- Joined
- Dec 24, 2005
- Messages
- 4,736
- Reaction score
- 824
- Location
- South Dakota
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
In the process of the sustainability of human society through production, their job is utterly unnecessary, as it has been historically shown many times that workers are capable (in fact, more so, as generally when factories are appropriated by its workers their productivity increases) of self-management.
If I were on the company's board of directors I'd say probably not, but I'm not so their bosses are the ones who decide.
Fact is that it takes education and experience to manage a corportation like GM, and a lot of it. The idea that the collective can self-manage might work OK for a farming community, but a global corporation is another issue entirely.This is just laughable. You mean to say that workers won't vote to give themselves more benefits and pay with fewer working hours right? Like, ya know, the UAW did? The same pay and benefits that are going to drive the company into bankruptcy?
This is just laughable. You mean to say that workers won't vote to give themselves more benefits and pay with fewer working hours right? Like, ya know, the UAW did?
The same pay and benefits that are going to drive the company into bankruptcy?
The point your missing here is that the car companies -aren't- willing to poay the unions that much because they are able to pay other people less.If that is truly your opinion, then I don't understand why you have issue with the unions.
In your own words:
They are (the union workers) if someone pays them that much (GM, Chrysler, Ford).
The point your missing here is that the car companies -aren't- willing to poay the unions that much because they are able to pay other people less.
Yes you have, in that you seem to still think that the unions (that is, the workers themseleves) get to dictate the 'fair value' of their labor.No, I don't think I missed that.
Yes you have, in that you seem to still think that the unions (that is, the workers themseleves) get to dictate the 'fair value' of their labor.
How much per hour does Toyota pay their American employees comapred to Ford and/or GM?
So you agree that market conditions set the fair value of a particular position.No, I never said that Unions dictate a "fair value".
I believe it costs Toyota around $35 per hour, per employee(this is hourly wages,benefits and other costs. For GM(or one of the big three, I can't remember) it is around $81.
So you agree that market conditions set the fair value of a particular position.
According to this, it's not true:
More important, and contrary to what you may have heard, the wages aren't that much bigger than what Honda, Toyota, and other foreign manufacturers pay employees in their U.S. factories. While we can't be sure precisely how much those workers make, because the companies don't make the information public, the best estimates suggests the corresponding 2007 figure for these "transplants"--as the foreign-owned factories are known--was somewhere between $20 and $26 per hour, and most likely around $24 or $25. That would put average worker's annual salary at $52,000 a year.
So the "wage gap," per se, has been a lot smaller than you've heard. And this is no accident. If the transplants paid their employees far less than what the Big Three pay their unionized workers, the United Auto Workers would have a much better shot of organizing the transplants' factories. Those factories remain non-unionized and management very much wants to keep it that way.
But then what's the source of that $70 hourly figure? It didn't come out of thin air. Analysts came up with it by including the cost of all employer-provided benefits--namely, health insurance and pensions--and then dividing by the number of workers. The result, they found, was that benefits for Big Three cost about $42 per hour, per employee. Add that to the wages--again, $28 per hour--and you get the $70 figure. Voila.
Assembly Line
Define "full value of their labor" and explain how this is not set by the labor market.No, I believe that the only "fair value" is the full value of their labour.
Market conditions don't set "fair" values, they set economical values.
According to this, it's not true:
More important, and contrary to what you may have heard, the wages aren't that much bigger than what Honda, Toyota, and other foreign manufacturers pay employees in their U.S. factories. While we can't be sure precisely how much those workers make, because the companies don't make the information public, the best estimates suggests the corresponding 2007 figure for these "transplants"--as the foreign-owned factories are known--was somewhere between $20 and $26 per hour, and most likely around $24 or $25. That would put average worker's annual salary at $52,000 a year.
So the "wage gap," per se, has been a lot smaller than you've heard. And this is no accident. If the transplants paid their employees far less than what the Big Three pay their unionized workers, the United Auto Workers would have a much better shot of organizing the transplants' factories. Those factories remain non-unionized and management very much wants to keep it that way.
But then what's the source of that $70 hourly figure? It didn't come out of thin air. Analysts came up with it by including the cost of all employer-provided benefits--namely, health insurance and pensions--and then dividing by the number of workers. The result, they found, was that benefits for Big Three cost about $42 per hour, per employee. Add that to the wages--again, $28 per hour--and you get the $70 figure. Voila.
Assembly Line
Define "full value of their labor" and explain how this is not set by the labor market.
This doesnt really answer my question."Surplus-value is the social product which is over and above what is required for the producers to live.
MIA Encyclopedia
This doesnt really answer my question.
I see.No, but that is essentially the krux of this discussion. I'm not going to teach you Marxist economics because 1. I don't want to waste my time and; 2. You don't really care.
I see.
Well, since you wont explain it, I won't cosnider it with any degree of seriousness.
The cruix of the discussion is unions not willing to accept the idea that they do not get to set the value of their labor*; rather, the value of their labor is set by the labor market as a whole.Like I said before, the krux of the discussion is surplus value; me explaining Marxist economics would probably take a little while and would derail the entire thread, so I just posted what is relevant.
Are you trying to assert that the work of someone on an assembly line is as important as the work of a CEO?
I don't get what your arguing here. I said the cost per employee, not the hourly wage. And if thats the cost per employee, then it still counts as putting them at a disadvantage marketwise.
IMO, I think someone on the assembly line is just as, if not more, important than the work of a CEO. They (the assembly line) are the backbone of a company and without that, it would fold over. Most CEO's these days seem more interested in building up their own bank account than building up their company.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?