New Study Confirms That American Workers Are Getting Ripped Off

[ZiprHead]

How is that a fail?
Some professors are paid close to $1mil, so I guess my comparison is even more fail?
My point is and still are, you can't have assembly line workers paid more than any professor, even english literature ones. Ok you can have more than english literature but that's a line I draw.

Why not?


Still waiting for an answer to this question.

OK, because your fat ass assembly line workers don't really want underpaid and unemployed eggheads looking for a way to make money, because often they end up with shit t like stock market crashes and other scams..

Wow! That's one powerful auto worker. Does he wear a cape?

 

[barbos]

OK, because your fat ass assembly line workers don't really want underpaid and unemployed eggheads looking for a way to make money, because often they end up with shit t like stock market crashes and other scams..

Wow! That's one powerful auto worker. Does he wear a cape?

Yes, they can cause that as well as $100k/year for themselves

 

[barbos]

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/12/auto-worker-salaries/
this explains how $100k figure comes about.
In short:
average (!)
hourly pay was $40 -> $83200 for 40hours * 52 weeks
adding benefits - $55 -> $114400/year
adding legacy costs $70 -> $145600/year. They got rid most of the legacy costs as a result of the agreement.

So basically average wage was $83k. Yes, it's lower than widely cited $100K which it seems included benefits.
But then again, $83k was merely average, not the top rate. UAW workers were not getting ripped off.

 

[bilby]

To get back to the wage:rofit ratio you want we also have to go back to the historical levels of automation. Oops, that's a major cut to our standard of living.

No we don't. We just need to pay currently low paid people more money for the work they (and the machines they tend) do.

Which means you can't pay for the machinery.

Sure.

'More' has to mean 'so much that you cannot afford anything else'.

Because the detailed figures I gave provide you with more than sufficient information to draw your conclusion.

 

[bilby]

People are NOT incentivised to do a better job by the hope of a pay rise. As you yourself have mentioned many times on these fora, people generally get a pay rise by moving to a new job, rather than by getting a raise. The new employer may be able to get a vague assessment of what they know; But has no way of determining how diligent or hard working they are. It's all bullshit and bluster.

Hard work gets you taken for granted. Hard work gets you blisters. Hard work gets you given more work to do. But hard work does NOT get you more pay. And smart people who haven't been brainwashed know this.

Whether they get it from their current employer or by changing employers doesn't change the basic issue. The system described brings no reward for good work. Why would you expect people to try hard when it doesn't change the result?

Mate, I have been in the workforce for a long time, and in an enormous number of different roles. I can assure you that I don't expect the vast majority of people to try hard under any circumstances.

And that that expectation is based on a very large number of observations of a very large and diverse sample of workers.

Individual labour is not a commodity; You don't always get less effort if you pay less, or always more effort if you pay more - people are far more complex than that. And hard work doesn't get you more money. Seriously, look around - the less people are paid, the harder they are expected to work.

Any economic model that assumes a relationship between effort and pay is deeply flawed and will give you stupidly wrong results.

 

[lpetrich]

I have a badly-formed and poorly-thought-through theory that a LOT (possibly the majority) of American 'workers' (that's people who get paid to work for a living) would do better if America moved slightly to the left. Note that I didn't use the word Communism.

On the tenuous assumption that my theory has legs, I do find myself wondering why more Americans don't want that.

A big part of the problem is that some of the funders of politicians' campaigns don't want that. They seem to want just about everybody to be dirt-poor, everybody but themselves and their sycophants.

 

[ruby sparks]

I have a badly-formed and poorly-thought-through theory that a LOT (possibly the majority) of American 'workers' (that's people who get paid to work for a living) would do better if America moved slightly to the left. Note that I didn't use the word Communism.

On the tenuous assumption that my theory has legs, I do find myself wondering why more Americans don't want that.

A big part of the problem is that some of the funders of politicians' campaigns don't want that. They seem to want just about everybody to be dirt-poor, everybody but themselves and their sycophants.

Sure.

But what puzzles me is how little appetite there seems to be among the (supposedly democratically free) voters for a slightly different narrative. I'm not suggesting it's as simple as turkeys voting for christmas, but I sometimes think that for many voters it has shades of that. The impression I get, from afar, is that anything carrying even a whiff of not being far enough to the right is routinely and consistently demonised, and has been for most if not all of my lifetime, and by and large most buy into that spin.

 

[untermensche]

What does it mean to move to the left?

The right/left dichotomy in the US is many things right now.

The left has almost no representation in the Congress.

The left is opposed to capitalism.

Capitalism is a tyrannical system of individually owned dictatorships.

Look around and it is one little dictatorship after another.

The left as it always has been is opposed to dictatorship in any form.

In government and at work.

So if people talk about moving to the left that means replacing dictatorships with democracies.

Do people really want that?

Does anybody ever talk about that in the US media?

Or is that kind of talk off the spectrum?

Is the left off the spectrum in the US media?

Unless you replace capitalist dictatorships with democracies the only band-aide to mitigate the situation are unions. These are a weak solution since the union has no power to shape the direction a company takes, only the power to negotiate salaries and benefits.

Unions used to be highly supported by Democrats. That was the left in action.

Until Bill Clinton.

 

[ZiprHead]

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/12/auto-worker-salaries/
this explains how $100k figure comes about.
In short:
average (!)
hourly pay was $40 -> $83200 for 40hours * 52 weeks
adding benefits - $55 -> $114400/year
adding legacy costs $70 -> $145600/year. They got rid most of the legacy costs as a result of the agreement.

So basically average wage was $83k. Yes, it's lower than widely cited $100K which it seems included benefits.
But then again, $83k was merely average, not the top rate. UAW workers were not getting ripped off.

Why would legacy costs be included? That's money that goes to people who are no longer employed by the auto maker. And you are moving the goal posts by including benefits. Did you include benefits in the professor's wage? No. From your cite: "The automakers say that the average wage earned by its unionized workers is about $29 per hour."

Admit it. You heard a right-wing talking point, just as described in your cite, ran with it and it bit you in the ass.

 

[barbos]

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/12/auto-worker-salaries/
this explains how $100k figure comes about.
In short:
average (!)
hourly pay was $40 -> $83200 for 40hours * 52 weeks
adding benefits - $55 -> $114400/year
adding legacy costs $70 -> $145600/year. They got rid most of the legacy costs as a result of the agreement.

So basically average wage was $83k. Yes, it's lower than widely cited $100K which it seems included benefits.
But then again, $83k was merely average, not the top rate. UAW workers were not getting ripped off.

Why would legacy costs be included?

Ask authors of the article.

That's money that goes to people who are no longer employed by the auto maker. And you are moving the goal posts by including benefits.

No, just explaining where I read about $100lk figure.

Did you include benefits in the professor's wage? No.

No, I did not. But it seems autoworkers has or rather had comparable benefits to tenured STEM professors.

From your cite: "The automakers say that the average wage earned by its unionized workers is about $29 per hour."

Admit it. You heard a right-wing talking point, just as described in your cite, ran with it and it bit you in the ass.

Average wage was $40/hour, that's $83k. That means that top wage was higher than $83K.
If you ask me this is pretty incredible for someone with no education.

 

[untermensche]

If professors are making too little hurting other people solves nothing.

Humans should be paid as much as humanly possible. Every one of them.

Right now we have a few dictators paid as much as possible and the vast majority paid as little as possible.

We are living in very immoral times.

 

[barbos]

If professors are making too little hurting other people solves nothing.

It's about basic fairness.

Humans should be paid as much as humanly possible. Every one of them.

That's inapplicable suggestion.

 

[untermensche]

If professors are making too little hurting other people solves nothing.

It's about basic fairness.

What is unfair about paying the professor more if he is paid too little?

Humans should be paid as much as humanly possible. Every one of them.

That's inapplicable suggestion.

Nonsense.

 

[ZiprHead]

Average wage was $40/hour,

No, it's not. Even the auto maker said in the article it's $29.

that's $83k. That means that top wage was higher than $83K.
If you ask me this is pretty incredible for someone with no education.

My father had to be educated and pass tests to obtain his journeyman's licence. It is considered a profession. Many college educated people work in the shops because of it's better pay and benefits.

And nobody asked you if you thought it was incredible or not.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what is so bad about it. You've dodged the question twice now.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/12/auto-worker-salaries/
this explains how $100k figure comes about.
In short:
average (!)
hourly pay was $40 -> $83200 for 40hours * 52 weeks
adding benefits - $55 -> $114400/year
adding legacy costs $70 -> $145600/year. They got rid most of the legacy costs as a result of the agreement.

So basically average wage was $83k. Yes, it's lower than widely cited $100K which it seems included benefits.
But then again, $83k was merely average, not the top rate. UAW workers were not getting ripped off.

Why would legacy costs be included? That's money that goes to people who are no longer employed by the auto maker. And you are moving the goal posts by including benefits. Did you include benefits in the professor's wage? No. From your cite: "The automakers say that the average wage earned by its unionized workers is about $29 per hour."

Admit it. You heard a right-wing talking point, just as described in your cite, ran with it and it bit you in the ass.

Until they got rid of the legacy costs for the new hires that was in effect part of their compensation even though it wasn't paid right away.

 

[ZiprHead]

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/12/auto-worker-salaries/
this explains how $100k figure comes about.
In short:
average (!)
hourly pay was $40 -> $83200 for 40hours * 52 weeks
adding benefits - $55 -> $114400/year
adding legacy costs $70 -> $145600/year. They got rid most of the legacy costs as a result of the agreement.

So basically average wage was $83k. Yes, it's lower than widely cited $100K which it seems included benefits.
But then again, $83k was merely average, not the top rate. UAW workers were not getting ripped off.

Why would legacy costs be included? That's money that goes to people who are no longer employed by the auto maker. And you are moving the goal posts by including benefits. Did you include benefits in the professor's wage? No. From your cite: "The automakers say that the average wage earned by its unionized workers is about $29 per hour."

Admit it. You heard a right-wing talking point, just as described in your cite, ran with it and it bit you in the ass.

Until they got rid of the legacy costs for the new hires that was in effect part of their compensation even though it wasn't paid right away.

It still should not be part of the conversation about how much an auto worker makes in comparison to a college professor.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Until they got rid of the legacy costs for the new hires that was in effect part of their compensation even though it wasn't paid right away.

It still should not be part of the conversation about how much an auto worker makes in comparison to a college professor.

Just because it's deferred doesn't mean it's not compensation.

 

[barbos]

Average wage was $40/hour,

No, it's not. Even the auto maker said in the article it's $29.

According to the article:
"the average GM, Ford and Chrysler worker receives compensation – wages, bonuses, overtime and paid time off – of about $40 an hour."
And according to your own damn post wages topped at $39/hour. Sorry dude, they were getting more than $83K. And this average includes everybody, even 20 year olds who were lucky enough to get the UAW job.

that's $83k. That means that top wage was higher than $83K.
If you ask me this is pretty incredible for someone with no education.

My father had to be educated and pass tests to obtain his journeyman's licence. It is considered a profession. Many college educated people work in the shops because of it's better pay and benefits.

And nobody asked you if you thought it was incredible or not.

Well, I guess we are done here.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what is so bad about it. You've dodged the question twice now.

Nobody asked you to ask me a question.

 

[barbos]

Until they got rid of the legacy costs for the new hires that was in effect part of their compensation even though it wasn't paid right away.

It still should not be part of the conversation about how much an auto worker makes in comparison to a college professor.

Just because it's deferred doesn't mean it's not compensation.

Well, american car makers got screwed because of the significant shrinkage of their work force, they just could not predict expansion of asian companies and automation. For the sake of comparison we compare wages even though UAW had pretty sweet retirement deals.

 

[DBT]

And since autoworkers are no longer paid that much they must be starving and living on the streets

Or they are eking out a living on minimum wage. Or they have readjusted their skill sets and are getting much the same pay in construction or engineering. Or they.....

No, they get paid much less now than before the shit hit the fan in 2008. And as someone who actually starved and was homeless while having a full time job with university degree (not the american B.S. degree, an actual science degree) I don't give a fuck about these fat and stupid union asses who were getting $100K salaries and still complained.

So you are quite worried about ordinary workers earning incomes of around $100k but not very concerned with salaries that amount to millions per annum being enjoyed by those at the top of the heap? That's OK, eh, but Heaven forbid that an ordinary worker gets anywhere near $100k because that would be greedy?