|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 21, 2008 3:50:15 GMT -6
from Portfolio.com Nov 18 2008 10:49PM EST The Return of the $70 Per Hour Meme" You might expect it from right-leaning commentators....You wouldn't expect it from.... the New York Times, from the likes of Andrew Ross Sorkin. But all of them are perpetuating the meme that the average GM worker costs more than $70 an hour, once you include health and pension costs.
It's not true.
The average GM assembly-line worker makes about $28 per hour in wages, and I can assure you that GM is not paying $42 an hour in health insurance and pension plan contributions. Rather, the $70 per hour figure (or $73 an hour, or whatever) is a ridiculous number obtained by adding up GM's total labor, health, and pension costs, and then dividing by the total number of hours worked. In other words, it includes all the healthcare and retirement costs of retired workers.
Now that GM's healthcare obligations are being moved to a UAW-run trust, even that fictitious number is going to fall sharply. But anybody who uses it as a rhetorical device suggesting that US car companies are run inefficiently is being disingenuous. As of 2007, the UAW represented 180,681 members at Chrysler, Ford and General Motors; it also represented 419,621 retired members and 120,723 surviving spouses. If you take the costs associated with 721,025 individuals and then divide those costs by the hours worked by 180,681 individuals, you're going to end up with a very large hourly rate. But it won't mean anything, unless you're trying to be deceptive." www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2008/11/18/the-return-of-the-70-per-hour-meme
|
|
|
Post by agito on Nov 21, 2008 10:26:41 GMT -6
yeah- when i first heard that number- the first thing i thought was health insurance. I'd love for them to do a complete break down of that and then compare it to say... a wall street workers cost?
|
|
|
Post by wheeler on Nov 21, 2008 20:36:36 GMT -6
Really? Really.
Is there any common sense around here?
Okay smarty pants.
Where does the sick leave come out of?
Where does the employer get the money to pay a worker who DOES NOT work to pay for his sick days?
If you give a Union worker 9 sick days at $20.00 an hour, that is $160 a day. Now times that by 9. That is $1440 dollars.
Where Unlawfulcombatant does this $1440 come from? Where? Out of thin air?
What are you smokin' dude? If a plant has 800 workers that means that plant must have on hand every year $1,125,000 to cover sick days.
That 1 million and a quarter must come out of the product produced. If the worker demands it---then it is part of the labor factor that produces the product!
Do you guys take accounting? Where does Sick day money come from? The tree out back? No, the employer goes out back with a shovel and digs it up!
Sick days are part of the labors wages that is figured into the product.
For every benefit the worker gets from the company, must come out of the product hence it is part of the Labor factor, NOT material costs, that is part of product mark up.
You really must be smokin' crack. Common sense tells you that it is $78 dollars or more of Labor factor an hour that must be tacked on the product to pay for basic wage and all the benefits the worker works.
The Product price consists of ONLY Material, Labor, investment, profit, taxes. Labor benefits don't come out of investment, profit margin, taxes, or material side in accounting. They come out of the "Cost of Labor".
What is the cost of Labor to make this product?
Wage, Sick days Vacation days Social Security Workman's Comp Pension Health Plan Dental Plan
That is ALL Labor Cost figured into price of product. Every hour a worker works, his labor and benefits must be paid.
Do any of you have the wherewithall of economic theory/science/business management?
|
|
|
Post by wheeler on Nov 21, 2008 20:43:46 GMT -6
Here it is in black and white folks: He explained that in 2006, widely available industry and Labor Department statistics placed the average labor cost for UAW-represented workers at the former DaimlerChrysler at $75.86 per hour. For Ford it was $70.51, he said, and for General Motors it was $73.26.
“That includes the hourly pay, plus the benefits they’re receiving and all the other costs to General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, including legacy costs – retirement costs, pensions, and so on – so it’s looking at the total labor costs per hour worked for workers,” Perry said.
For U.S. workers at Toyota, however, the per hour labor cost is around $47.60, around $43 for Honda and around $42 for Nissan, Perry added, for an average of around $44. “So we’re looking at somewhere around a $29 per hour pay gap between the Big Three and the foreign transplants that are producing cars in the United States,” Perry, chairman of the economics department, told CNSNews.com. The average union worker at Chrysler, meanwhile, received 150 percent more in compensation than U.S. workers generally. “Using Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers, the average compensation for manufacturing workers is around $31.50, and the average hourly compensation, including benefits, for the average worker in the U.S. economy is around $28.50,” Perry told CNSNews.com. If you annualize Chrysler’s labor cost of $75.86 an hour per worker over a 35-hour week, for 50-weeks a year, the yearly compensation comes in at almost $133,000 per worker per year. From: www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39499That man you quote Unlawfulcombat, doesn't know his A** from a hole in the ground.
|
|
|
Post by wheeler on Nov 21, 2008 20:47:23 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by wheeler on Nov 21, 2008 20:57:20 GMT -6
Compensation Costs in Private Industry March 1987 to March 1999
* Total private-sector compensation costs in March 1999 were $19.00 per hour worked, up from $13.42 in 1987. Since March 1987, total private-sector compensation costs have increased at an average annual rate of 2.9 percent, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
* The costs of private-sector employee benefits increased at an average annual rate of 3.0 percent from March 1987 to March 1999. In March 1987, benefit costs were $3.60 per hour worked, or 26.8 percent of total compensation, and by March 1994, they had risen to 28.9 percent of compensation. In March 1999, benefit costs were $5.13 per hour worked, and had declined to 27.0 percent of total compensation.
* One of the major causes of this decline in benefit costs as a percentage of total private-sector compensation costs is the decline in insurance costs. Insurance costs increased steadily from March 1987 ($0.72 per hour worked) to March 1994 ($1.23 per hour worked). By March 1999, insurance costs had declined to $1.13 per hour worked.
* Legally required benefits (Social Security, federal and state unemployment, and workers' compensation) have always been the highest-cost benefits to private-sector employers. Legally required benefits accounted for 8.4 percent of total compensation costs ($1.13 per hour worked) in March 1987, and increased to 9.4 percent of total compensation costs ($1.60 per hour worked) by March 1994. Like insurance benefits, legally required benefits declined as a percentage of total compensation costs by March 1999, representing 8.7 percent of total compensation ($1.65 per hour worked).
* March 1996 was the first time that BLS reported separate cost data for Medicare and Social Security (the Old-Age and Survivors and Disability Insurance program, or OASDI). That month, the OASDI cost to private-sector employers was $0.84 per hour worked (or 4.8 percent of total compensation), while the Medicare cost was $0.21 per hour worked (or 1.2 percent of total compensation). By March 1999, the costs of these benefits as a percentage of total compensation costs had not changed, but the dollar costs had increased to $0.93 per hour worked for OASDI and $0.23 per hour worked for Medicare. The major characteristics affecting employers' total compensation costs are establishment size, industry, occupation group, union status, and work status:
—Large establishments have higher total compensation costs than small establishments. Total compensation costs in establishments with fewer than 100 employees amounted to $16.27 per hour worked in March 1999, compared with $26.37 per hour worked for establishments with 500 or more employees. From Employee Benefit Research Institute: www.ebri.org/publications/facts/index.cfm?fa=0999fact2If you worked a job for $9.35 an hour, an ADDITIONAL $19.00 an hour would have to be added to keep you on the payroll of that company to pay out all of its obligations. So really one is making $28.35 an hour. Do you know why an Attorney charges $150.00 to $500.00 an hour? So he can pay his secretary, his office rent, his office electrical bill, office supplies, his taxes.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Nov 21, 2008 22:33:09 GMT -6
Its clear Wheelie you don't like workers period. You certainly are inflamed that some happen to make a decent wage they can live on.
Though the workers supposed high wages didn't prevent the execs from buying corporate jets by the dozen or awarding themselves lavish million dollar salaries and multi-million dollar yearly bonuses.
Here's just a few from GM, even though they've losing money since 2005.
Wagoner $14,000,000 Henderson $7,600,000 Lutz $6,800.000
Its funny though, given the that the Big 3 corporate execs approved these contracts, fought raising the CAFE standards to the point of bullying and bribing congressmen, refused to phase out most of the SUV, and large pickup product lines even though. You pick on the people that had no decision in the direction the companies took.
All in all its management's fault they are in the predicament they're in.
Can't deal with it, tough.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 21, 2008 23:22:55 GMT -6
If you give a Union worker 9 sick days at $20.00 an hour, that is $160 a day. Now times that by 9. That is $1440 dollars. Where Unlawfulcombatant does this $1440 come from? Where? Out of thin air? Wheeler, You're pulling some of your numbers out of thin air, and getting others from completely biased sources. And, calculating out some of the known costs indicates you're not even in the ball park on a lot of your numbers. Let's start with your own "$1,440/year" cost for sick days. A worker working 8 hours/day, 5 days/week, works 2,085 hours per year. $1,440 ÷ 2,085 = 69¢. *69¢/hour for sick leave. Health care expenses--another Right-Wing Corporatist fairy tale: We'll use Medicare costs, since every insurance company in the country bases its reimbursement on Medicare rates. There are 45 million Americans on Medicare for a cost of $450 billion per year. (This includes Part A, Part B, and Part D--the Pharmaceutical Industry Welfare Bill which costs $50 billion/year). This is simple math. It costs $10,000/year for each Medicare recipient. If these Medicare recipients were working the same 2,085 hours per year as the autoworkers, their hourly medical costs can be calculated as follows: $10,000 ÷ 2,085 = $4.80/hour *$4.80/hour for Medical care.How are we doing so far on these "major" costs to the poor employers? We're at about $5.50/hour now in extra costs to employers. Now that $20/hour worker you've cited is costing $25.50/hour. This is still almost $45 away from the $70/hour myth. How about retirement benefits & pensions. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics: " Employer costs for retirement and savings plans averaged $1.25 per hour worked in June 2008" *$1.25/hour for retirement and savings. Now we've got the employment cost of those $20/hour workers up to a astronomical $26.75/hour. That's still over $43 dollars away from $70/hour. Now, wheeler, show me exactly how you get that additional $43/hour. And don't quote some 3rd party who just barfs up numbers without any explanation about where they came from. Show me exactly what the costs are in dollars, and where they came from.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 22, 2008 1:54:33 GMT -6
Here's a passage from the US Bureau of Labor statistics describing the benefit costs for an American worker making $19.85/hour www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm" Total compensation (wages and salaries and benefits) for civilian workers averaged $28.48 per hour worked in June 2008. Wages and salaries, which averaged $19.85, accounted for 69.7 percent of these costs, while benefits, which averaged $8.64." So for this almost $20/hr worker, the benefit cost was $8.64/hour, making the total hourly cost $28.48. This information is from the Federal government. (As opposed to a Right-Wing think tank.) A $20/hour worker costs the employer *$28.48/hourAgain, where does the "$70/hour" fantasy come from???
|
|
|
Post by judes on Nov 22, 2008 10:22:12 GMT -6
Yes exactly. It is a very deceptive calculation to arrive at $70 / hour. The biggest chunk comes from them adding all the retirement costs of past workers on to the current employees in their hours worked. Those pension benefits should have already been earned and accumulated for those workers. It is disingenuous to add those costs to current workers wages. The newer foreign transplants haven't been around long enough to accumulate that number of retirees, so comparing that calculation to them is also disingenuous. www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2008/11/18/the-return-of-the-70-per-hour-meme"As of 2007, the UAW represented 180,681 members at Chrysler, Ford and General Motors; it also represented 419,621 retired members and 120,723 surviving spouses. If you take the costs associated with 721,025 individuals and then divide those costs by the hours worked by 180,681 individuals, you're going to end up with a very large hourly rate. But it won't mean anything, unless you're trying to be deceptive."
They also use accounting methods similar to the banksters with their toxic assets being held in shell SIV accounts, or the methods used in hedonics, to come up with health care costs per hour. www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/20/9411/9626/75/664036"That $20 is folded into the right's "$75 per hour" claims. It implies a health plan which costs Chrysler somewhere between $25-$40,000/year, depending on how many hours per year you use. That raised a red flag for me... I know U.S. health care can get expensive, but does anyone here of non-retirement age have a health plan whose premiums cost anything like $40K?
Suspecting some self-serving sleight-of-hand from Chrysler in these figures, I then looked into how they come up with this staggering number.
ANSWER: In tiny footnotes to its report, Chrysler mentions without explanation that it is using something called a "FAS 106" number for health care costs.
OK, so what's FAS 106? It's a special accounting method which doesn't in fact represent the actual cost of premiums the company pays for its workers. Rather, it appears to represent a company estimate of the potential value of the health care benefits which an average worker might potentially receive if their insurance provider actually had to pay for a major illness, hospitalization, etc. (FAS 106 accounting also is usually used for retirement benefit estimates, not for 45-year-old active workers, the which the Chrysler report uses as its "typical" worker.)"And if we did use wheelers calculation of $1440 per year per worker for sick pay (which is overinflated) just look at how far a reduction in the top salaries of the auto companies execs would go towards providing that meager benefit. The top three payscales would cover that cost for over 15,000 workers, (not even taking in to account all their excessive perks of company cars, free gas, free auto insurance, serps (supplemental executive retirement programs), etc.). If the execs are demanding and receiving such outrageous pay, it is hardly out of line for workers to be given the benefit of sick pay. (It is 5 days of personal paid days for UAW workers by the way, not 9.) I suppose wheeler you would be happier with the Walmart way. But even then I'm not so sure, maybe you prefer the Chinese way of treating workers. Maybe you can let us know just how much you think workers deserve to be compensated. But let's look at Walmart, the largest employer in the nation. seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002758209_report24m.html"More than 3,100 Wal-Mart employees in Washington were benefiting from state-subsidized health coverage throughout 2004 — nearly double the total for any other company, according to two confidential state reports.
That total is much higher than previously thought. And it indicates that as many as 20 percent of Wal-Mart's employees were getting taxpayer-funded health care for themselves or their dependents."walmartwatch.com/pages/healthcareState Studies of Wal-Mart Workers on Public Assistance State Year Program Enrolled Yearly cost Rank Alabama1 2005 Medicaid 3,864 dependents $1.7-$2.4 million 1st Arkansas2 2005 Public Assistance 3,971 workers $4 million 1st Arizona3 2005 Medicaid Almost 2,800 workers -- 1st 2005 KidsCare (CHIP) 450 children -- 1st California4 2004 Medicaid -- -- * Connecticut5 2004 Medicaid 824 workers -- 1st 2004 Medicaid 204 children -- 1st Florida6 2005 Medicaid 12,300 workers & dependents -- 1st 2005 Healthy Kids & KidCare (CHIP) 1,375 children $468,936 1st Georgia7 2002 PeachCare (CHIP) 10,261 children -- 1st Illinois8 2005-6 Medicaid 1,132 employees $2.5 million 1st Iowa9 2003-4 Medicaid 845 employees -- 1st Maine10 2005 Medicaid 751 employees -- 1st Mass.11 2005-6 State health insurance 3117 workers & 2813 dependents $8.8 million 1st 2003-4 State health insurance 823 workers & 1,656 dependents $1.3 million 1st 2002-3 Uncompensated Care 435 workers & dependents $356,540 1st Montana12 2004 CHIP 193 children of employees -- 1st Nebraska13 2005 Medicaid 684 workers -- 1st New Hamp.14 2005 Medicaid & CHIP 487 workers -- 1st New Jersey15 2005 FamilyCare (CHIP) 71 workers & 538 children -- 1st Ohio16 2005 Medicaid 12,184 employees & famliy members -- 1st Pennsylvania17 2006 Medicaid 7,577 employees $15 million 1st Tennessee18 2004 TennCare 9,617 workers -- 1st Texas19 2004 CHIP 2,611 families -- 1st 2005 CHIP 2,333 families -- 1st Utah20 2006 Medicaid and CHIP 234 workers -- 1st Vermont21 2005 Medicaid 286 workers -- 1st Washington22 2003 low-income health plan 341 workers $651,992 1st 2004 low-income health plan 281 workers $475,452 1st 2006 low-income health plan over 3,100 workers -- 1st W. Virginia23 2004 SCHIP 452 workers -- 1st Wisconsin24 2004 BadgerCare 1,813 employees & dependents $1.8 million 1st 2004 Medicaid 1,952 children (incl. above) 1st 2005 BadgerCare 1,252 workers & dependents $2.7 million 1st Rhetoric vs. Reality I suppose Wheeler you prefer the healthcare benefits for workers be put on the backs of taxpayers as opposed to the employers. If employers refuse to pay a living wage and benefits there is no other alternative, other than going without, which is what many do. I suppose you are fine with that as well? And finally I don't think anyone is advocating that small "Mom and Pop" businesses be held to the same pay and benefits for workers that large multinational multimillion dollar corporations should be held to. But if multnational corporate executives are taking the outrageous pay and benefits for themselves, it is not out of line for workers to also be paid accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 22, 2008 16:12:36 GMT -6
Excellent find, Judes, especially the part about WalMart watch. I've put a link to WalMart watch at the bottom of the opening page of this forum.
For some reason, I've been "blacklisted" at WalMart watch's blog. (I have no idea why.)
One suggestion I would make regarding the Auto Maker bailout, is to put all employees on Medicare, thus eliminating their health care costs. This would cost some money, but it ensure that the Big Three's employees did not lose their health care. And it would eliminate their whining about the "skyrocketing costs" of healthcare.
As I pointed out in a previous post, standard Medicare beneficiaries cost about Medicare about $10,000 year. However, those beneficiaries are mostly over 65. Those that are not usually have some medical disability. This means they are much more expensive to cover, than a working age population between 21 to 55. So the cost of covering all of the Big Three's employees would be much less than that of current Medicare beneficiaries.
I'm personally quite familiar with the difference in the amount of medical care needed by younger vs. older populations. It is very likely that covering the Big Three's employees would cost less than ½ the per-person cost of current Medicare enrollees. In other words, it would likely cost less than $5,000 per enrollee.
The biggest difference would be in the current $200 billion Medicare Part A portion, which applies to hospitalizations. A 35 year-old is many times less likely to require hospitalization than a 75 year-old.
The same is true of Part D, the Medicare Prescription drug plan. An overwhelming majority of medications, especially the most expensive ones, are consumed by the over 65 year-old population. Problems such as increased cholesterol, high blood pressure, atherosclerosis, and diabetes increase almost geometrically with age. The biggest sellers (and most expensive drugs) are the cholesterol-lowering drugs like Lipitor (~$100-200/month), anti-clotting drugs like Plavix (~$150/month), anti-hypertensives like Angiotensin II blockers (~$50-100/month), and the latest oral antidiabetic drugs (~$100-200/month).
The cost of physician care (through Part B Medicare) is also less for a younger population, though not as dramatic as Parts A and D.
In addition, the so-called "legacy" costs are also exaggerated, at least when it comes to medical care. Almost all private insurance drops medical coverage when an enrollee reaches 65, which is the Medicare eligibility age. This means that by definition, private insurance medical costs are ALWAYS less than Medicare. Medicare covers much sicker patients.
Any $$ that do go to the auto bailout should be clearly earmarked for specific items. My choice would be to earmark it toward enrolling all employees in a Medicare plan, and eliminate their grossly exaggerated medical costs. And this would put them on a completely even footing with foreign-owned manufacturers that have government-supplied healthcare.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 23, 2008 2:15:23 GMT -6
Economist Dean Baker also has trouble with the $70/hour autoworkers myth. " The New York Times told readers that GM's autoworkers are paid $70 an hour (including health care and pension). This is not true. The base pay is about $28 an hour. If health care cost per worker average $12,000 per year, that adds in another $6 an hour. If the pension payment takes up 25 percent of base pay (an extremely high pension), that gets you another $7 an hour, bringing the total to $41 an hour. That's decent pay, but still a long way from $70 an hour.
How does the NYT get from $41 to $70? Well the trick is to add in GM's legacy costs, the pension and health care costs for retired workers. These legacy costs are a serious expense for GM, but this is not money being paid to current workers. The person on the line in 2008 is not benefiting from these legacy costs.
It would be helpful if the NYT could get its numbers straight. It certainly can affect public support for a bailout if they are led to believe that autoworkers are paid much more than is actually the case." www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=11&year=2008&base_name=gm_auto_workers_are_not_paid_7
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 29, 2008 16:02:07 GMT -6
United Steel Workers' Union President made some interesting comments about the relative amount of money spent on worker's wages and salaries by GM, vs. their total revenue (discussed in a separate post.) If GM's 252K employees averaged $57K/yr (as Gerard cited), that puts GM's total salary/wage outlay at about $14 billion. (For # of Total Employees, see: finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=GM ) Meanwhile, GM's total 2007 revenue was $181 billion. (See: finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=GM&annual ) The $14 billion in wages is a very small amount compared to an annual revenue of $181 billion. It certainly is NOT labor costs that are bringing down GM. The biggest problem is the declining sales of cars.
|
|
|
Post by kramer on Dec 2, 2008 15:53:47 GMT -6
Economist Dean Baker also has trouble with the $70/hour autoworkers myth. " The New York Times told readers that GM's autoworkers are paid $70 an hour (including health care and pension). This is not true. The base pay is about $28 an hour. If health care cost per worker average $12,000 per year, that adds in another $6 an hour. If the pension payment takes up 25 percent of base pay (an extremely high pension), that gets you another $7 an hour, bringing the total to $41 an hour. That's decent pay, but still a long way from $70 an hour.
How does the NYT get from $41 to $70? Well the trick is to add in GM's legacy costs, the pension and health care costs for retired workers. These legacy costs are a serious expense for GM, but this is not money being paid to current workers. The person on the line in 2008 is not benefiting from these legacy costs.
It would be helpful if the NYT could get its numbers straight. It certainly can affect public support for a bailout if they are led to believe that autoworkers are paid much more than is actually the case." www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=11&year=2008&base_name=gm_auto_workers_are_not_paid_7I knew right from the beginning that the $70.00/hr number was when you included union legacy costs. Why it wasn't report this way is beyond me. Anyway, Toyota and Honda have companies in America and they obviously don't have legacy costs (at least nowhere near the scale of GM's and Ford's). So why wouldn't these union legacy costs be hurting GM and Ford in regards to competing with Toyota and Honda? Aren't these legacy costs added into the price of their cars?
|
|
|
Post by danreller on Dec 5, 2008 3:32:36 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Dec 5, 2008 5:43:42 GMT -6
Yes, just the other night CBS regurgitated the same myth.
|
|
|
Post by kennethjkranz on Dec 10, 2008 8:03:28 GMT -6
China and the Future of Global Auto Manufacturing DETROIT - China Business Update/China Automotive Review (CBU/CAR) will organize a half-day seminar on January 14, 2009 in Detroit during the 2009 North American International Auto Show (NAIAS, January 11-25, 2009). The theme of the seminar is: China and the Future of Global Auto Manufacturing. Earlier this year, five Chinese companies exhibited at the annual trade event in Detroit, including Changfeng Motor, Geely Group, BYD Auto, Zhongxing Auto and Li Shi Guang Ming Automobile Design House. BYD Auto will return to Detroit in January 2009. As the world's second largest rechargeable battery manufacturer, BYD will have launched its F3DM (dual mode), a plug-in hybrid on December 15, 2008 in 14 Chinese cities, thus becoming the world's first carmaker to sell a plug-in hybrid in the market, with a driving range of 100 km at full charge. BYD is also planning to launch a pure electric car, the e6, in June 2009, with a driving range of 400-500 km. Brilliance Jinbei is one of China's first independent carmaker to have introduced the mid-level Zhonghua sedans to the China market. Top executives of exhibiting Chinese automakers as well as executives of North American automotive companies are invited to speak at the seminar. The half-day seminar will be held in Room W2-63 at Cobo Center, where the NAIAS will be housed. The seminar is co-organized by auto.sohu.com and supported by the U.S.-China Chamber of Commerce. Ward'sAuto.com is our media sponsor and Delphi our corporate sponsor. This will be CBU's 4th seminar event in Motown, after the first three events in October 1996, October 1997 and January 2008.If interested to attend, speak or sponsor, please contact conference@cbuauto.com. Our on-line registration is now open on www.chinaautoreview.com.
|
|
|
Post by db on Dec 10, 2008 20:00:09 GMT -6
The RepubliCon Senators are opposed to the bailout (monitor or not) and are behind the race to the bottom. They will not be happy, until they destroy America and it's industrial base. They will turn America into a banana republic, just to enrich themselves and destroy the unions. Lies, the least of it, the RepubliCon Senators, like Bush, traitors, one and all. Do they monitor the banks, no, that would only prevent money from getting into their pockets.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Dec 11, 2008 6:27:08 GMT -6
it already is a banana republic owned and operated by the Wall Street Banking community. You just happen to reside in it.
Its a pretty simple coup. Encourages the creation of money without fears of inflation. Take on as much consumer debt as possible. encourage a trade defcit that exports that debt and money. Make your home country dependent on your ability to attract those exported dollars back into the states.
The govt cannot let you fail lest they be unable to keep up the charade of power.
|
|
|
Post by judes on Dec 12, 2008 19:21:30 GMT -6
OH, the hypocrisy of watching those senators demand reduced wages and benefits from autoworkers is sickening. Yes there may be a need to sacrifice in hard times, and that includes our over paid, under worked elected officials with their secure high paying "jobs" and golden benefits. If bordering on bankruptcy is the criteria for sacrificing pay, well our country has long met that goal. So time to sacrifice senators, the whole lot of ya. While working Americans wages have stagnated or declined every year due to your enactment of corrupt trade policies, and pitting American workers against third world slave labor, you have voted yourselves cushy raises nearly every year!! Our elected officials are so far removed from the world most Americans have to live in, it is sickening.
|
|