I get irritated by the deliberate obfuscation of the auto workers salary. It is nothing more nor less than a hidden desire by the right wing to destroy unions. It seems they don't even have the courage to take them on in an open manner.
Bringing this back to the thread, no wonder they are losing party identification at a faster rate than the Democratic Party. The demographics are going to kill them if they don't get their house in order.
The Republican Party was the first successful third party. I wonder if they are going to go the way of the Whigs and be replaced by another third party.
And no, of course the Republican Party is not going anywhere, but that doesn't mean they're not at a crossroads right now with various possible futures, some of which may be much brighter than others. And in what essentially is a two party system, in order to win elections either party needs over 50% of the vote. And if the Republicans don't make moves to broaden their appeal beyond so-called "real America", they are going to be in for a long series of drubbings on election days. I don't think this is even really disputable very much. What is much more an open question is what is the best way to broaden that base? Do they need to undergo a philosophical shift that will make them more inclusive? Do they need to simply return to conservative fiscal policies and social policies? Do they need to do outreach to specific communities? Do they need to abandon or modify any long held traditional Republican platform tenets?
My take on it is that something has to give. Something within the Republican agenda will need to undergo the same sort of transformation that Clinton took the Democrats through on welfare reform and more sound economic policies. What is that "something"? It could be one or any number of things, but I think it probably is going to need to happen on the more social issue side of things. In a minority white society, the sort of wink, wink, nudge, nudge racism of the Magic Negro song strikes me as probably not being the answer, for example.
Thus it is costing them over 70 dollars a worker.And in a Nov. 18 column in the New York Times, business reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote, "At GM, as of 2007, the average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs."
The problem is, that's just not true. The automakers say that the average wage earned by its unionized workers is about $29 per hour. So how does that climb to more than $70? Add in benefits: life insurance, health care, pension and so on. But not just the benefits that the current workers actually receive Ė after all, it's pretty rare for the value of a benefits package to add up to more than wages paid, even with a really, really good health plan in place. What's causing the number to balloon is the cost of providing benefits to tens of thousands of retired auto workers and their surviving spouses.
The automakers arrived at the $70+ figure by adding up all the costs associated with providing wages and benefits to current and retired workers and dividing the total by the number of hours worked by current employees.
Major props to rdwilliamson
Okay, let me give you this real simple. Say you get hired for a job and they tell you that they'll be paying you $70/hour. So, you do your first two weeks of work (80 hours) and get your first paycheck. But wait a minute, you think, this paycheck is for $3200, not the $5600 I was expecting. So you check back with your boss and he tells you, "Oh, you see, $30 of that $70, we're not actually going to pay that to you, that's part of your retirement benefits."
Are you really making quote unquote "$70 an hour"? Hell no! Money you "make per hour" is money you can actually put in the bank, use to pay for rent and gas and groceries and bills. I can't even believe I'm wasting time trying to explain this. It's absurd. It's absolutely insane.
Major props to rdwilliamson
Major props to rdwilliamson
If you think saying it's true makes it true, be my guest. But if I get my paycheck, and I've been paid $29 for each hour of work I've done, I'm thinking I'm gonna be saying I make $29 an hour, not $70. But maybe that's just me. Call me crazy. I know it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there, what I'm saying.
I realize that every member is not making that much money, thats just the number it costs when everything is included. Either way we can just drop it and get back to the topic.Dan Ikenson of the Cato Institute argued that "total compensation is the cost of labor to the companies, and for GM it is about $73 per hour and for Toyota about $48. The average cost differential between the Big Three and all the foreign nameplate companies is about $30 per hour. That's huge." His computation includes all labor-related costs (e.g.., wages, healthcare, and pension--for both current workers and retirees.)
Andrew Sorkin of the New York Times indicated that GM and Chrysler pay $10-20 more per hour than transplants; this was vigorously disputed by David Cole of the Center for Automotive Research.
A NY Times article states that G.M. workers "are paid about $10 to $20 an hour more than people who do the same job building cars in the United States for foreign makers like Toyota. At G.M., as of 2007, the average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs."
Last edited by Cubsrule; 01-15-2009 at 03:35 AM.
Major props to rdwilliamson
Last edited by WES445; 01-15-2009 at 08:14 AM.
Having been a parent of a now 30 year old, I am recognizing some of the behavior from the Republican side on this topic. Just like the child who refuses to deal with issues directly, but instead has a tantrum, the talkers on the GOP side are not facing the issues that the demographics point out. You can scream and yell and hold your breath (all metaphors) but they will not change the trajectory.
For instance, this thread was about demographics. The first comment was about the 2008 election, and then denial of the information. Ok, we are on a good start; at least it has something to do with demographics, although the response was to deny the fact. It was not addressing why the vote has historically been bad for the GOP in the Hispanic group, but rather the idea that they should be voting for Republicans. Whether they should or should not vote one way or another is not the issue, the issue is that they are not.
That was followed by a rationalization that the study is wrong. No empirical data to back it up, just more denial. By the way, a self identification of Hispanic is not limited to any number of generations.
About now we start veering from the question of demographics to autos. I am not quite sure how a simple throwaway line changed the discussion, but it is interesting to note that the next page is filled with auto union questions. Now just for drill, someone want to tell me exactly what that has to do with demographics and the GOP?
It is during this discussion that I see the holding ones breath till they turn blue form of discussion. Deliberate taking quotes out of context, deliberate misleading statements, everything on earth, but actually facing the demographic fact that the Republicans have some very serious issues looking forward unless they face them, solve them, and move forward. Smug statements about the right way to do things does not change that issue. Not facing that issue does not change that issue.
Strangely enough, this technique of not dealing with the issues seems to be the m. o. of the talking heads like Rushbo, Hannity the Manatee, Coulterface, etc. If these trends go unchanged, the GOP will fail just like the Whigs who they replaced. Maybe the Libertarians will take their place. I donít know. I do know that just as my son never got his way by having a tantrum, the GOP will not get its way until it faces this demographic trend.
Now the good news is they can. The good news is that the Democrats did exactly the same thing in 1968. The Democrats are still here, but, they almost failed. The Democrats became a primarily northeastern party. They all but lost almost the entire self identified Caucasian vote outside of the northeast. Time marched on and now they come about even in the self identified Caucasian vote everywhere except the southeast, and dominate in the growing other groups. They did this by facing their problems. Look at Senator Jim Webb. Not exactly a flaming liberal.
I will be intrigued to see what the real leadership of the GOP does in the upcoming elections. Do they hold fast to those right wing ideals that have put the Republican Party in such bad shape, the one whose roots were in the Nixon 1968 campaign with its Southern Strategy, or, does the leadership start actually trying to win these growing demographic groups. To date, all I have seen from the GOP is an attempt to try and peel some of the votes away from the Democrats, not actually win. Look to Virginia and see that things can change.
Republicans, the choice is yours, change, or become extinct. Face your problems, or have your tantrums.
I would suggest you might want to look at BMD, right here, as a model that will allow you to be who you are, but present an actual alternative.
Now I for one, like having discussions with those I disagree with, when they act like adults. When on the other hand, they have tantrums, deliberately mislead, quote out of context, I have no need to discuss anything with them.
Ezra at TAP has a guest blogger in for him today (I think Ezra's on jury duty).
Anyhoo -- the guest, Tom Schaller (U of Maryland), just linked into a fascinating article he co-authored concerning voting and voters, LBJ's Great Society, the South, and a new Democratic coalition.
Really interesting stuff.
LBJ's Revenge: The 2008 Election and the Rise of the Great Society Coalition
Philip A. Klinkner, Hamilton College
Thomas Schaller, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Four decades ago, at the height of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, Congress passed and the president signed landmark legislation to ensure voting rights, liberalize and expand immigration, and make higher education more accessible. In 2008, a coalition of minorities and upscale whites formed a coalition to elect Barack Obama to the White House. Although many of the Great Society goals remain elusive, the new Democratic majority assembled by Obama represents the emergence of a Great Society electoral coalition.
There are a number of other interesting articles in the current issue of The Forum. Could be beneficial to take a gander.
Last edited by SmthBluCitrus; 01-16-2009 at 12:45 PM.
Когда́ де́ньги говоря́т, тогда́ пра́вда молчи́т