How many jobs depend on the Detroit Three?

MSN Money http://atu.ca/9bf8

The New York Times clears up a screwy statistic that's
being thrown around in the automaker bailout debate
http://atu.ca/1f4 . Does the industry really support one in
10 jobs in this country? That's what Newsweek
http://atu.ca/197 and others are reporting.

Turns out the figure is misleading. It comes from a 2003
study by the Center for Automotive Research
http://atu.ca/8cbb0 , one that was commissioned by a group
of car makers.

The study says the auto industry supports taxi drivers, car
washers, mechanics, car rental companies and public highway
construction, among others. In other words, pretty much any
job connected to a car. Citing this study is a bit of a
stretch, since it covers how cars overall contribute to the
U.S. economy, while the bailout centers on just three
companies.

The Times points out other ways the study is irrelevant. It
uses data from 1998 to 2001, but the number of jobs in car
and parts manufacturing have fallen since then.

"In other words, the loss of a single American car company
wouldn’t necessarily dissolve all those jobs that the
entire auto industry 'supports,'" writes Catherine Rampell.
"The failure of General Motors, for example, wouldn’t
eliminate the entire car-wash industry."

The same research group came out with another study this
month that's much more relevant, the Times says. That study
says a contraction of the Detroit Three would lead to job
losses of 2.5 million to 3 million next year.

That's still an alarming number, but nowhere near as
alarming as one in 10 jobs (about 14 million). And the
research group says about half of those jobs could be
recovered within two years.

 

If you were one of those that lost a job, what would you eat for three
years.

 

They might be "recovered," but with non-union jobs that will have much
worse wages and benefits.

So those 3 million "recovered" workers will depress the median income
(and hence the consumer purchasing power) of the U.S. anyway.

 

yeah some of that is bogus.....but then again we all know how UNBIASED the
Times is.....

RIIIIIIGHT

 

Oh my gosh! You obviously are not paying attention to what's going on.

 

Non union jobs do not represent "much worse wages and benefits". Most of
this country's workforce is non-union and a very large percentage of those
do quite well in non-union jobs. Certainly, the auto workers would have a
difficult time finding a job that compensates them in the same manner they
have grown used to, but hell man - that is part of the problem. Their
wages and compensation have ballooned way beyond any definition of
reasonable for the work performed and the skills and knowledge required.

 

In 2006 a typical UAW-represented assembler at GM earned $27.81 per
hour of straight-time labor. A typical UAW-represented skilled-trades
worker at GM earned $32.32 per hour of straight-time labor. Between
2003 and 2006, the wages of a typical UAW assembler have grown at
about the same rate as wages in the private sector as a whole –
roughly 9 percent. Part of that growth is due to cost-of-living
adjustments that have helped prevent inflation from eroding the
purchasing power of workers’ wages.

The total cost will drop to $62 per hour in 2010 when the linchpin of
the contract - a UAW administered trust fund - starts paying retiree
health care costs.

But that's still $9 more than the $53 per hour that GM estimated
Toyota now pays in the U.S., and the gap could be even wider. Toyota
spokesman Mike Goss said the company's total labor costs at its older
U.S. plants are around $48, with about $30 per hour in wages.

But GM pays pensions for its retirees, something Toyota isn't having
to do yet. Still, hard to demand existing workers take a pay cut for
this.

 

Difficult to compete with next door Canada, where all get basic health
care for life at a very reasonable fee per individual.
That Canadian advantage lowers company costs significantly.

Many Canadians like their cars to be built in NAFTA. GM's small cars
from Korea are not desired, coming cars from China will be less desired
in the current economy. We remember the Yugo, which was recently
discontinued, probably because their high scrap rate was not
environmentally kind.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=6298078&page=1
Those who were still buying the Yugo obviously didn't know any better.

The B3 cars have been selling well in Canada this year.

 

Yeah, well we pay for it in our taxes, both corporate and individual,
plus the price of gasoline.
I always hear that private is better and more efficient than public in
all cases so you must be mistaken.

 

There are plenty of countries with universal health care that is not
like the Canadian system -- and even with a choice of private insurers.

Perce

 

Not quite! The employee will pay a monthly fee for each member of his
family, for whom he wants to buy coverage. GM set aside billions, starting
in January, to set up a VEBA, like the Mittel Steel the foreign company that
bought up most of America steel producers, did for the Steelworkers drug
plan. Since a Voluntary Employee Benefit Association is completely TAX free
the employees get much better benefits for far less money. The Steelworkers
drug plan VEBA actually pays each family MORE than the former workers pay it
in a year

 

Actually we do have some private insurers.

 

What country are you talking about?

 

Actually, we haven't experienced the same issues as you have in the
overall economy. Our stock market has tanked too though.

 

Since when? The fact that that was illegal was the
focus of a CDN Supreme Court ruling a few years ago.

 

Our insurers sell packages for prescription drugs and upgrades to
hospital stays. That type of thing.

There are newer companies trying to sell "extended" insurance for actual
services like operations etc.
This seems to be mainly driven by B.C., Alberta and Quebec.
There was a court decision that said it was against people's rights to
forbid private insurance or something like that.
Aside from the prescription drug and hospital room type insurance, this
is relatively new.

 

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe.../que_health_care_060215/20060217?hub=CanadaAM

 

I've wondered why the B3 were shutting down plants in Ontario over the
past few years, given that they are paying huge legacy heathcare costs
for thousands of retired US auto workers and their surviving spouses.
No doubt that US health care costs are a huge factor in the unprofitable
operations of the B3.

If you're an American employee working for a company that pays the
health insurance for your family, then of course you're going to think
that private health insurance is the best.

If you're an American employee that has to pay for family heath
insurance out-of-pocket, or if you're the owner of a small to
medium-sized company, the US health care system is a bitch and very
costly to you.

Ontarians don't realize how efficient our health care system is at
allocating resources and controlling costs while delivering pretty good
care, all without filling out insurance forms and worrying if your
treatment will be approved. And naturally our drug costs are lower too.

If you were an American and had to pay for health insurance for your
family, you'd be forking out $10k to $12k a year for the same coverage
you get from OHIP. There is no way that you're being over-taxed to
anywhere near that amount.

Don't forget too that built into the US health care system is the cost
of malpractice insurance, which is huge because of no caps for punative
dammage awards. Since we have caps for punative awards, malpractice
insurance costs are much lower here.

 

I am aware of what you are talking about. I am just explaining to some
of them that we do pay for this from our taxes. It is not free.
So when considering tax levels, we should probably instead consider
health insurance costs + tax levels.