More people forced into ER and early social security

[Gumby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by landonew At the end of the day, what made GM uncompetitive? Executive compensation or GM assembly line workers getting paid $70/hour?

The $70/hr figure is a right-wing canard. Read this Media Matters piece to get some perspective on how the number was derived, and what the workers actually got paid.

The media myth: Detroit's $70-an-hour autoworker | Media Matters for America


In days past, I might discuss the treatment of the varying creditors in the GM bankruptcy (as I have done here before), but I am tired of the topic and I suspect that you are not all that interested in the answer.

[NW-Bound]

Thanks to Gumby for pointing this out once more. In case someone does not want to read through the article, here's the pertinent paragraph.

The average GM assembly-line worker makes about $28 per hour in wages, and I can assure you that GM is not paying $42 an hour in health insurance and pension plan contributions. Rather, the $70 per hour figure (or $73 an hour, or whatever) is a ridiculous number obtained by adding up GM's total labor, health, and pension costs, and then dividing by the total number of hours worked. In other words, it includes all the healthcare and retirement costs of retired workers.

The cost was not due to the current pay, but benefits and pensions to retired workers! Now, you can draw parallel conclusions to other pension benefits, of private as well as public plans. And SS, and public health care, and whatever have you.

There is no such thing as "free". Somebody always has to pay, and when they do not want to pay anymore, we've got a problem. In this case, I guess it's the fault of GM car buyers who would not want to pay a premium for GM cars, so that GM profits can support its retirement cost.

[timwalsh300]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stevewc If there is such a fund that is kept then the treasury bonds sound good to me. My understanding is that there really is no fund at all. I heard President G.W. Bush (not to get political) make a statement on TV that after the retirees were paid each year, any left over money was used for other programs and such.

1. It is true that there is a SS fund that is invested in US Treasury bonds.
2. It is also true that the extra SS contributions were spent on government programs.

These things are not mutually exclusive. The Treasury sells bonds to borrow money to pay for government programs. The SS fund invests in those bonds and collects interest, paid by the Treasury from tax receipts or additional borrowing. It can be confusing because we often think of "the government" as just a single entity.

Tim

[landonew]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby The $70/hr figure is a right-wing canard. Read this Media Matters piece to get some perspective on how the number was derived, and what the workers actually got paid. The media myth: Detroit's $70-an-hour autoworker | Media Matters for America In days past, I might discuss the treatment of the varying creditors in the GM bankruptcy (as I have done here before), but I am tired of the topic and I suspect that you are not all that interested in the answer.

Alright, let's assume for the sake of argument that your article is more accurate than mine. Would you at least concede that their compensation is not in-line with non-unionized competitors?

Here is a quote from the article you cited.

Quote:

By the way, here's the right way to cover the issue: In a November 18 column, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's David Nicklaus wrote that the Big Three "need to bring their labor costs, which average $72 an hour, closer to the Honda or Toyota level of about $45." Note how Nicklaus never implied that labors costs equaled take-home wages. Why? Because they don't. (And kudos to Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein, who refuses to use the $70-an-hour figure because it's so misleading.)

The crux of my argument does not stand or fall on whether UAW workers actually receive $70/hour, but rather that the UAW worker's compensation caused GM to become uncompetitive with non-unionized competitors.

Please explain to me the flaws in my reasoning. Also, please link your past discussions on the gm bankruptcy proceedings. I am actually very interested, but my internet search was not fruitful.

[Gumby]

What is the proper value of an automotive worker's time and abilities? $29/hr or $14/hr or something else? You presume an awful lot to say new hires get $14/hr "as they should". Would you care to have me set your salary, since I know precisely what your time and abilities are worth? I think you probably would not like that at all. In fact, you would likely tell me that your proper salary is whatever you can negotiate with your employer and that I should butt the hell out. And you would be correct.

GM failed for the simple reason that they were unable to sell a sufficient number of cars at a sufficient price to cover their expenses. Period, end of story. Why that should be the case is a more complicated matter.

High labor costs were certainly a part, but only one part, of their problems. In fact, given that there are more retirees than active workers, the legacy labor costs (pensions and huge retiree health care costs) were a bigger problem than the current labor costs. In addition to that, they had old and inefficient physical plants. They also had poor automobile designs that did not find favor with the buying public -- they focused on large trucks and SUV's, not smaller, fuel efficient vehicles, and the run up in gasoline prices during 2008 hit them hard. They had too many brands and too many low volume dealers. They had substantial debt service payments. In sum, they had a substantial number of problems that crushed both top line revenues and bottom line earnings.

By contrast, the foreign manufacturers like Honda and Toyota don't share these problems, for the simple reason that they have not been around as long. Their factories, both in Japan and the US, are newer and more efficient. They do not have a huge overhang of retiree pension and health obligations for a variety of reasons. The simplest is that they have not been around long enough to have a significant number of retirees. Additionally, they started operating in the US after the time people came to realize that the "free healthcare for life" promise, a promise that had easily been offered by the Big 3 during the go-go years after WWII, was unsustainable, and they did not make the same mistake. And for their Japanese workers, they don't need to worry about health care costs at all. The fact that their work force is not unionized does not substantially affect the above observations. Additionally, their sales practices are better. Honda has only two brands and Toyota may be up to three, and each of their dealerships is much higher volume. And, perhaps most importantly, they focused on designing smaller, fuel efficient cars that people actually wanted to buy.

In sum, the issue is far more complex than just labor costs, but perhaps reflexively bashing unions makes you feel better.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby The $70/hr figure is a right-wing canard. Read this Media Matters piece to get some perspective on how the number was derived, and what the workers actually got paid. The media myth: Detroit's $70-an-hour autoworker | Media Matters for America

Quote:

Originally Posted by landonew The crux of my argument does not stand or fall on whether UAW workers actually receive $70/hour, but rather that the UAW worker's compensation caused GM to become uncompetitive with non-unionized competitors. Please explain to me the flaws in my reasoning.

I agree with landonew - I read both articles and I fail to see how the mediamatters.org article counters anything at all in the Heritage.org article.

1) The Heritage piece clearly states the UAW workers cost the Big Three $70/Hr. They don't say they are paid $70/Hr, and it seems that 80% of the mediamatters article is pouncing on people who said they are paid that amount.

2) Heritage.org breaks out that these numbers are from SEC filings, and they are required to account for the cost of future benefits of current employees in the current year. So that means that the people who are retired now and receiving benefits were accounted for when they were working, not in this hourly figure for 2006. If this is incorrect, mediamatters does not explain the accounting, they basically say "is too!". If I missed the explanation, please help me out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby ... I am tired of the topic and I suspect that you are not all that interested in the answer.

Well, you did step into the fray, and that's a pretty condescending response. It implies we made up our minds and have no interest in the facts, thank you very much. I read both articles, I saw more facts in the Heritage article than the mediamatters. I'm very interested in the facts.

I do recall a post of mine at the time - pointing out that in public, Ron Gettelfinger kept trying to downplay the difference in compensation between UAW and the rest of the workers in the USA. But when you went to the UAW 'member benefits' page, it was a very long list of how much better UAW workers had it, due to all the hard work the UAW did to protect their interests. It was pretty funny, in that non-funny kinda way.

Cake - eat it - 2.

-ERD50

[Gumby]

Landonew said, and I quote,

Quote:

Originally Posted by landonew At the end of the day, what made GM uncompetitive? Executive compensation or GM assembly line workers getting paid $70/hour?

Clearly they didn't "get paid" $70/hr. The Media Matters piece explains how that number was calculated. As NW Bound mentioned, it includes retiree costs -- pensions and healthcare.

[dex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby By contrast, the foreign manufacturers like Honda and Toyota don't share these problems, for the simple reason that they have not been around as long. Their factories, both in Japan and the US, are newer and more efficient. They do not have a huge overhang of retiree pension and health obligations for a variety of reasons.

I think there is a systemic difference between the USA and Japan. Probably very difficult to compare the two countries. I remember reading an article that companies in Japan pay into the systems for their employees and then they are the government's responsibility after retirement.

Health care system in Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social welfare in Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Something is rotten in Denmark when they start to cut back
Why Denmark Is Shrinking Its Social Safety Net - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com

[Gumby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 2) Heritage.org breaks out that these numbers are from SEC filings, and they are required to account for the cost of future benefits of current employees in the current year. So that means that the people who are retired now and receiving benefits were accounted for when they were working, not in this hourly figure for 2006. If this is incorrect, mediamatters does not explain the accounting, they basically say "is too!". If I missed the explanation, please help me out.

I do not believe the Heritage explanation for one simple reason -- as I understand the accounting rules (and I am a lawyer, not an accountant) the present value of expected pension obligations to future retirees goes on the balance sheet, not the income statement

So, for any year, with respect to labor, my current obligation is the present value of benefits promised to existing employees. I make appropriate actuarial assumptions (regarding how many will retire and when, what COLAS will be, how long they will live, etc) to calculate this number. I also must perform this calculation for current retirees (it is a little simpler since they are already retired). I then add the two numbers. That is my current balance sheet obligation for benefits. When Heritage says they are required to account for the present value of benefits to future employees in the current year, I believe they are referring to accounting on the balance sheet like this. But that says nothing about current per hour labor costs.


It is, rather, the income statement that performs this function. It should have the actual costs paid to current employees in wages plus health care payments made, plus payments made on pensions. For any year, the per hour labor costs (current plus legacy) could be viewed as the sum of these three numbers divided by the number of hours worked that year, which is how I believe the $70/hr was calculated. However, I believe that is misleading, because the payments to retirees actually represent deferred payment for work done long ago. Unless you also account for the hours that generated that deferred pay, you don't have an accurate gauge.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby Landonew said, and I quote, Clearly they didn't "get paid" $70/hr. The Media Matters piece explains how that number was calculated. As NW Bound mentioned, it includes retiree costs -- pensions and healthcare.

OK, I see. I thought your 'right wing canard' comment was directed to the Heritage Foundation (considered by many to be 'right wing'), and they didn't say 'paid' in their article.

-ERD50

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby I do not believe the Heritage explanation for one simple reason --

I agree that the Heritage explanation was not full enough to satisfy me (but far better than the mediamatters). I wish they would have taken it a couple steps further. Either the case weakens as they dig into it, or they lose their audience in the numbers, I dunno (I suppose the cynic could say 'both' ).

Quote:

Unless you also account for the hours that generated that deferred pay, you don't have an accurate gauge.

If they are indeed counting it, then yes. Well, tying any fixed costs to a hours worked is already getting kinda crazy (but possibly still useful if clearly and carefully applied). I'm getting deja-vu here, I seem to recall pointing out that increasing efficiency (fewer hours worked for same output) would actually increase those fixed costs on a 'per hour worked' basis, so it could all get very misleading.

-ERD50

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 OK, I see. I thought your 'right wing canard' comment was directed to the Heritage Foundation (considered by many to be 'right wing'), and they didn't say 'paid' in their article. -ERD50

He was probably referring to the usual union blah blah blah that comes from the right.

Not much unlike the opposite that comes from the left...

Methinks a lot of sound and fury baloney...

There's a lot of some truth in both stereotypes, so there's plenty of blame to go around...

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

[dex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby I do not believe the Heritage explanation for one simple reason -- as I understand the accounting rules (and I am a lawyer, not an accountant) the present value of expected pension obligations to future retirees goes on the balance sheet, not the income statement

Pension accounting is complex. The annual pension expense must first pass through the income statement to the balance sheet. How it is done depends upon the contract and GAAP. Simply, a company could estimate the number of retirees and fully fund their pension with some of the $ put on the balance sheet sheet as an asset with a contra account - the payout - to be put on the income sheet annually.

As to the $70/hr issue and retirees, I could see that as a component of Cost Accounting - which is a management tool, not a reporting tool. If you wanted to understand the cost/profit mix for a car you would use Cost Accounting. The retirees costs would be included in that analysis.

Cost accounting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Finance Dave]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby I do not believe the Heritage explanation for one simple reason -- as I understand the accounting rules (and I am a lawyer, not an accountant) the present value of expected pension obligations to future retirees goes on the balance sheet, not the income statement So, for any year, with respect to labor, my current obligation is the present value of benefits promised to existing employees. I make appropriate actuarial assumptions (regarding how many will retire and when, what COLAS will be, how long they will live, etc) to calculate this number. I also must perform this calculation for current retirees (it is a little simpler since they are already retired). I then add the two numbers. That is my current balance sheet obligation for benefits. When Heritage says they are required to account for the present value of benefits to future employees in the current year, I believe they are referring to accounting on the balance sheet like this. But that says nothing about current per hour labor costs. It is, rather, the income statement that performs this function. It should have the actual costs paid to current employees in wages plus health care payments made, plus payments made on pensions. For any year, the per hour labor costs (current plus legacy) could be viewed as the sum of these three numbers divided by the number of hours worked that year, which is how I believe the $70/hr was calculated. However, I believe that is misleading, because the payments to retirees actually represent deferred payment for work done long ago. Unless you also account for the hours that generated that deferred pay, you don't have an accurate gauge.

I am an accountant (CMA - Certified Management Accountant) and work in the Treasury function of a Fortune 500 manufacturing company. Although I don't currently calculate wages and benefits, I did have a role in the early 2000s where I did exactly that.

Per your bolded comment above, technically you are correct. However, what's not stated is that any costs over and above the expected benefits must go to the income statement. Let me provide an example. Let me also say that I'm simplifying the accounting to get the point across, as one cannot teach pension accounting on an internet forum in 1,000 words or fewer.

Case 1 - You have an obligation (according to the actuaries) of $1M. You have a balance sheet account that's worth...dare I say it.... $1M. In that case you have the obligations covered, so there will be no costs on the income statement in that year.

Case 2 - You have an obligation (according to the actuaries) of $1.1M. Note the reason this is higher than Case 1 is that the obligation is an estimate and must be recalculated annually...so something has changed. You have a balance sheet account that's worth...I see a trend... $1M. In this case, the company would have to "fund" the shortfall through the income statement to the tune of $100k for that year.

The result is that sometimes pension costs do go through the income statement...it depends on a variety of factors looked at by the actuaries.

Going back to the cost of an employee, I cannot speak for the Big3. However, I can say what I saw at our company. Our workforce is very similar in terms of required skills and part of the country (Midwest) that the Big3 operate in.

I will point out that we are self-insured. Why is this relevant? Because our health care costs are borne by all employees, so an aging workforce implies higher health care costs. In other words, the age of the workforce is a key factor in the overall wage/benefits picture. If 25% of our employees retired and were replaced by healthier (i.e. younger) employees, our health care costs would immediately decrease. This is not something very well explained in many stories, and I have no way of knowing whether the Big3 operate this same way or what their average employee age is....I just wanted to make it clear for my example below.

At our company in the early 2000s, the cost structure of having an employee on the books looked something like this:

• Wages
• Current health care costs (total $$ spent prior year divided by # employees)...this becomes the new "benefit" used for planning purposes.
• OPEB - Other Post-Employment Benefits (this is for future i.e. post-retirement healthcare and other costs such as life insurance) (See footnote 6 in the Heritage article)
• Unemployment compensation
• Holiday Pay
• Disability
• FICA (employee pays 6.2% and employer pays 6.2%)
• Medicare (employee pays 1.45% and employer pays 1.45%)
• Other (includes vacation costs when employees elect to have their vacation paid to them in lieu of taking time off, as well as other ancillary costs)

Our company did not include overtime averages, although some companies do.

I don't have exact figures for the above, and would not share them regardless, but suffice it to say that the total cost was more than double the wages only portion. In other words, if an employee made $25 in base salary, the other portions added together made up more than $25 in additional benefits. Wages were less than half of the total benefit the employee derived by being employed.

There are some who don't believe it's fair to "count" the non-wage piece because the employee can't take it home. Well, I disagree. Why? Let's try a fictitious example. Let's say I'm offered two jobs.



Job 1 -

• Wages of $100,000/year with no benefits

Job 2 -

• Wages of $80,000/year
• Free leased company car with all fuel and maintenance paid
• Free uniforms with laundry service
• Free financial advisory services annually
• On-site health/wellness programs at no charge
• Paid-for membership to local health club
• Free parking in secure garage in downtown
• One pair of safety shoes paid for annually
• Free child-care at company-operated licensed facility
• $ per $ match on 401-k contributions up to 6% of pay
• Cash balance plan with 6% of wages contributed by company annually
• Tuition reimbursement for self and family
• Company-funded lunches in on-site cafeteria
• 5 weeks vacation (not paid, but you still get your $80k/year)

Guess which job I'm taking, even though I can't "take it home".

[Gumby]

Thanks for that explanation, although I must confess that I now have no idea who is right as between the Heritage and UAW explanations of the $70 number.

In any event, as I mentioned earlier, the labor costs are but a portion of GM's problems. And I think the "get paid $70/hr number was demagoguery -- pushed in order to generate resentment among other workers, who will tend to look at the actual dollars in their own pay package and ignore all the other components of their own compensation.

[Finance Dave]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby Thanks for that explanation, although I must confess that I now have no idea who is right as between the Heritage and UAW explanations of the $70 number. In any event, as I mentioned earlier, the labor costs are but a portion of GM's problems. And I think the "get paid $70/hr number was demagoguery -- pushed in order to generate resentment among other workers, who will tend to look at the actual dollars in their own pay package and ignore all the other components of their own compensation.

I don't think either one is right or wrong...just a different slant on how to explain it. I agree we should say workers are "paid" that much...but I think it is fair to say it "costs" the automakers that much.

[Gumby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finance Dave but I think it is fair to say it "costs" the automakers that much.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

I pondered your explanation overnight, and it seems to me that even if you say the number is comprised of current sums paid out to employees plus funds paid to "top up" the pension fund, it still may be inaccurate. The one reason that stands out for me is that the "top up" number varies not just with labor cost, but also with current and expected future investment returns. To go to your example, suppose from year 1 to year 3 the workforce did not change at all (ignore the fact they they get older and assume no raises). The initial current value of the promised benefit is $1M and the fund is $1M. Now suppose during the next year, the fund loses money like it's 2008. The benefit number is still $1M, but the fund value is now $600K and the fund needs be topped up by $400K. Now suppose the next year, the market parties like like it's 2009 (sorry Prince). The benefit is still $1M, but the fund is now $1.2 M -- overfunded for the immediately foreseeable future.

Did the company's labor costs actually change between Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3? Will those costs drop for Year 4 due to the overfunding? No, because they are the exact same people making the same money (by my definition). But if you used the Heritage calculation, you would say labor costs went up in Year 2 and way down in Year 3 and probably will go down again in Year 4.

[landonew]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby What is the proper value of an automotive worker's time and abilities? $29/hr or $14/hr or something else? You presume an awful lot to say new hires get $14/hr "as they should". Would you care to have me set your salary, since I know precisely what your time and abilities are worth? I think you probably would not like that at all. In fact, you would likely tell me that your proper salary is whatever you can negotiate with your employer and that I should butt the hell out. And you would be correct.

With all do respect, it seems as though you are applying a free-market theory to a non-free market situation. If trade unions were a naturally occuring phenomon, I would agree.

However, trade unions wouldn't exist (or at least would be far less prominant) "but for" the National Labor Relations Act (i.e. laws enabling employees to unionize without employer interference).

I deserve the rate I negotiate with my employer because he can refuse to pay it. GM did not have that option, as evidenced by the 54 day strike. For instance, if I tried to go on strike, my employer would not wait 54 days to hire someone else - my seat would likely still be warm for the next guy.


Thus, the "free market" approach you use to justify UAW's wage doesn't follow. That doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't fair, just that your free market approach does not support it.

Quote:

GM failed for the simple reason that they were unable to sell a sufficient number of cars at a sufficient price to cover their expenses. Period, end of story. Why that should be the case is a more complicated matter.

Yes, because their labor costs where higher than their competitors, thus inflating the cost of their cars. The other reasons you cite (i.e. outdated plant, poorer designs, etc.) really just cloud the issue. They may be viable to some degree or another, but they are difficult to dispute and/or quantify.


Regardless of the "time value of money", The present day economics are quite simple - GM's labor costs (notice how I say costs here) were double that of their competitors, which undeniably inflated the price of their product. Are some of these costs deferred compensation from last year (or last decade)? Maybe, but they are nonetheless a cost affecting GM's bottom line.

Simply put, Consumers buy fewer widgets at $3 than they do at $2. Cars are no different.

[rescueme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by landonew The other reasons you cite (i.e. outdated plant, poorer designs, etc.) really just cloud the issue. They may viable to some degree or another, but they are difficult to dispute and/or quantify.

This is true.

Just to add to the discussion, I retired from a manufacturing plant that did have a union for the "production" side of the house (I was not in the union, with my various j*bs over the years).

However, being a vertical manufacturer in the early days I was there (e.g. all components were made in-house, from screws to the final production - exception being large scale stamping operations) there was a technology shift from the late 70's to the late 2000's, when I retired.

Within the union contract, there was wording that allowed for the improvement of "manufacturing technology" but did not specifically say if this needed to be done in/out of house.

To do it in-house would have been cost prohibitive, as the tools/machines would have required a great bit of investment. It was better (from a financial sense) to have another company who specialized in new manufacturing technology and was willing to invest in just a part of the total manufacturing cycle to make parts more efficiently, and for a better price than we could do on our own.

This was an evolution of the time when companies started looking at their "core business" and started to get rid of processes that they had to have, but not necessarily a major component of the final process - in our case assembly. While I did not work for a car company, our production process was very similar.

Other business (regardless of product) also started getting rid of processes that were not part of the core business; a good example is IT services that were farmed out to specialists in that area (such as IBM, Accenture, etc.) and not only designed/executed software but also took care of managing in-house desktop (e.g. PC's) from acquisition to maintenance.

Over the years, most manufactures migrated from vertically integrated to being involved in "final assembly" only. For example, GM is researching a diesel motor to be used with their pickup line (other than what they currently use), but they are looking to having the motor built by an outside company.

Changes in manufacturing over the last 30-50 years have driven the production of many products; however, the folks that supported the "old way" of doing things are still "on the books" till they pass, so regardless of industry, you may have considerable legacy costs.

Also part of the change in manufacturing is "lean production", where parts are ordered based upon production schedules, not stockpiled during economic downturns and used when things got better in order to keep employment "evened out" over the long term. Those days (like pension plans) are generally long gone.

The off-shore brands brought these changes to their manufacturing processes early on, when they established plants within CONUS. The existing U.S. brands had to "learn" how to do these processes in a much better way, along with changes in manufacturing "physiology" (how many people know/remember the story of Deming in this area?)

Things are not the same as they were in the past, and they certainly will not be the same in the future, as today.

Unfortunately, the "overhang" of long-term financial commitments to employees no longer with the company (generally union) will be an impact to U.S. based companies for quite a long term, IMHO.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by landonew Simply put, Consumers buy fewer widgets at $3 than they do at $2. Cars are no different.

True but perhaps a little oversimplistic. Maybe if the private sector middle class was getting the same deal today as they were getting back in the union heyday in the 1950s to 1970s, they could afford $3 more easily than they can afford $2 in actuality. And they'd probably feel better about financing something if they were pretty sure job security and raises were in their future.

Don't forget what's driving some of the public sector employee backlash: a private sector middle class that's shrinking and not keeping up. If we were keeping up, it would probably be far less of an issue to people, as we generally don't begrudge others of the deal we're paying for if we think we're getting a similarly fair deal.

I'm not defending the UAW per se here but I think there's too much angry emphasis placed on what they *are* continuing to get and not enough on what the rest of us are *not* getting even as some companies report record profits and haven't given out raises in several years. And frankly I'm increasingly seeing this as a corporatist divide-and-conquer strategy so we'll turn on each other instead of recognizing that we need to be looking at the corporatism infecting all our institutions, including government.

At this point, what this has to do with ER or Social Security is anyone's guess.