quote Originally posted by avengador1: Here is what the really rich are actually doing with their money. So much for your theory. Gates and Buffett urge billionaires to give away half their money

uh huh
meanwhile, in the real world - the exact opposite is the case.
the tax breaks given have been hoarded, or used to export the nations strength to asia
ever since Reagan - it has been a steady decline. slowly at first. but - boy - was a firesale of US during the Clinton years. and then, baby Bush sealed it.
but - getting O/T

quote Originally posted by twofatguys: You really do not understand basic economics do you. Brad

Good luck trying to explain things to him. Liberals just don't understand the reality that if the government step in and raise taxes for the wealthiest, they are just going to pass their losses on to those further down the ladder, whether it be through the cutting of wages, or elimination of jobs. They will not just suck up the losses themselves.

In our province we had the same thing with our natural resources. As a province, we recieve royalties from natural resources such as potash and whenever our then ruling New Democrats were running a deficit from their ungodly amount of spending, they would just rip into these natural resource companies, upping royalty rates to the point where they were severely stripping them of profits to cover their own inability to govern responsibly. Fast forward to 2007. For the first time in almost twenty years the people tire and elect a Conservative government. The government cuts taxes, cuts royalty rates, and introduces a number of programs to kickstart small businesses and encourage entrepreneurship. For the first time in decades, we experience a population explosion. Unemployment drops to an all time low, and other natural resources scramble to set up shop in Saskatchewan. Now relegated to the sidelines where they belong, the New Democrats spout the same BS as KTtheCarGuy, saying that our government is in the pocket of big business, and that we should up the royalty rates back to where they were when they were in power so that more money would be made available for the provincial coffers. What these leftist anti-business dolts don't realize, is that although royalty rate revenue has gone down, the companies themselves have undergone massive expansion, and recent numbers show the revenue collected from income tax alone from new employment at the companies who have benefitted from this growth actually surpasses that collected by royalties.

Even after seeing the economic success we have enjoyed with our new business friendly attitude, the New Democrats still want to revert back to their old system. What would happen? My guess is the companies would slow operations, laying off individuals and our province would regress back to what it was when the New Democrats last ran the show. And no doubt individuals like TBone, Rams, Jazz, and KT would be lined up at the polls to vote them back in.

[This message has been edited by loafer87gt (edited 03-08-2011).]

Here is what I hear that people with some extra money are doing with it....

for the last 10 years they have been sending it overseas...mostly China...but anywhere that looks like a place to make a buck...which is, after all, still the name of the game. That has had a very big effect on American manufacturing, and Wisconsin politics. The private sector people don't have jobs and so they don't want to keep paying the public sector people.....even though the public sector people are doing the same job and wondering why.

but lately sentiments have been changing......International funds are losing capital....recently people like Buffet have become cheerleaders for the good ol USA, and investors are worried about the distribution of wealth....IN CHINA! So all of a sudden money starts coming back...and who knows where it will take us. Next thing you know, somebody will be opening up a factory in Oshkosh that makes can openers, and they will be making money! Then after that, they will want to pay their teachers a little more....whaddya know?

[This message has been edited by Gall757 (edited 03-08-2011).]

I'll bring it back to life.

I'm tired of people saying "How important a job teaching is, and we must pay more to attrat the best and brightest." Guess what? We have paid more and more every year for decades, and our children's test scores have still declined. Rated against other countries, we still have continued to decline. Throwing money at the problem HAS NOT resulted in BETTER TEACHERS.

Raising wages has just attracted people interested in a secure job with good pay and great benefits. Yes, some people still enter teaching because it is their life's calling. Good for them. They'll do it for a pittance. Why do the rest of them do it? Because they love teaching? No. Because the love children? A few pedophiles aside, no. They do it for the same reason you and I get out of bed every workday. For the money. Paying these people more does not make them smarter.

If your salary went up 20%, would you automatically become 20% more productive? No. You're probably maxed out already, which is why you still have your job. Would it automatically attract 20% smarter co-workers? No, you'd wind up with the same bunch of idiots you have to work with now. Except, if you workplace is non-union, the idiots would get canned at the earliest opportunity. More money does not guarantee better workers. It just guarantees a pool of applicants who want it.

"But teaching is so important!" Cops are important. So is the checkout girl at the Wal-Mart. And your garbage man. All jobs are important or they wouldn't pay you to do it. Stop deifying teaching. I'm betting the median wage in the Milwaukee area is significantly lower than what the teachers are getting. What gives them such God-like status to be able to DEMAND such treatment?

[This message has been edited by Zeb (edited 03-08-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Zeb: What gives them such God-like status to be able to DEMAND such treatment?

Simple. They own the government. Even the ass-kicking they took in November hasn't done anything but prove the unions will get their way one way or another.

It's a lot like armed robbery, except they use the threat of force by law enforcement to handle the dirty work.

[This message has been edited by D B Cooper (edited 03-08-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: The problem is not the teachers pay. If they are worth $100k, then they should be paid it. A good teacher will cover 150% of the curriculum in a single year. A bad teacher will only cover 50% of the curriculum. Therefore one good teacher is worth three bad ones. The issue is that it is being paid directly by tax payers. My solution is to get the government out of the education provider business. All schools should be private with the government providing vouchers. Then each individual school can determine how much its teachers should be paid. The good schools will get more students and may charge a premium to attend. They can then pay to have the best teachers. The bad school will lose students and with go out of business. The system then fixes itself. In such a system parents would want to send their kids to schoold that pay $100k/year to their teachers because those will be the best teachers.

Interesting theory. the problem with it is, once you privatize all schools, only rich people will be able to afford to send their kids to school. There is an historical model for this kind of educational system... the Dark Ages in Europe. Serfs up!

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Interesting theory. the problem with it is, once you privatize all schools, only rich people will be able to afford to send their kids to school. There is an historical model for this kind of educational system... the Dark Ages in Europe. Serfs up!

Your basis of what works is based on a system from the Dark ages.

Nice.

Brad

quote Originally posted by twofatguys: Your basis of what works is based on a system from the Dark ages. Nice. Brad

I am saying that if that is the road you choose (privatized schools) that is the ultimate destination. Don't like that destination? Don't take that road.

there is also plenty of evidence in our time as to what will happen. Look at privatized prisons; the price keeps going up. Also privatized security firms, like Blackwater (or whatever they are called now) the price keeps going up. And since middle class wages are definately not going up, that means the price would be out of reach in a fairly short time. then, as I said, only rich kids will be going to school.

Dots sufficiently connected now?

Are you saying the average parent would take the money not paid in taxes for schools and blow it on flat screen TVs and a nicer car and not send his kids to school?

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Are you saying the average parent would take the money not paid in taxes for schools and blow it on flat screen TVs and a nicer car and not send his kids to school?

Please tell me that was sarcasm. Because if that was an honest thought, you haven't lived in some of the "not so nice" areas of a city!

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Here is what the really rich are actually doing with their money. So much for your theory. Gates and Buffett urge billionaires to give away half their money http://personalmoneystore.c...uffett-billionaires/

You do realize that both these guys were urging congress and the President to END the tax cuts for the rich?

quote Originally posted by aceman: Why does this $100,000 in pay and benefits bother some people? A UAW Assembly Line Monkey with no college degree and working a low skilled, mundane job brings in $130,000-$150,000 in pay and benefits.

And people wonder why U.S. car companies can't compete, and why states are going bankrupt?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: And people wonder why U.S. car companies can't compete, and why states are going bankrupt?

I agree 100% on that statement.

But, I think that there is a lot of waste in the school system. There are way too many overpaid and useless administration positions. But, when you do look at a teacher, they went to college to get a 4 year degree. Some have Masters and PhD. (Most get them only to demand more money and the reality is that they really aren't teaching any better or introducing anything of more value into the ciriculum.) They get a fair wage. Their benefit plans can really get mindboggling. And, I feel that that is directly caused by the unions. The solution is to raise thier pay more and strip the taxpayers' contributions into thier benefits. Let the teacher decide how much of his/her salary should go into a retirement plan or health insurance plans. Freeze or lower the limits of state's contributions into these benefits.

[This message has been edited by aceman (edited 03-09-2011).]

quote Originally posted by aceman: Why does this $100,000 in pay and benefits bother some people? A UAW Assembly Line Monkey with no college degree and working a low skilled, mundane job brings in $130,000-$150,000 in pay and benefits.

You know that's not true but if you say it enough you will get others to believe you. Read this article then tell me you are right. And please show me where you get your information.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200811250012

At least read this part

Let's note that any suggestion in the press that most UAW workers earn, or are paid, $70 an hour is spectacularly dishonest. Period. (As one Daily Kos diarist pointed out last week, according to the UAW website, the base pay for a worker in a UAW plant is about $28 an hour.)

What that $70 figure (or $73) actually represents is what it costs GM in total labor expenses, on an hourly basis, to manufacture autos.

Do you see that there's a big distinction? General Motors doles out $70 an hour in overall labor costs to manufacture cars. But individual employees don't get paid $70 an hour to make cars. (The discrepancy between costs and wages is explained by additional benefits, pension fees, and health-care costs GM pays out to current and retired employees.)

Simply put, GM's labor costs are not synonymous with hourly wages earned by UAW employees. Many in the press have casually used the two interchangeably. But they're not.

Felix Salmon at Portfolio did perhaps the best job explaining the misinformation at play:

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. [emphasis in original]

You can hate on Unions all you want but when you have to resort to lying to prove your point you loss any credibility to your argument.

quote Originally posted by DL10: 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. [emphasis in original] You can hate on Unions all you want but when you have to resort to lying to prove your point you loss any credibility to your argument.

Hmmm, and the Average Milwaukee teacher makes $30/hr in salary and the other $20/hr in health and pension costs (BENEFITS). The UAW Union Assembly Line low skilled monkey still makes about $23 more an hour in wages and health and pension sosts (BENEFITS).

The comparison is:

An educated, skilled teacher is making about $50/hr in salary and benefits

An uneducated, low skilled UAW Union Monkey is making $73/hr in wages and benefits.

What was your point?

Now the connection.... BOTH a UAW Union Monkey and a Teacher are unionized. After that statement, you need not scratch your head over the nice benefits packages.

[This message has been edited by aceman (edited 03-09-2011).]

quote Originally posted by aceman: Hmmm, and the Average Milwaukee teacher makes $30/hr in salary and the other $20/hr in health and pension costs. The UAW Union Assembly Line low skilled monkey still makes about $23 more an hour in wages and BENEFITS. The comparison is: An educated, skilled teacher is making about $50/hr in salary and benefits An uneducated, low skilled UAW Union Monkey is making $73/hr in wages and benefits.

So do you admit to lying about how much the UAW workers make.........or do you just lkike to throw out random numbers and call it fact??

And you still don't understand where the $73 dollars an hour comes from...........it's not what an UAW worker makes in pay and benafits, What that $70 figure (or $73) actually represents is what it costs GM in total labor expenses, on an hourly basis, to manufacture autos.

Do you see that there's a big distinction? General Motors doles out $70 an hour in overall labor costs to manufacture cars. But individual employees don't get paid $70 an hour to make cars. (The discrepancy between costs and wages is explained by additional benefits, pension fees, and health-care costs GM pays out to current and retired employees.)

Simply put, GM's labor costs are not synonymous with hourly wages earned by UAW employees. Many in the press have casually used the two interchangeably. But they're not.

quote Originally posted by DL10: So do you admit to lying about how much the UAW workers make.........or do you just lkike to throw out random numbers and call it fact?? And you still don't understand where the $73 dollars an hour comes from...........it's not what an UAW worker makes in pay and benafits, What that $70 figure (or $73) actually represents is what it costs GM in total labor expenses, on an hourly basis, to manufacture autos. Do you see that there's a big distinction? General Motors doles out $70 an hour in overall labor costs to manufacture cars. But individual employees don't get paid $70 an hour to make cars. (The discrepancy between costs and wages is explained by additional benefits, pension fees, and health-care costs GM pays out to current and retired employees.) Simply put, GM's labor costs are not synonymous with hourly wages earned by UAW employees. Many in the press have casually used the two interchangeably. But they're not.

And it's costing Milwaukee/Wisconsin $50/hr in overall labor costs to manufacture educated children.

Look, while in the Army, I made $52,000 in wages. I made another $20,000 in actual monetary "benefits" and probably another $60,000/year in benefits costs in health insurance, training and retirement "contributions".

There's no lying in the figures.

[This message has been edited by aceman (edited 03-09-2011).]

quote Originally posted by aceman: And it's costing Milwaukee/Wisconsin $50/hr in overall labor costs to manufacture educated children.

So no commit on why you feel the need to lie about how much an UAW worker makes.

lol - look at all the bickering about wages.
so - are you people claiming it is WRONG for a person to make over $100k a year?
because there are people who do MUCH less, and make MUCH MUCH more.

I will support your whining & crying if you actually think it is wrong for a person to make over $100k per year.
but - somehow - I doubt that is what you are saying.....

so - which is it? $100k to much? and - remember - that is not take home - that is total compensation. benefits, perks, bonuses, etc.

yeah...didnt think so.....liars

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: lol - look at all the bickering about wages. so - are you people claiming it is WRONG for a person to make over $100k a year? because there are people who do MUCH less, and make MUCH MUCH more. I will support your whining & crying if you actually think it is wrong for a person to make over $100k per year. but - somehow - I doubt that is what you are saying..... so - which is it? $100k to much? and - remember - that is not take home - that is total compensation. benefits, perks, bonuses, etc. yeah...didnt think so.....liars

I'm not crying about anyone's wages. I'm just sick of people just throwing numbers they know arn't true just to try and make unions look bad........Like Aceman

I

quote Originally posted by DL10: 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. [emphasis in original]

That brings up an interesting question.
If that $73 figure is including retiree benefits as well, I have to ask - what happened to the benefits that were part of their income while they were working?
Isn't the point that you make, say $50k per year, plus another $10k goes to your pension, so your "total compensation" is $60k. (ignoring other benefits for the moment)
If that's the case, all of those current retirees would be drawing from a pool of money that was invested while they were working.
If your argument is that current "total labor cost" split over current employees is artificially high because of retiree benefits, how is that possible unless the retiree money that was previously contributed somehow got "gone?"

I'm not trying to make any accusations. I'm just trying to follow the math.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 03-09-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I'm not trying to make any accusations. I'm just trying to follow the math.

In the case of State pension plans, they were all intended to be self-funding when they were created, and practically none of them are....so realistically the money is coming from current workers. I think that GM has the same issue. Underfunded pensions. So both sets of numbers are floating around...and making us all very confused.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: That brings up an interesting question. If that $73 figure is including retiree benefits as well, I have to ask - what happened to the benefits that were part of their income while they were working? Isn't the point that you make, say $50k per year, plus another $10k goes to your pension, so your "total compensation" is $60k. (ignoring other benefits for the moment) If that's the case, all of those current retirees would be drawing from a pool of money that was invested while they were working. If your argument is that current "total labor cost" split over current employees is artificially high because of retiree benefits, how is that possible unless the retiree money that was previously contributed somehow got "gone?" I'm not trying to make any accusations. I'm just trying to follow the math.

I didn't write the article, I'm not defending the amount of $73 an hour. I was just pointing out that Aceman was just spouting off ridiculous numbers and I called him on it. Remember he said

quote Originally posted by aceman: A UAW Assembly Line Monkey with no college degree and working a low skilled, mundane job brings in $130,000-$150,000 in pay and benefits.

which is more than an exaggeration it's a down right lie and he knows it.


From what I read the cost of $73 was what it cost the company in total pay and benefits. So you take what it cost to pay a worker today and add the cost of paying any retired workers pension. That's where the Fuzzy math comes in...The pension funds are fully funded so they are not paying out $73 an hour today, part of the $73 comes from the pension fund, but the 2 numbers add up to $73. It looks better to the Union bashers to use the larger number

[This message has been edited by DL10 (edited 03-09-2011).]

Also remember that $100,000 today has the same purchasing power as about $59,000 did in 1990. Anyone know what the teachers made (wages and benefits) in 1990? Have they stayed even with inflation or fallen behind?

$100K ain't what it used to be. I tend to think it is without realizing that my income hasn't kept up with inflation. Persons fortunate enough to be in unions were more likely to have kept their real income constant. Maybe they need to join the downward spiral with the rest of us but I can't blame them for resisting.

Maybe fuel the fire a bit, but based on a calculator I used, it looks like $100,000 there is more like $90,000 where I live and would need to be more like $135,000 in Los Angeles.

http://cgi.money.cnn.com/to...ng/costofliving.html

quote Originally posted by Formula88: That brings up an interesting question. If that $73 figure is including retiree benefits as well, I have to ask - what happened to the benefits that were part of their income while they were working? Isn't the point that you make, say $50k per year, plus another $10k goes to your pension, so your "total compensation" is $60k. (ignoring other benefits for the moment) If that's the case, all of those current retirees would be drawing from a pool of money that was invested while they were working. If your argument is that current "total labor cost" split over current employees is artificially high because of retiree benefits, how is that possible unless the retiree money that was previously contributed somehow got "gone?" I'm not trying to make any accusations. I'm just trying to follow the math.

The math is simple. The retirees get much more than they contributed. A pension is not like a svaings account or even a 401(K) plan. A pension is where you get a defined payout, every month, for as long as you live. It can never run out, you can never spend it all. Even if you contriubted way less than your retirement benefits, you'll get the same pension. The company has to make up any shortfall due to a lousy investment market, or just plain lots of retirees living longer.

Remember the steelworkers? When the industry collapsed, there were eventually more retired steelworkers than working steelworkers. It's now heading that way in the auto industry. More retired auto workers than working auto workers. But the retirees are still getting their pension that was negotiated years ago when everybody thought they'd have continual growth, and plenty of auto workers to fund the few retirees. Now, the company has to kick in even more for pensions.

It's not that I "hate" union members. I don't like the extortion aspect of "collective bargaining". When the union has the power to shut down entire industries, or even the government, if they don't get what they want, that's not bargaining. So unions tend to inflate wages above what the work is worth. $28 an hour to screw on lug nuts? That's a darn high pay for a simple job.

quote Originally posted by Newf You do realize that both these guys were urging congress and the President to END the tax cuts for the rich?

What's your point? I've never said that the rich shouldn't pay taxes, we all should as it is only fair. I believe we should have a flat tax system or a national sales tax and get rid of the IRS.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: That brings up an interesting question. If that $73 figure is including retiree benefits as well, I have to ask - what happened to the benefits that were part of their income while they were working? Isn't the point that you make, say $50k per year, plus another $10k goes to your pension, so your "total compensation" is $60k. (ignoring other benefits for the moment) If that's the case, all of those current retirees would be drawing from a pool of money that was invested while they were working. If your argument is that current "total labor cost" split over current employees is artificially high because of retiree benefits, how is that possible unless the retiree money that was previously contributed somehow got "gone?"

I'm not sure how it works in NC, but when I lived in Illinois, the state constantly raided the Teacher's Retirement Fund to make up for budget short-falls. So, yes, the tax-payers were being subsidized by paycheck deductions from teachers. The Illinois State Lottery was set up the same way. It all "went to education" and they pulled a like amount out of the budget and funneled it into other accounts.
When I left the state, I received every penny I put into the fund (no interest paid), and I assume that my district received every penny back that it paid in.

OBTW the Wisconsin teachers are now down to $92,000 as they all received an 8% pay cut tonight. So, how much does the average Wisconsin Fireman and Policeman make and why weren't they included in the cuts?

[This message has been edited by carnut122 (edited 03-09-2011).]

quote Originally posted by DL10: I didn't write the article, I'm not defending the amount of $73 an hour. I was just pointing out that Aceman was just spouting off ridiculous numbers and I called him on it. Remember he said [QUOTE]Originally posted by aceman: A UAW Assembly Line Monkey with no college degree and working a low skilled, mundane job brings in $130,000-$150,000 in pay and benefits.

which is more than an exaggeration it's a down right lie and he knows it.


From what I read the cost of $73 was what it cost the company in total pay and benefits. So you take what it cost to pay a worker today and add the cost of paying any retired workers pension. That's where the Fuzzy math comes in...The pension funds are fully funded so they are not paying out $73 an hour today, part of the $73 comes from the pension fund, but the 2 numbers add up to $73. It looks better to the Union bashers to use the larger number

[/QUOTE]

Hmm, Well, just using my hand dandy calculator, 40 hours a week X 52 weeks/year X $73.00/hour = $151,840.00.
If the $73 is accurate, then..................... just looking at the numbers. That's not adding the cost of any retired workers. I don't know how the particular pension fund you're discussing is funded but, that's a lot of green no matter who is doing it.

------------------
Ron

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Hmm, Well, just using my hand dandy calculator, 40 hours a week X 52 weeks/year X $73.00/hour = $151,840.00. If the $73 is accurate, then..................... just looking at the numbers. That's not adding the cost of any retired workers. I don't know how the particular pension fund you're discussing is funded but, that's a lot of green no matter who is doing it.

What that $70 figure (or $73) actually represents is what it costs GM in total labor expenses, on an hourly basis, to manufacture autos.

Do you see that there's a big distinction? General Motors doles out $70 an hour in overall labor costs to manufacture cars. But individual employees don't get paid $70 an hour to make cars. (The discrepancy between costs and wages is explained by additional benefits, pension fees, and health-care costs GM pays out to current and retired employees.)

Simply put, GM's labor costs are not synonymous with hourly wages earned by UAW employees. Many in the press have casually used the two interchangeably. But they're not.

Felix Salmon at Portfolio did perhaps the best job explaining the misinformation at play:

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. [emphasis in original]

Indeed, according to this Associated Press report, a chunk of GM's $70-an-hour labor costs goes toward paying current retirees' pensions and health-care coverage. In other words, that's money that's not going to end up in the pocket of any autoworker when he cashes his paycheck this week. That's money GM has to set aside in order to pay off costs associated with workers already in retirement. That money has absolutely nothing to do with calculating the hourly wage of a full-time UAW employee today. None.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: What's your point? I've never said that the rich shouldn't pay taxes, we all should as it is only fair. I believe we should have a flat tax system or a national sales tax and get rid of the IRS.

My point was that the two people you used to try and disprove someone elses "theory" are in total disagreement with you.

quote Originally posted by DL10: What that $70 figure (or $73) actually represents is what it costs GM in total labor expenses, on an hourly basis, to manufacture autos. Do you see that there's a big distinction? General Motors doles out $70 an hour in overall labor costs to manufacture cars. But individual employees don't get paid $70 an hour to make cars. (The discrepancy between costs and wages is explained by additional benefits, pension fees, and health-care costs GM pays out to current and retired employees.) Simply put, GM's labor costs are not synonymous with hourly wages earned by UAW employees. Many in the press have casually used the two interchangeably. But they're not. Felix Salmon at Portfolio did perhaps the best job explaining the misinformation at play: 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. [emphasis in original] Indeed, according to this Associated Press report, a chunk of GM's $70-an-hour labor costs goes toward paying current retirees' pensions and health-care coverage. In other words, that's money that's not going to end up in the pocket of any autoworker when he cashes his paycheck this week. That's money GM has to set aside in order to pay off costs associated with workers already in retirement. That money has absolutely nothing to do with calculating the hourly wage of a full-time UAW employee today. None.

You still aren't getting it and a few of us are trying to make YOU understand this. We are comparing apples to apples. I never said that a UAW Assembly Line Monkey is pocketing $73/hr. The same that the OP and I said about the teacher. The UAW Monkey is pocketing around $28/hr and is getting around $45/hr in benefits (Or costing another $45/hr for the employer just to keep this Monkey on the payroll). The teacher is getting pocketing around $30/hr and getting around $20/hr in benefits (Or costing the taxpayers another $20/hr to keep the teacher on the payroll.)

Apples to Apples. There's no lies.

I'm sure the teachers union loves to compare their wages and benefits package to a UAW Union Monkey. The unskilled or low skilled laborer is making about the same per hour in wages and MORE per hour in a BENEFITS package. And this Monkey didn't go through 4 years of college. This Monkey builds a car through simple, repetitive, mundane tasks. I've stood on a podium to teach a class. It isn't easy.

It's not the hourly wages or salaries that are breaking this country in the private and government sectors. It's the inflated benefits packages.

I am now a retired government worker in a sense of the military. I've gotten and now received benefits that many would love just a portion of what I received/now receive. Those benefits are great. But the realist in me understands that they are not going on forever nor can the next generation continue to get all of this free benefits "compensation".

quote Originally posted by aceman: You still aren't getting it and a few of us are trying to make YOU understand this. We are comparing apples to apples. I never said that a UAW Assembly Line Monkey is pocketing $73/hr. The same that the OP and I said about the teacher. The UAW Monkey is pocketing around $28/hr and is getting around $45/hr in benefits (Or costing another $45/hr for the employer just to keep this Monkey on the payroll). The teacher is getting pocketing around $30/hr and getting around $20/hr in benefits (Or costing the taxpayers another $20/hr to keep the teacher on the payroll.) Apples to Apples. There's no lies. I'm sure the teachers union loves to compare their wages and benefits package to a UAW Union Monkey. The unskilled or low skilled laborer is making about the same per hour in wages and MORE per hour in a BENEFITS package. And this Monkey didn't go through 4 years of college. This Monkey builds a car through simple, repetitive, mundane tasks. I've stood on a podium to teach a class. It isn't easy. It's not the hourly wages or salaries that are breaking this country in the private and government sectors. It's the inflated benefits packages. I am now a retired government worker in a sense of the military. I've gotten and now received benefits that many would love just a portion of what I received/now receive. Those benefits are great. But the realist in me understands that they are not going on forever nor can the next generation continue to get all of this free benefits "compensation".

I believe you are the one that doesn't get. You can't compare anything if you use bad numbers. I have tried to help you understand where the media gets the $70+ number, you either don't take time to read the info or you can't comprehend what you read.

I do agree with you that lavish benefits is having an impact on every-one's life. But in not just from the Union jobs. By the way how that Government pension treating you??

and before anyone says I'm bashing the military, I'm not. I volunteered to join the army and go to Vietnam back in 1971 when my draft number was over 300.

I really won't try and help you understand my point of view because you are not someone I would have a face to face conversion with. You are to much of a Bigot for me.........A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of political views, different ethnicity, race, class, religion, or gender.

and to prove my point I will use of of your favorite Quotes

quote Originally posted by aceman: A UAW Assembly Line Monkey with no college degree and working a low skilled, mundane job brings in $130,000-$150,000 in pay and benefits.

Calling a class of workers Monkeys because you feel you are better than them says it all. enjoy the Government subsidy you get every month I'm sure you deserve it.

It seems that teachers aren't the only ones making a healthy salary.
SIX-FIGURE BUS DRIVERS AND OTHER WORKING-CLASS HEROES
http://www.anncoulter.com/

quote Can we stop acting as if people who work for the government are the heroes of working people? Fine, we understand that Wisconsin public sector employees like the system that pays them an average of $76,500 per year, with splendiferous benefits, and are fighting like wildcats against any proposed reforms to that system. But it's madness to keep treating people who are promoting their own self-interest as if they are James Meredith walking into the University of Mississippi. This isn't how we usually view people fighting for their own economic interests. When Wall Street opposes financial reforms or a tobacco company opposes new cigarette taxes, no one hails them as "working men and women" who "deserve a decent pay and decent retirement." We're not told Wall Street has a "fundamental right" not to be regulated, or tobacco companies promoting their own interests are just trying to "help working people and middle-class people retain a good job in America." People on the other side of the issue aren't said to be "just trying to kick the other guy in the shin and exterminate him." And yet all that was said by the Democratic governor of Illinois, Pat Quinn, on MSNBC's "Hardball" last week, about government workers fighting to preserve their own Alex Rodriguez-like employment contracts. Yes, we understand that public sector employees got themselves terrific overtime, holiday, pension and health care deals through buying politicians with their votes and campaign money. But now, responsible elected officials in Wisconsin are trying to balance the budget. MSNBC is covering the fight in Wisconsin as if it's the 9/11 attack -- and the Republicans are al-Qaida. Its entire prime-time schedule is dedicated to portraying self- interested government employees as if they're Marines taking on the Taliban. The network's Ed Schultz bellows that it is "morally wrong" to oppose the demands of government employees. Yes, and I guess pornographers are noble when they launch a full-scale offensive against obscenity laws. Public sector workers are pursuing their own narrow financial interests to the detriment of everyone else in their states. That's fine, but can we stop pretending it's virtuous? Because of the insane union contracts in Wisconsin, one Madison bus driver, John E. Nelson, was able to make $159,000 in 2009 -- about $100,000 of which in overtime pay. Jackie Gleason didn't make that much playing bus driver Ralph Kramden on "The Honeymooners." Seven bus drivers took home more than $100,000 that year. When asked about the outrageous overtime pay for bus drivers -- totaling $1.94 million in 2009 alone -- Transit and Parking Commission Chairman Gary Poulson said: "That's the contract." It's ludicrous to suggest that these union contracts were fairly bargained. Only one side was at the negotiating table. Ordinary people with jobs were not at the meetings where public sector compensation was discussed. Union hacks play on our heartstrings, weeping about the valuable work government employees do: These are the people who educate our children, run into burning buildings and take dangerous criminals off our streets! Politicians who do not immediately acquiesce to insane union demands are invariably accused of hating teachers, nurses or cops. In California, this has been standard operating procedure for decades. The voters never seem to catch on. In 1972, E. Richard Barnes lost his re-election campaign to the California state Assembly after being accused by cops and firefighters of coddling criminals. In fact, Barnes, a conservative Republican, had one of the toughest records on crime. But he had voted against fringe benefits and better pension benefits for public employees. Years later, in 2005, Don Perata, Democratic state senator from Oakland, suggested that the legislature reconsider the requirement that 40 percent of the entire state budget be spent on public schools. The teachers' unions instantly plastered his district with fliers calling him anti-education. Perata is a far-left Democrat, who had himself been a teacher for 15 years before entering politics. Fine, we like teachers, firemen and police officers. We appreciate them. (And for the record, it is statistically more dangerous to be a farmer, fisherman, steelworker or pilot than a cop or fireman. Soldiers also have pretty dangerous jobs, and they don't get to strike.) Does that mean we should pay them $1 million dollars a year? How about $10 million? After all, these are the people who educate our kids, run into burning buildings and take dangerous criminals off our streets! Assuming the answer is no, then apparently we're allowed to discuss government workers' compensation -- even though they do important work. As George Bernard Shaw concluded his famous quip (often attributed to Winston Churchill), "Now, we're just negotiating over the price." Why do public sector employees have absurd overtime rules? Why don't they pay for their own health insurance? Why do they get to retire at age 45 with a guaranteed pension of 65 percent of their last year's pay -- as state police in New Jersey do? This is asymmetrical warfare. Seven percent of the population cares intensely about public sector union contracts -- and nothing else. The remaining 93 percent of voters can't be bothered to care. Meanwhile, state after state spirals into bankruptcy.

And before anyone says anything about this article being written by Ann Coulter and how nutty she is, remember that even a blind squirrel will eventually find a nut.

DL10,

We agree that the UAW Union Monkey makes $28/hr ($56,000/yr)?

We agree that the UAW Union Monkey DOES NOT pocket $73/hr, but rather that $73/hr is wages ($28/hr) + "labor costs" ($43/hr or $86,000/yr)




We agree that the Milwaukee teacher makes $30/hr ($59,500/yr)?

We agree that the Milwaukee teacher DOES NOT pocket $50/hr or $101,000/yr, but rather that $50/hr is wages ($30/hr or $59,500/yr) + "benefits" ($20/hr or $41,591)?

So, "LABOR COSTS" for the UAW Union Monkey DOES NOT equal "BENEFITS"

And therefore...

"BENEFITS" for the Milwaukee Teacher DOES NOT equal "LABOR COSTS"

Please, please tell me how those do not equate?????????

Apples to Apples!

quote Originally posted by DL10: Calling a class of workers Monkeys because you feel you are better than them says it all. enjoy the Government subsidy you get every month I'm sure you deserve it.

I have no desire to discuss anything with you

Yes it is difficult for one to discuss without disgust the a UAW Union worker makes nearly 50% more in wages and benefits than a college educated teacher.

A monkey can be taught to do repetitive tasks and assemble a car. A monkey can't instruct a class.