cost of UAW worker's wages/benefits at
the big three themselves MIGHT be as low as 10% at the plant level -
but the plant does not start with iron ore, bauxite, and coal to build
a car. (unless, perhaps, you are Ford Brazil)

Yes, it's around 10% direct labor. And it's true that total labor becomes a
larger part of the total as you move back along the supply chain. Ford Motor
company used to smelt its own ore -- ore boats pulled right up to the Rouge
iron smelter on Ford's property -- and total labor then was most of the cost
of a car.

But once the parts are farmed out and you're looking at three tiers
(sometimes four) of supply in the chain, how much do you blame Ford or GM
for what the shops and plants are paying their workers? This isn't a simple
question. I've spent hundreds of hours on it, up until six or seven years
ago.

This is the basic problem we encounter when we compare our manufacturing
costs with those of China, and you run into that same issue of labor costs
being added to each stage of supply. They're called "embedded costs." If all
of the intermediate products, such as steel strip, glass, and so on were
traded freely on the world market, those costs would be competitive and
comparable right up to the stage of final assembly, at which point US
manufacturing costs would be so close to those of China that our savings in
shipping would actually make our products cheaper.

But those products are not actually traded that way, partly because there
would be trans-Pacific shipping costs at every step, and it is prohibitive
on low-value products, such as pig iron, for example.

However, those labor costs in Ford's supply chain are not Ford's labor
costs, they're the vendors' costs. And most of them are not based on UAW
labor. So who do you blame now?


Just like back in the early days of Ford - where ford MANUFACTURED
NOTHING - just assembled. The Dodge Brothers were building engines and
transmissions for old Henry - and Henry specified the exact dimensions
of the packing crates and how they were made - because the Dodge
Brothers were also supplying the floor-boards of the car.

And that is FACT.

Then Ford integrated - even generating their own electricty to run the
plants.