GM back in #1 spot...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:


Quote:



Toyota's employees make more than college professors with phds. A line has to be drawn somewhere.




confused.gif
That's because Toyota employees produce something people actually want to buy. My experience was that many college professors mostly produce hot air, and a lot of that was goofy.




Toyota's employees produce something that robots could produce for next to nothing, with far better quality and far lower variability. Professors teach courses that few people relative to those assembling cars are able to understand, much less teach. College professors should be paid more than autoworkers and by that, I do not mean that professor's salaries should be increased. How much money people make is generally proportional to how much work their brains perform rather than how much work they do. That is how things should be and when the construction of automobiles is roboticized, it will become apparent why.

By forming unions to extort several times more than what their labor is actually worth (as the UAW was formed long after the actual need for unions was eliminated by the enactment of protective laws) and planning to maintain such a status quo forever, autoworkers are digging their own economic graves. After all, they are so comfortable in their jobs, they could never think of accepting a lower paying job when if they had never unionized, that lower paying job would have been a higher paying job and they would have taken it in an instant.

The less brain power that a job requires, the easier it is for a robot to be designed to do it, the more people can do it and the less the job is worth. You say that the professor produces hot air, but he is the one that makes it possible to roboticize assembly lines, ensuring all of the autoworkers will be laid off (and quite possibly become bankrupt facing mortgage foreclosures because many of them squandered their money living from paycheck to paycheck), while he will still be employed with a fairly large bank account that came from wisely saving money, despite a lower salary.

Quote:


I guess I shouldn't have gone to college if you can make more money by working in a GM or Toyota factory.
pat2.gif





In about 20 to 30 years, you will be glad that you went to college when the UAW is unable to prevent assembly lines from being fully roboticized, much like the textile unions were unable to prevent the textile industry from being industrialized.
 
I'll bet the Korean brands cut more into GM and TOYOTA than they do Honda. The appliance mentality rules the bottom-end.
 
Another Toyota bashing thread. How novel...

We have to love the pro GM, anti Toyota guys. GM sells 10K more vehicles while losing billions and the GM flag wavers think they're back on top.

Here's a clue. If Toyota was worried about staying in the sales lead they could have sold an extra 10,001 cars for $1 each and had the lead.

And they *still* would have made more money than GM.
laugh.gif
 
Last edited:
I don't know where ShiningArcaine is getting his information but GM assembly line workers DO NOT make 140,000/year even when benefits are added. Also, you cannot just "make a robot" to do all automotive assembly. There are too many parts that require a human to build or assemble. I went to college (MBA and JD) and always laughed at just how far OUT OF TOUCH some professors where about the real working world - that's why they get paid what they do. Actually, some get paid too much for the hot air they spew. Not a single college professor I had could perform my job as a GM manager (or other jobs that BITOG memebers do!). The text books are wrong and that's all they know is what's in the textbooks.
 
I personally don't care who is #1 in total sales. It really is meaningless to me. My money will go to the company that I perceive (based on a reasonable degree of research and objective data) to provide the best quality and most reliable vehicle at a reasonable price. If it's GM, I'll buy GM. If it's Ford, I'll buy Ford. I don't need something that has 500 HP and a sub-5 0-60 time. If I want that, my search parameters change completely.

Having said that, I have a Honda and a Ford, and I am quite comfortable with those choices.
 
Quote:


Ferrari and Porsche make ostentatiously inefficient vehicles. Toyota and Hyundai make fairly efficient vehicles.
Quote:




Define "ostenationsly inefficient." Ferraris and Porsches are very efficient at doing what they are built to do. The same could be said for Hyundai and Toyota. The Ferrari and Porsche is built to handle well at much higher speeds. I challenge anyone to get behind the wheel of a Boxster, say, and not really enjoy driving this car. If you don't then you just don't like to drive for the sake of driving. In which case a used Hyundai or Toyota would fit such a driver better.

Quote:


Ignoring the initial cost of ownership, I would not want to drive a vehicle made by either Ferrari or Porsche. My annual gasoline expenses would triple.
Quote:



Not that I even own a Porsche, so I don't know why I'm bothering to respond to this, but what's up with bashing Porsche fuel economy figures. According to the EPA estimates:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList2&make=Porsche&model=Boxster
Combined 21 mpg
City 18 mpg
Highway 27 mpg
6 cylinder, 2.7 liter engine

If your gasoline bill would triple with the Boxster at 21 mpg, you must be getting around 63 mpg with your current ride. The Boxster takes premium gas, yours may or may not, in which case you might only need 50 mpg or so to beat this Porsche in fuel costs.

Life is too short to just endure driving a car that doesn't get your blood a pumping. If you're gonna drive at all, at least have fun doing it, I say. I consider the Prius a fun car, too. It's kind of like a game behind the wheel to figure out ways to maximize the mpg. I can definitely see why the Prius drives like their cars. Whenever I see somebody with a sort of unique car (an old VW beetle or bus, old muscle car, MG, old German car) I always give them a thumbs up. That's a guy/gal into driving his car of choice and I respect that. He probably even takes a hand in maintaining it.

Your fuel bill probably would triple for the reason that you'd enjoy the Boxster would be so much more fun to drive that you'd find yourself taking the long road home and driving it just for the fun of it.
driving.gif
 
Quote:


I don't know where ShiningArcaine is getting his information but GM assembly line workers DO NOT make 140,000/year even when benefits are added. Also, you cannot just "make a robot" to do all automotive assembly. There are too many parts that require a human to build or assemble. I went to college (MBA and JD) and always laughed at just how far OUT OF TOUCH some professors where about the real working world - that's why they get paid what they do. Actually, some get paid too much for the hot air they spew. Not a single college professor I had could perform my job as a GM manager (or other jobs that BITOG memebers do!). The text books are wrong and that's all they know is what's in the textbooks.




You are right about people working for GM not making $140,000 a year. I was wrong; they make $146,850 a year, as of 2006:

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/07/uaw-pricing-themselves-out-of-market.html

Computers do mundane tasks repeatedly and they do them the same way each time. In the past, there were a class of people who were computers. They did things repeatedly and they did them the same way each time. Then machines were devised that did computations using electrical circuitry. Now, it is difficult to find a human computer, even in a university's mathematics department. This deficit of human computers is so profound that in some of my calculus classes, I noticed that my professors were brilliant mathematicians but had trouble doing elementary arithmetic.

Robots do mundane tasks. Building automobiles is a mundane task. Given these postulates, it is logical to state that robots can be designed to build cars. Building cars does not require some higher intelligence that cannot be programmed into a machine. Repairing them might, but I imagine that at some point after assembly lines are roboticized, repairs will become rare and unnecessary. After all, robots are consistent such that if a robot built something and it has a problem, there is a design flaw. The same will probably occur for maintenance as the feasibility of designing robots to maintain vehicles will increase as the variety of vehicles declines (I expect a decline in the number of car manufacturers to occur that will cause this) and the population increases.

By the way, the reason college professors are paid what they are paid is because they do not band together and attempt to extort money from the universities, which they know will get the money by demanding it of the students, causing the students to do the same to others and eventually leading to them being paid the same amount they were paid before their extortion attempt, although with a higher dollar amount and a lower purchasing power per dollar. Also, unlike autoworkers, college professors generally care about the people who would be the true victims of extortion attempts. There are more important things in life than money and they know that.
 
Just look at your source for that data on autoworkers income. IT IS NOT CORRECT. Take it from somebody who works in the industry - not the misinformed media.

Yes, building cars is a mundane task and I agree that maybe one day (far in the future) robots may be able to build cars. Just not now and probably not even in the next 10-20 years. Again - somebody in the know here.

Lastly, as for college professors, you know the old saying:"those that can't - teach". I have great admiration for school teachers from pre-K to high school- just not for most college professors. Sorry to offend, but our colleges are full of left wing professors who really have no clue.
 
Quote:


If 'exciting' and 'boring' can't be used to describe cars, there would be no difference between makers such as Ferarri or Porsche and Toyota and Hyundai. Performance cars have 400+ hp because they're built to be exciting to drive. A Camry has 263 because it's used mostly to get from A to B in a reliable and easy-to-maintain manner. I'm sorry your driving experiences have failed to demonstrate the differences between boring and exciting, but that doesn't apply to everyone.



I agree what some here point to as exciting or so great are nothing more than boring BASIC transportation.

When I was younger I knew every model when I seen it on the road but now that I'm older and don't spend all my time learning the new models then their are so many that look so similar that I need to see the badging to tell what it is.

Just last week I came up behind this little car and it was so narrow and odd looking that I just started laughing and my wife ask what was funny. I said that weird POS car in front of us.

It turned out to be a New Civic.
Personally I think I would just use public transportation before buying one of those litt;e skateboards with their underpowerd chain saw engine.

I'm wellaware that many on here buy them and think they are great but they need to realize that not everyone would drive one.

I won't say that I won't ever drive something like that but I hope and pray that I never get so hard up that I'm forced to do it because that is the only way I would consider one.
 
Quote:


Just look at your source for that data on autoworkers income. IT IS NOT CORRECT. Take it from somebody who works in the industry - not the misinformed media.

Yes, building cars is a mundane task and I agree that maybe one day (far in the future) robots may be able to build cars. Just not now and probably not even in the next 10-20 years. Again - somebody in the know here.

Lastly, as for college professors, you know the old saying:"those that can't - teach". I have great admiration for school teachers from pre-K to high school- just not for most college professors. Sorry to offend, but our colleges are full of left wing professors who really have no clue.




The data for autoworker's total income is an average. It does not include other data such as what percentages of that are withheld for what things, median, standard deviation, upper and lower quartiles, upper and lower bounds, histograms, margins of error, etcetera. It is quite possible that half of the figure is set aside for things such as health care, in which case the health care providers are laughing all the way to the bank and autoworkers get a much smaller amount after Social Security taxes. If that is the case and I was you, I would ask your employer for the money that would have gone to your health care plan and I would go get one on my own.

I believe that automobile assembly will be roboticized in some companies in 20 to 30 years, perhaps sooner if the army becomes interested in building its vehicles with robots, which would make sense given the higher quality and lower cost that comes from using robots.

I have a great admiration for most college professors, but I have little admiration for most K-12 teachers. I find the phrase "those that can't - teach" to apply to most K-12 teachers, but not to the college professors I have had. To be fair, I might just encounter fewer charlatans than most people being a Biochemistry/Computer Science Double Major Chemistry/Mathematics Double Minor.
 
Quote:




It turned out to be a New Civic.
Personally I think I would just use public transportation before buying one of those litt;e skateboards with their underpowerd chain saw engine.


I won't say that I won't ever drive something like that





so which one is it then? you make 2 contradictory sentences right in the same post.
 
i would like nothing better than to see gm and all the other american car company's DOMINATE the car market and send the imports packin. but it isnt gonna happen. for whatever reason, american car company refuse to build cars that interest the import crowd.

can anyone show me a new fun cheap american car that also gets good gas mileage? not happening.
theres plenty of america cars that are fun, theres plenty of cheap ones, some even get good mileage. none do all those as good as imports do.
 
Keep in mind that those figures include pay and total benefits. I'm confident that those benefits are: (1) quite generous, and (2) undefined in the article.

1. Does it include health benefits only for current employees or does it include retired? If so, that's going to skew the numbers significantly.

2. For the professors, they gave the benefits as a percentage of total compensation, whereas for the autoworkers, they gave it only as one total figure. I'm really curious how those would break out.

3. The totals for UAW workers must also include overtime pay, which can be substantial. For example, I've got union (IBEW) employees who work for me whose base pay would put them in the $60-70K range, but who can often make nearly $150K per year in just wages with overtime. When we factor in the incredible benefits package they receive, a number of them are probably close to or over $200K per year in total compensation from the company's perspective.

4. I'm not aware of the pay structure for college professors, as I'm sure it varies greatly. But I don't *think* it includes overtime pay. However, it may include bonuses, incentives, and/or other types of non-salary compensation. We just have no way of knowing from the basic statistics presented.

In the end though, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. It still costs the company much more in total dollars, regardless of the form in which it is paid. I do agree with the premise that in a highly competitive industry, this could eventually cripple the domestic manufacturers with respect to their cost structure.
 
Quote:


It turned out to be a New Civic.
Personally I think I would just use public transportation before buying one of those litt;e skateboards with their underpowerd chain saw engine.

I'm wellaware that many on here buy them and think they are great but they need to realize that not everyone would drive one.

I won't say that I won't ever drive something like that but I hope and pray that I never get so hard up that I'm forced to do it because that is the only way I would consider one.




I'm personally not a big fan of the Honda Civic drivers. This car is a favorite of the younger tuning crowd, it would seem. For some reason, these obligatory coffee can filters stick in my craw. I don't hold that against Honda or the Civic, though. The Civic has proved itself as a pretty dependable small car, capable of good gas mileage, as well as many miles.

The style of the new one is not my cup of tea. And I'm a rear wheel drive kind of guy, anyway. The interior is a little too space age in the one I saw.

Unlike you, I bet not many automakers in the year 2007 are mocking the Honda civic as a vehicle. The Big 3 did that for too long, thinking everbody would have your attitude towards Honda and Toyota. They are paying for that now. Considering the sales numbers it has racked up over the last 20 years or so, it definitely has their attention. It appears to be the first new car alot of young people ever buy. They are satisfied with it, and eventually move on to the Accord.

I just don't particularly like the fact that so many cars look alike these days, like jellybeans. You are right, it is hard to identify them without the badge sometimes.

driving.gif
 
Quote:


Just look at your source for that data on autoworkers income. IT IS NOT CORRECT. Take it from somebody who works in the industry - not the misinformed media.




You are absolutely right, the data provided is ----.

The autoworkers' rate is about right for a fully burdened yearly rate, which includes benefits, overhead, etc. for those paid somewhere in the $40-60k/yr range.

I run major research programs for a living and have the official rates from MULTIPLE universities (a bigger data set than the big three). A starting professor makes about $90k in SALARY. That is NOT the fully burdened rate. After benefits, overhead, etc., the yearly rate for a man-year (about 2000 hours) at any normal univeristy ranges from $200-300k.

THat is a far cry from the fully burdened rate of a big three employee of $146k. That would equate to an average salary less than $60k. Depending on the quality of benefits, the average salary at such a fully burdened rate would be in the band of $40-60k/yr, which on an hourly basis is $20-30/hour, exactly what is common.

I suggest that people base numbers on more than a highly spun blog article.

GMBoy, you are correct.

JMH
 
Last edited:
Quote:


Keep in mind that those figures include pay and total benefits. I'm confident that those benefits are: (1) quite generous, and (2) undefined in the article.

1. Does it include health benefits only for current employees or does it include retired? If so, that's going to skew the numbers significantly.

2. For the professors, they gave the benefits as a percentage of total compensation, whereas for the autoworkers, they gave it only as one total figure. I'm really curious how those would break out.

3. The totals for UAW workers must also include overtime pay, which can be substantial. For example, I've got union (IBEW) employees who work for me whose base pay would put them in the $60-70K range, but who can often make nearly $150K per year in just wages with overtime. When we factor in the incredible benefits package they receive, a number of them are probably close to or over $200K per year in total compensation from the company's perspective.

4. I'm not aware of the pay structure for college professors, as I'm sure it varies greatly. But I don't *think* it includes overtime pay. However, it may include bonuses, incentives, and/or other types of non-salary compensation. We just have no way of knowing from the basic statistics presented.

In the end though, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. It still costs the company much more in total dollars, regardless of the form in which it is paid. I do agree with the premise that in a highly competitive industry, this could eventually cripple the domestic manufacturers with respect to their cost structure.




I do not believe college professors are paid overtime, as there is no 9-5 set work schedule. It varies greatly and what generally matters most is that they receive their research dollars, which can cause them to spend nights in laboratories working on things without sleep.
 
I dunno if the figure is correct or just not understood.

I don't think salaries average that figure, but the cost to the employer MAY equal that when one considers salary, payroll taxes (remember, employers match the FICA figures that are taken out of your salary, so there is over 7% more than your salary in matching funds paid by an employer), there is health insurance, and retirement funds as well.

When I was in the business of hiring folks for a company I worked for, "loaded" salaries were about 50% higher than the salary the person earned.

So if we paid someone $80K/year, it actually cost about $120K when all benefits and payroll taxes were figured in.

So it's quite possible that someone making $100K in pre-tax salary could cost the company $140K+
 
I can believe that they've went up a few spots. On a long trip all I seen was the new Chevy/GM's. Alot of Chevy owners have been waiting a long time for a new model to come out. Don't know about the cars. After all the owners replace the older models the sales should slow after this year or the next.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom