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.

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.

Well, let's put it this way - in simple terms. The average Ford
Taurus, new off the lot, is about $19,000 comforbably equipped. What
the UAW wants you to believe is that the labor cost for building that
car is $1,900.

Sure it is.

By the way, when was the last time a major manufacturing industry had
a 10% labor cost to make it's goods? When was the last time ANY
industry had a 10% total labor cost?

Bull**** - and we're going to pay for it right up the old pooper.

If you listen to jerks like Olbermann, you'd think...

Olbermann is a total ass. He was when he was at ESPN and I have that
on a very good source - one of his former partners lives here in
Woodstock and is a associate member of the FD.

Tom Francis - SWSports 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.

Well, let's put it this way - in simple terms. The average Ford
Taurus, new off the lot, is about $19,000 comforbably equipped. What
the UAW wants you to believe is that the labor cost for building that
car is $1,900.

Sure it is.

By the way, when was the last time a major manufacturing industry had
a 10% labor cost to make it's goods? When was the last time ANY
industry had a 10% total labor cost?

Bull**** - and we're going to pay for it right up the old pooper.

If you listen to jerks like Olbermann, you'd think...

Olbermann is a total ass. He was when he was at ESPN and I have that
on a very good source - one of his former partners lives here in
Woodstock and is a associate member of the FD.


snerk

Very good!





On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:53:54 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:


A blonde calls her boyfriend and says, 'Please come over here and help
me. I have a killer jigsaw puzzle, and I can't figure out how to get
started.'

Her boyfriend asks, 'What is it supposed to be when it's finished?'

The blonde says, 'According to the picture on the box, it's a
rooster.'

Her boyfriend decides to go over and help with the puzzle.

She lets him in and shows him where she has the puzzle spread all
over the table.

He studies the pieces for a moment, then looks at the box, then turns
to her and says,

'First of all, no matter what we do, we're not going to be able to
assemble these pieces into anything resembling a rooster.'

He takes her hand and says, 'Second, I want you to relax. Let's have
a nice cup of tea, and then ...' he said with a deep
sigh, . .. . .. .. .




(scroll down)




















'Let's put all the Corn Flakes back in the box.'

--
John

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*.

Then he goes on to inform everybody that the *real* UAW labor rate is about
28-30 something bucks per hour *when* you substract all the contractual
benefit costs. He's an idiot. He should have stayed with color
commentary of baseball games.

He could have been a great CFO in the mid to late 90's.

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.

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?

On Dec 13, 6:38*am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 01:54:46 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
messagenews:0ca6k4pc4t9fnvracmb8fo7rvd2ftqd443@4a x.com...

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.

Well, let's put it this way - in simple terms. *The average Ford
Taurus, new off the lot, is about $19,000 comforbably equipped. What
the UAW wants you to believe is that the labor cost for building that
car is $1,900.

Sure it is.

By the way, when was the last time a major manufacturing industry had
a 10% labor cost to make it's goods? *When was the last time ANY
industry had a 10% total labor cost?

Bull**** - and we're going to pay for it right up the old pooper.

If you listen to jerks like Olbermann, you'd think...

Olbermann is a total ass. *He was when he was at ESPN and I have that
on a very good source - one of his former partners lives here in
Woodstock and is a associate member of the FD.

Like I said before, he sets off my gaydar.. I can't even watch him at
half time on Mondays. Every once in a while I flip by him on MSNBC and
all he does is cry about Fox and O'Reilley... Oh, and call republicans
names. Matthews is almost as bad.