On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:34:10 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 01:54:46 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
Another fallacy is this whole bit about labor being 10% of the total
cost per car.

That is total bull****.

I've been watching this. It's a creative way of accounting for costs. And
it's not *pay*. It's burdened labor rates, which determine cost.

If you listen to jerks like Olbermann, you'd think, (in fact he *said* this
the other night) that in order to obtain parity with Toyota, Honda, etc.,
the UAW workers would need a pay *increase*.


In some cases, that is absolutely correct, although the difference is
around $1 an hour, or less.

What?

When deciding to open up a position to hire a new person you do not look
at the salary you are going to pay the person. You look at the fully
burdened cost of hiring that person. Most companies have a fixed cost
they use for each job classification, managers 200K, sr. engineers 200K,
mid-level engineers 150K, sr. technicians 120K, technicians 90K, admins
100K.

I guess the term, "pay increase" is beyond your comprehension. It
refers to the actual wages paid being raised.

Do you have similar difficulties with the difference between the price
of a 75 watt light bulb and a 100 watt light bulb? What if they raise
the price?