I know it does, above was calculated for one person.

I live in a one bedroom apartment because I have a child. My child gets the bedroom and I sleep in the living room.

Wages are less.

I get it. Some auto workers maker as much as 100000 a year, but others do not.

If I have to work to subsidize them, I want to bring them ALL to a bare minimum. Until such time that they may become useful members of society.

So, I see 25,000 as much more agreeable figure, but I think the sum could be reduced still, if we house these dudes in some factory buildings.

I keep bringing $100000 up, because I don't want to allow even one of them to make that much all from my taxes. I never said they all make a hundred grand.

Study the effects of poverty, before spouting off sterotypes! Individual don't move for a number of different reasons, it isn't because they are lazy welfare spending degenerates!

move to mo. i paid $18,000 for my home ....three bedroom and gas and lights ,water . is not bad at all !

house payment -$245.00
light's-$45.00
water-$40.00
and i only use gas during the winter month's ......

$75,000.00 a year is still an obscene wage.
In Mexico, GM gets line labor for $50.00 a week.

See. What I mean? They don't move, period. Instead, they send you to work so they can live of your sweat.

Your suggestion is to force individuals to be housed in factory buildings... People who have families, who take care of their elderly family members? Yeah! Lets us all just put all the factory workers on 'factory reservations'! That will solve the problem!

Did I hurt your feelings? LOL

Im sorry but your post remind me of a boy I knew who grew up rich, and now lives off an inheritance.
He has never experiences disappointment or personal tragedy beyond his parents death and his momma not being there to make his bed every morning. (Now he has a maid)
He has never had to worry about his utilities being cut-off or worry about going hungry if laid off or injured. He thinks work is calling his accountant or broker to try to get them to release some funds.

Not having to worry about these things is the least of his problems. What I see from him however is the same thing I see in your posts. He is uncaring and uninformed about the struggles of the common persons life.
He has no idea beyond the protected and spoiled life he has lead!
And doesn't care for anyone except his self-centered, selfish existence!

You keep forgetting that these "family members" do not want to produce anything that is actually desired by the people.

They produce their GM cars, and blame crisis for their not being able to sell them.

May-be they shouldn't be cranking out so many then? Everyone knew that this crisis was near back in 2005.

And now, I supposed to bust my as$, providing them with comfortable life? How about becoming somewhat useful?

*rolls eyes*

Good Lord!

Or, if ya' don't mind bein' West Texas Trailer Trash. I paid for an acre and a half, tax sale, fenced, all utilities and a small house, $2,600.00.
Utilities $14.00 mo. water. Have septic
Lights, Green Mountain. Wind generated, $75.00 mo. On the danged comp. too much,LOL!!
Yearly taxes, $85.00

Like I said in my last post!

LMAO!!!

Let's do this again since there are obviously those among us who refuse to read,



December 11, 2008
Q: Do auto workers really make more than $70 per hour?
How much does a UAW member make at a domestic auto plant? Various sites have cited the figure at an average of seventy-three dollars an hour (The Heritage Foundation). Keith Olbermann says that the figure is actually at twenty-eight before benefits, which only add ten dollars to the amount. Other sources indicate that Toyota workers (who are not unionized) made more last year after profit sharing was calculated. So clear it up for us. What's the real bottom line?

A: No. That figure is derived from what the auto companies pay in wages, health, retirement and other benefits, and includes the cost of providing benefits to retirees.
A report from the conservative Heritage Foundation, opposing the auto industry bailout, said that members of the United Auto Workers union "earn $75 an hour in wages and benefits – almost triple the earnings of the average private sector worker." Later in the report, it's phrased this way: "The vast majority of UAW workers in Detroit today still earn $75 an hour."

That figure has caught hold with some conservatives, and it seeps into media coverage from time to time as well. A few examples: At a Nov. 19 House Financial Services Committee hearing on a possible bailout for the auto industry, Alabama Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus said, "Even with recent changes, the average hourly wage at General Motors is still $75 an hour. ..." Two of his GOP colleagues on the panel made similar statements. And in a Nov. 18 column in the New York Times, business reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote, "At GM, as of 2007, the average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs."

The problem is, that's just not true. The automakers say that the average wage earned by its unionized workers is about $29 per hour. So how does that climb to more than $70? Add in benefits: life insurance, health care, pension and so on. But not just the benefits that the current workers actually receive – after all, it's pretty rare for the value of a benefits package to add up to more than wages paid, even with a really, really good health plan in place. What's causing the number to balloon is the cost of providing benefits to tens of thousands of retired auto workers and their surviving spouses.

The automakers arrived at the $70+ figure by adding up all the costs associated with providing wages and benefits to current and retired workers and dividing the total by the number of hours worked by current employees.


Labor Costs Aren't the Same as Wages Earned


The result is the per-hour labor cost to the automakers, which is very different from "pay" or "wages" or even "wages and benefits" earned by their workers. As David Leonhardt pointed out in the New York Times (countering, in a sense, the earlier piece by Sorkin), the average GM, Ford and Chrysler worker receives compensation – wages, bonuses, overtime and paid time off – of about $40 an hour. Add in benefits such as health insurance and pensions and you get to about $55. Another $15 or so in benefits to retirees (known as "legacy costs") brings the number to roughly $70.

That last figure accounts for the biggest difference between labor costs of the Big Two and a Half and those of the "transplants," as foreign carmakers with manufacturing facilities on U.S. soil are called. Ford, in material it submitted to Congress for hearings this month (see "Congressional Submission Appendix (PPT)"), estimated the transplants' legacy costs at about $3 per hour, a number that has less to do with the level of benefits paid than it does with the fact that the transplants don't have many retirees yet, according to economist Kristin Dziczek of the Center for Automotive Research.

The Ford chart also estimates that, as a result of a historic 2007 labor agreement with the UAW, the legacy costs of the U.S. automakers are expected to fall – to about $3 per hour. That's because the deal calls for a new voluntary employee beneficiary association (or VEBA), a seldom-used 100-year-old tax loophole. A VEBA is a tax-exempt trust that can be used to fund almost any sort of employee benefit, but they are most commonly used to pay for health care expenses.

In an innovative twist, the UAW and Detroit negotiated a VEBA to cover the health care expenses of retired autoworkers. Under the terms of the agreement, GM, Ford and Chrysler were to contribute $30 billion, $13 billion and $9 billion, respectively, to a trust fund to be managed by the union. The UAW would then use the income from the VEBA to cover retiree medical expenses. The agreement would protect retirees’ health care benefits in the event of company bankruptcy, while allowing the automakers to shed the bulk of their legacy costs.

When the new agreement is fully implemented, which should happen in 2010, the U.S. automakers would still bear labor costs of about $9 per hour more than Toyota, but that's far better than the current gap. The 2007 agreement also calls for a new two-tier wage structure and other concessions from workers.

As for whether Toyota workers earn more than employees of U.S. domestic automakers: In 2006, at Toyota's Georgetown, Ky., plant, workers averaged more in base pay and bonuses than UAW members at Ford, General Motors and Daimler Chrysler, according to the Detroit Free Press. The difference was due to profit-sharing bonuses; Detroit's workers aren't getting many of those these days because, well, there's really nothing to share. The transplants don't give out much data, however, so it's hard to tell if this pattern is continuing or even if it applied to all Toyota plants in 2006.

A final note on all this: Labor costs only account for about 10 percent of the cost of producing a vehicle. And it's not the cost of American cars that people complain about; they're already often thousands of dollars less than their Japanese counterparts. Whatever changes may be made in the carmakers' labor agreements, we're convinced, and the recent hearings show, that there are much bigger problems in Detroit.


http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_auto_workers_really_make_more_than.html

No, you didn't. I actually don't even know how is it to live in one's mother basement. I am on my own since I was 16 years old.

Your experience may differ...

I remind you of someone? And....???

I always busted my own a$s for ever penny I ever made. I was born poor. So, you are all wrong.

As you can see, your instincts have failed you, again. You'd think that by your age, you'd be more accurate in reading people?

Think I will relocate, contemplating purch a home, but heck at Florida prices it's ridiculous, maybe I should move to MO or TX?

Tornado county and trailers don't mix for me! Thanks anyways!

No, that is only for the "west texas trailer trash".


These people want you to live in your trailer, and provide them with enough to own houses.

This sounds like Californians.

I've been saying that if each state had its own currency that I wouldn't accept any from Calif.
They are a bankrupt society that lives off the hard-labor and sweat of the other 49 states!