Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: tu_holmes on August 18, 2009, 02:12:13 PM
-
http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/18/news/companies/gm_jobs/index.htm?cnn=yes
Increased demand for fuel efficient cars is leading General Motors to reinstate workers and increase shifts and overtime in order to build 60,000 additional cars.
GM's Orion, Mich., plant, slated to close for a 2-year shutdown in September, will now stay open through November due to increased sales.
Cash for Clunkers cars list: Top 10
These are the most popular cars purchased under the Cash for Clunkers program.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- General Motors is upping production and calling 1,350 of its U.S. and Canadian auto workers back to work due to increased demand for its vehicles.
The company said Tuesday it is raising production by about 60,000 vehicles in the third and fourth quarters, in response to the increased sales that accompanied the government's Cash for Clunkers program.
The increased production will come from added shifts and overtime, GM said. In addition, the company will keep select plants open during weeks that they had previously been forecast to be shut down.
For example, the Orion Township, Mich., plant, which had been scheduled to close for nearly two-years in mid-September, will now remain in operation until just before Thanksgiving.
Those additional hours should increase the paychecks for an about 10,000 GM workers beyond those called back to work.
"The uptick is an encouraging sign that vehicle sales are turning around, and we will ramp up quickly to meet that demand," said Tim Lee, GM group vice president for global manufacturing and labor, in a statement.
Weak sales and a need to conserve cash led the company to shut most production during the spring and early summer months, leaving GM with a record low dealer inventory of about 300,000 vehicles, according to company officials.
Mark LaNeve, GM vice president, U.S. sales, added on a conference call that he expects additional production increases to be announced in coming weeks and that the increased production could continue into the early months of 2010.
"We're probably not done," he said.
The Cash for Clunkers program, which gives car buyers up to $4,500 from the federal government for older gas guzzlers if they buy a more efficient new car, caused a spike in sales across the industry during the last week of July. GM rival Ford Motor (F, Fortune 500) has also announced increased production for the second half of this year.
LaNeve said that GM has continued to benefit from healthier demand since the end of July, putting it on pace to beat internal sales targets for August by about 50,000 vehicles.
But he cautioned that strong sales to rental car companies and other so-called fleet customers last August will make it difficult for GM to post a year-over year gain in sales.
GM, which filed for bankruptcy in early June as part of a government-mandated reorganization, emerged from bankruptcy protection last month.
-
This is such a joke. Serious TU - this is the most hairbrained idea I have ever heard of. This is just more tax money being funneled to GM by the taxpayer.
The demand was brought forward by this scheme and there is going to be an equal drop off of sales once the subsidy is gone.
Finally, the fed gov is screwing the dealers big time. I posted an article about this yesterday.
-
I'm very confused by how this is a joke. These people are getting their jobs back... How is that a joke?
-
I'm very confused by how this is a joke. These people are getting their jobs back... How is that a joke?
Because NO ONE WANTS SHITTY GM CARS!!!!!
The cash for clunkers program is a disaster as the dealers arent getting reimbursed.GM,is a failure just like Obamas other hair brained idea ,the stimulous.
-
Because NO ONE WANTS SHITTY GM CARS!!!!!
The cash for clunkers program is a disaster as the dealers arent getting reimbursed.GM,is a failure just like Obamas other hair brained idea ,the stimulous.
Please stop going on about the Stimulus.
I read the stupid USA today article also... Guess what... Just below that in the USA today gallop poll was a complete reversal where 65% of the respondents thought it was working.
You have yet to show me where it has failed... you're just talking some crap. You do not have an evidence to back that statement up.
-
I'm very confused by how this is a joke. These people are getting their jobs back... How is that a joke?
They are not getting their jobs back - they are getting free taxpayer $$$$ because of a govt welfare program designed for idiots to turn in a perfectly working car to go into debt and funnel $$$ to the state govts. This is a false front loaded demand based on an overly generous welfare check provided by all taxpayers to some. The demand is not based on real demand, but based on the subsidy provided by the govt. Thus, once the subsidy is gone, the sales will drop off and these people laid off again. Its a complete smoke and mirros shell game.
"Cash for Clunkers" is nothing more than another govt scheme to steal your money BTW. It actually steals from people in two ways. One, you are paying taxes so other people can get a car, and Two, you are going into debt and the $4500 is going mostly to bank fees and local taxes on a car that loses at least that much value the minutes its driven off the lot.
This whole program is a perfect example of crack pot economics.
-
They are not getting their jobs back - they are getting free taxpayer $$$$ because of a govt welfare program designed for idiots to turn in a perfectly working car to go into debt and funnel $$$ to the state govts. This is a false front loaded demand based on an overly generous welfare check provided by all taxpayers to some. The demand is not based on real demand, but based on the subsidy provided by the govt. Thus, once the subsidy is gone, the sales will drop off and these people laid off again. Its a complete smoke and mirros shell game.
"Cash for Clunkers" is nothing more than another govt scheme to steal your money BTW. It actually steals from people in two ways. One, you are paying taxes so other people can get a car, and Two, you are going into debt and the $4500 is going mostly to bank fees and local taxes on a car that loses at least that much value the minutes its driven off the lot.
This whole program is a perfect example of crack pot economics.
So those people will not get a paycheck and pay taxes back into the system? Really?
Apparently I do not understand what getting a job encompasses.
-
So those people will not get a paycheck and pay taxes back into the system? Really?
Apparently I do not understand what getting a job encompasses.
Bro - serious - read this book as a good start to understand reality. These people are paid with taxpayer money, not private profits.
"Cash for Clunkers" helps out a few at the expense of everyone else. Its true quackery at its best.
Additionally, this is a scheme that fools people into going into debt that they probably dont need. so maybe you help out a few joes from Mi for a few months, but there are going be thousands of fools hurt by this who end up with the car repoed and the bank losing $$$ on the defaulted loans.
The bad outweighs the good on this by 10 to 1 IMHO.
-
333 will never see the logic Tu so it's kind of hard to explain it to him. He just doesn't get that these people will spend this money and stimulate their local economies and help create a flow on effect.
-
Bro - serious - read this book as a good start to understand reality. These people are paid with taxpayer money, not private profits.
"Cash for Clunkers" helps out a few at the expense of everyone else. Its true quackery at its best.
Additionally, this is a scheme that fools people into going into debt that they probably dont need. so maybe you help out a few joes from Mi for a few months, but there are going be thousands of fools hurt by this who end up with the car repoed and the bank losing $$$ on the defaulted loans.
The bad outweighs the good on this by 10 to 1 IMHO.
So if GM makes money to pay back the money they have borrowed... That's bad.
If these people spend money that they earn and help stimulate the economy... That too is bad.
I get it.
-
So if GM makes money to pay back the money they have borrowed... That's bad.
If these people spend money that they earn and help stimulate the economy... That too is bad.
I get it.
GM is getting the money from the taxpayers based on the welfare check provided by the taxpayer. This is just another bailout and they gave it a catchy name to fool everyone.
Also, read about how the fed gov is screwing the dealers on these things. Its a complete fraud.
And there is a difference between spending money from debt vs. from savings. That is too complicated for KYballsack to understand so I wont even go there in this thread.
________________________ ________________________ _______________________
Cash For Clunkers Won't Work
Jay Yarow|Apr. 15, 2009, 11:37 AM|1
PrintTags: Cars, Carbon, Emissions
A Senate proposal to induce drivers to replace older, less fuel efficient cars with newer fuel efficient cars will be a waste of government spending with little impact, writes FBR Research in a note put out today.
The proposal, known as "cash for clunkers", aims to increase new auto sales, while eliminating emissions from crappy old cars. In order to achieve those goals though, FBR says, "Proposals that are impactful enough to be effective are likely to be prohibitively expensive, while a frugal approach is unlikely to generate significant participation."
According to their calculations, based on the only bill with broad support in the Senate, less than 5% of U.S. vehicles will be able to participate. Additionally, the bill will reduce U.S. oil use by just 80,000 barrels per day in 2012, less than .5% of demand.
The project is supposed to cost almost $1.1 billion if 575,000 drivers participate. Depending on the model of the car, drivers will get between $1,500 and $4,500 as a voucher to trade in their old cars in Accelerated Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Act of 2009 (ARIV) which has been proposed in the House and Senate.
Here's why FBR thinks this program will fall on its face:
A conservative example is a driver driving a very inefficient SUV with a trade-in value well below the $1500 subsidy (16 miles per gallon and $500). The purchase of an eligible used 2005 fuel-efficient SUV of similar size would likely cost upwards of $10,000. Even in this conservative estimation, the net $1000 subsidy amounts to under $17 per month, less than the likely finance charges for a qualifying used SUV based on a five-year loan. Even including the gasoline savings at $2.18/gallon, the fuel-efficient SUV is likely to cost more than an earlier model inefficient vehicle that did not qualify for the credit. We do not believe that the economic incentive is likely to drive significant behavior changes in SUV/pickup truck owners. The program is likely to draw participation from some owners of light trucks and SUVS nearing the end of their useful life, or with potentially expensive problems that reduce their resalevalue below that of the credit.
In contrast, eligible drivers could realize significant savings by using a voucher to purchase smaller vehicles like a 2005 sedan which gets over 37 miles per gallon, has lower maintenance, repair costs, and lower depreciation than older light trucks. However, on the whole, we believe that with gas prices below the $2.50 range, there is may be a little incentive for large numbers of SUV/pickup drivers to adopt a wholly different approach to their vehicles, which would appear to have significant lifestyle implications.
On the whole, we believe that the program as introduced is unlikely to result in the retirement of one million, or even a half million fuel-inefficient vehicles on the margin. Over 4% of eligible vehicles are scrapped each year, and we believe that much of the participation is likely to come from vehicles with higher repair costs that are close to being taken out of the market anyway. We believe the scrapping of older vehicles is unlikely to reach the 10% projected by proponents.
Image: Roy Montgomery/Flickr
-
This Is Too Absurd To Even Describe
Henry Blodget|Aug. 3, 2009, 11:08 PM|37
PrintTags: Economy, Cars, Media, Politics, Emissions
The government doesn't want to take the chance that they'll be accused of doing what they are doing, which is giving a $4,500 gift to consumers and car companies in the form of the Cash For Clunkers bailout.
So the government has to keep pretending that Cash For Clunkers is about the environment. Which is why the government is insisting that all those perfectly good "clunkers" that get only slightly worse gas mileage than the new cars people are buying be "killed."
The clunkers can't just be crushed, because then a frugal former owner might fish out some parts and use them again. They have to be completely wasted.
To this end the government has come up with an innovative way to make sure that every last scrap of the clunker is rendered worthless: pour two quarts of sodium silicate (liquid plastic) into the engine and run it for a while.
All this car-killing, in turn, is driving the price of old engines and parts through the roof (for people who didn't accept the bribe and buy a new car). It's also driving the market for the clunker-killing agent, sodium silicate, through the roof.
Kevin Helliker, WSJ: odium silicate is the designated agent of death for cars surrendered under the federal cash-for-clunkers program. To receive government reimbursement, auto dealers who offer rebates on new cars in exchange for so-called clunkers must agree to "kill" the old models, using a method the government outlines in great detail in its 136-page manual for dealers: Drain the engine of oil and replace it with two quarts of a sodium-silicate solution.
"The heat of the operating engine then dehydrates the solution leaving solid sodium silicate distributed throughout the engine's oiled surfaces and moving parts," says the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration publication. "These solids quickly abrade the bearings causing the engine to seize while damaging the moving parts of the engine and coating all of the oil passages."
Wait until you hear what Bob Lutz has to say about this (yes, that Bob Lutz, the former GM car design god):
"I, like, have so not even ever heard of this before."
Neither has anyone else. Which is why even the folks who stock sodium silicate had to call around and confirm that the sudden crush of buyers were serious--that the stuff could actually be used to destroy cars.
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ __
The point of this article is that there are always unintended consequences to anything we do.
We are destroying perfectly good cars so people can go into debt. Its insanity.
-
Tu - Ron Paul gets it.
-
Because NO ONE WANTS SHITTY GM CARS!!!!!
The cash for clunkers program is a disaster as the dealers arent getting reimbursed.GM,is a failure just like Obamas other hair brained idea ,the stimulous.
It was a wildly successful program.
-
It was a wildly successful program.
Who would have guessed, people flocked for welfare and handouts?
-
This is such a joke.
it's a start.
-
it's a start.
Not to mention, if it was not for the Obama administration plan, those cars would be getting made in China by now.
-
it's a start.
Down the wrong path. The government is trying to float a company that the consumers have essentially condemned. Let it die peacefully and focus on getting those workers into other jobs as soon as possible.
-
333 will never see the logic Tu so it's kind of hard to explain it to him. He just doesn't get that these people will spend this money and stimulate their local economies and help create a flow on effect.
::)
-
If the Big 3 were to fail, we'd lose 5 million american jobs in 2 months.
All these folks going on unemployment would bankrupts most state budgets.Down the wrong path. The government is trying to float a company that the consumers have essentially condemned. Let it die peacefully and focus on getting those workers into other jobs as soon as possible.
-
If the Big 3 were to fail, we'd lose 5 million american jobs in 2 months.
All these folks going on unemployment would bankrupts most state budgets.
Ford's getting by. As for GM and Chrysler it's not as though they're going to shut down overnight. There's the entire bankruptcy process, restructuring, downisizing, etc. Losing 5 million jobs in 2 months is just fear mongering.
-
Because NO ONE WANTS SHITTY GM CARS!!!!!
The cash for clunkers program is a disaster as the dealers arent getting reimbursed.GM,is a failure just like Obamas other hair brained idea ,the stimulous.
Yahoo.com
NEW YORK (AP) -- All three U.S.-based automakers are doing a better job of satisfying their customers than they were a year ago, according to a recent survey.
General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler Group LLC all posted significant gains in this year's American Customer Satisfaction Index released Tuesday by the University of Michigan.
"Although the future will obviously be challenging for Detroit, the rise in customer satisfaction provides a much needed improvement in competitive standing," Claes Fornell, the University of Michigan business professor who heads the annual survey, said in a statement.
Fornell said keeping customers happy is key for the automakers, especially at a time when less people are buying cars, because they will be more likely to come back the next time they need a new vehicle.
GM's Cadillac and Toyota's Lexus brands tied for first place in the survey with scores of 89 out of 100. That marked a 4 point increase for Cadillac from its 2008 results and a 2 point improvement for Lexus, which also ranked first in last year's survey.
GM's Buick brand, Honda and Ford's Lincoln Mercury vehicles all received an 88. The Lincoln Mercury score marked a 5 point increase over its results for the previous year, while Buick's score rose by 3 points.
BMW received an 87, while Mercedes, Toyota and Volkswagen each got an 86. Volkswagen's increase of 5 points, or 6.2 percent, marked the biggest jump from the year before.
Hyundai received an 85, while the Chrysler's namesake brand rose 4 points to 84. GM's Saturn brand also got an 84.
The Chevrolet and Ford brands rose by 4 points and 3 points respectively to 83, while GMC fell by 1 point to 82.
Dodge, Kia, Mazda and Pontiac all received an 81. Jeep and Nissan, fell to the bottom of the pack with a 79 and 78, respectively. Nissan was one of the few brands to post a decrease from the year before, falling 4 points, or 4.9 percent.
The overall automotive industry's score was 84, up from 82 the year before.
There were over 11,000 telephone surveys conducted and about 5,500 for the auto industry in the second quarter of this year, asking respondents to rate their satisfaction of the vehicles on a scale of zero to 100. At the industry level, the margin of error is plus or minus 1 point. At the company level it is plus or minus 3 points.
-
Not to mention, if it was not for the Obama administration plan, those cars would be getting made in China by now.
???
Ignorance at its best.
-
It was a wildly successful program.
Artificial demand brought on by govt. welfare. More people take on more debt, perfectly functioning cars are destroyed thus driving up the cost of older used cars which hurts the poor....the list goes on and on and on.
If these workers were being hired back to produce cars because off of an organic increase in demand brought about by an true and real economic recovery than this story would be getting a whole different treatment on here. Once this program is gone, where will the demand be for new cars and new debt?
Hint: probably the same place where all that oil demand is hiding.
-
NO ONE WANTS SHITTY GM CARS!!!!!
I wouldn't mind one of those new camaros.
-
Those new jobs will balance out this potential future.
Toyota Mulls Shutting NUMMI Plant, Could Impact 50,000 Jobs in California
Toyota (TM) reportedly is looking to end production in March 2010 at NUMMI, the New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. plant in Fremont, just across San Francisco Bay from Silicon Valley. The 5.3 million square foot facility had been a joint venture with General Motors until GM withdrew walked away as part of its bankruptcy filing. NUMMI is the largest corporate employers in Alameda County; the NUMMI web site says the plant has 5,440 employees. (The Reuters story puts the number at 4,500.)
The NUMMI site says it has 3,600 suppliers, including more than 1,000 in California; the site contends the total number of jobs supported by the NUMMI food chain is about 50,000.
According to Reuters, Japan’s Asahi Shimbum reported the planned plant shutdown on its web site. The story said Toyota has started to inform suppliers about the plan; it also said a Toyota spokesman asserted that no official decision had been reached.
Toyota reportedly will transfer production of its Tacoma pickup trucks to a factory in San Antonio, Texas. Production of the Corolla sedan will shift to sites in Ontario, Canada and Japan
-
Artificial demand brought on by govt. welfare. More people take on more debt, perfectly functioning cars are destroyed thus driving up the cost of older used cars which hurts the poor....the list goes on and on and on.
If these workers were being hired back to produce cars because off of an organic increase in demand brought about by an true and real economic recovery than this story would be getting a whole different treatment on here. Once this program is gone, where will the demand be for new cars and new debt?
They are borrowing from future sales with this program, that is all.
-
I wouldn't mind one of those new camaros.
And guess what - people dont need a $4500 welfare payment from other taxpayers to buy it. It is perceived by the customer to be a cool car, like the mustang, and will buy it anyway.
-
333 will never see the logic Tu so it's kind of hard to explain it to him. He just doesn't get that these people will spend this money and stimulate their local economies and help create a flow on effect.
You are probably the dumbest poster on this thread when it comes to economics. The ignorance you display is priceless.
This is phony demand based on a welfare payment from taxpayers so others can go into debt. This is no different than the cheap mortgage money meltdown where the govt encouraged people to take out home equity to finance consumption of cars, tvs, etc.
Look how that worked out. Disaster. Cars for Clunkers is no differant.
-
Artificial demand brought on by govt. welfare. More people take on more debt, perfectly functioning cars are destroyed thus driving up the cost of older used cars which hurts the poor....the list goes on and on and on.
If these workers were being hired back to produce cars because off of an organic increase in demand brought about by an true and real economic recovery than this story would be getting a whole different treatment on here. Once this program is gone, where will the demand be for new cars and new debt?
Hint: probably the same place where all that oil demand is hiding.
We can't wait for market corrections. That's a recipe for disaster.
This stimulus worked.
Is the food put on the table from the newly created jobs 'artificial'?
Why the benefit to the environment by getting these polluting outdated cars off the HWYs justifies the expenditures.
-
We can't wait for market corrections. That's a recipe for disaster.
This stimulus worked.
Is the food put on the table from the newly created jobs 'artificial'?
Why the benefit to the environment by getting these polluting outdated cars off the HWYs justifies the expenditures.
Decker - there is no enronoemntal impasct here other than a negative alot of the carbon foot print of car is in its mfg. Now that they are scrapping these cars, what is the impact of all these cars being trashed?
This stimulus is not doing shit other than allowing people to put more people in debt and screwing the dealers. Do you realize that the dealers still have not been paid by the Fed gov yet and have been floating allt his $$$$???
"Cars for Clunkers" is nothing more than welfare for middle class people.
-
We can't wait for market corrections. That's a recipe for disaster.
This stimulus worked.
Is the food put on the table from the newly created jobs 'artificial'?
Why the benefit to the environment by getting these polluting outdated cars off the HWYs justifies the expenditures.
Talk about not seeing the logic.
It's a temporary boost in sales and demand that was brought about by a govt. spending program that transfers wealth and tax dollars around to sell cars and put more people in debt. This isn't demand and consumption brought on by an economic recovery, rising wages, decreasing U.E., more availability of credit etc etc.
Yes, the CFC program worked, it worked to bring forward demand from future quarters, take affordable old cars off the road and put many people in more debt. When this program ends, what will happen to demand? When demand falls to baseline or drops off, there will be no need for these new workers anymore.
Is the food put on the table from the newly created jobs 'artificial'?
Not seeing the big picture at all, are we? That food will be on the table as long as there is demand for the cars that is brought about by a temporary govt. spending program. And even with CFC's Ford and, I believe, Hyundai were the only automakers to post month over month sales gains.
-
excerpts from ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON by Henry Hazlitt
Chapter II, "The Broken Window"
_________
-
A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker’s shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some glazier. As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? Two hundred and fifty dollars? That will be quite a sun. After all, if windows were never broken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $250 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $250 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor.
Now let us take another look. The crowd is at least right in its first conclusion. This little act of vandalism will in the first instance mean more business for some glazier. The glazier will be no more unhappy to learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death. But the shopkeeper will be out $250 that he was planning to spend for a new suit. Because he has had to replace the window, he will have to go without the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury). Instead of having a window and $250 he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit. If we think of him as part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer.
The glazier’s gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor’s loss of business. No new “employment” has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier. They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new window in the next day or two. They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye.*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- excerpted from Chapter II of Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. Find the book at http://www.FreedomKeys.com/bkecon.htm here.
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ___
DECKER - THIS WAS WRITTEN 60 YEARS AGO.
DO YOU REALIZE THE FALLACY OF CASH FOR CLUNKERS NOW???
-
Let's get something straight...Ford will be fine, thank God, and GM quality is on the up and up and has been for a while. I would gladly buy one of their trucks right now(I'm considering it).
The thing is about people going into debt...so what? 1. It's their money. 2. No rules have been changed to buy a car, you still have to qualify and if people are getting great deals then let them buy. Also, maybe these people have a secure job and can afford it.
-
The thing is about people going into debt...so what? 1. It's their money. 2. No rules have been changed to buy a car, you still have to qualify and if people are getting great deals then let them buy. Also, maybe these people have a secure job and can afford it.
Fuck me. No wonder the country is a god damn mess.
Hey, who cares if people bought houses they can't afford, the banks said they qualified.
-
Let's get something straight...Ford will be fine, thank God, and GM quality is on the up and up and has been for a while. I would gladly buy one of their trucks right now(I'm considering it).
The thing is about people going into debt...so what? 1. It's their money. 2. No rules have been changed to buy a car, you still have to qualify and if people are getting great deals then let them buy. Also, maybe these people have a secure job and can afford it.
That thinking worked out great with mortgages and home equitiy loans didnt it?
We are in this financial mess because of debt, and you think it is a good thing to encourage more debt after the beating the economy took due to bad debt in the housing market?
How dumb can some people be not to realize that the govt is doing the same thing autos that they did with homes?
-
Cash for Clunkers Is Just a Broken Windshield: Caroline Baum
Share | Email | Print | A A A
Commentary by Caroline Baum
Aug. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Now that the U.S. government is in the auto business, with a 61 percent ownership stake in General Motors and 10 percent in Chrysler, it wants to move inventory.
So it came up with a plan, gave it a catchy name and wrapped it in a patina of environmental do-goodism.
“Cash for clunkers” was touted as a huge success, with cars tearing out of auto showrooms, the program running through its $1 billion appropriation in one week and government servers crashing in response to overwhelming demand from dealers filing for rebates. (At least it wasn’t the drivers that crashed.)
Was the program to induce drivers to turn in old gas- guzzlers for a more fuel-efficient vehicle a success? That depends on how you define success.
Consumers got a “discount,” automakers sold more cars and trucks last week than they would have, and all that “stimulus” -- spending begets income begets spending -- has to be good for the economy, right?
With success like that, why limit the rebates to $4,500? Why not give everyone a $10,000 or $20,000 rebate to turn in an old clunker? And why stop at the cars in the garage when you could get rid of a garage full of accumulated junk, with the government providing rebates to households for unloading what they’ve been meaning to get rid of for years?
A reductio ad absurdum, to be sure. Sometimes reducing a proposition to absurdity is the easiest way to expose its flaws.
The government is transferring money from -- guess who? -- we, the taxpayers, to car buyers. Those buyers would have traded in their cars anyway, albeit at a more leisurely pace, according to Jeremy Anwyl, chief executive of Edmunds.com, an auto information Web site. Knowing their cost would drop on July 24, buyers postponed sales so they could cash in on the program, he says.
Sight Unseen
Transferring money from taxpayers to car buyers is exactly that: a transfer. The money taken from taxpayers can’t be used for something else.
This is the lesson of Frederic Bastiat’s essay, “That Which is Seen, and That Which is Unseen.” Bastiat, a 19th century French political economist, tells the story of a shopkeeper who has to hire a glazier to repair a broken window, providing work and income for him in the process. That’s what is seen.
What is unseen is what the shopkeeper would have done if he didn’t have to pay the glazier. He might have bought shoes for his children, providing income for the shoemaker, who in turn could buy leather to produce more shoes. The glazier’s gain is the shoemaker’s loss. There is no net gain, no job or income creation, from this transaction.
Broken Window Fallacy
The “broken window fallacy,” as it is known, can be applied to all government spending. The $787 billion fiscal stimulus enacted in February transfers money from taxpayers to the government to allocate as it sees fit. The effect of the government’s expenditures shows up as growth in gross domestic product. Auto manufacturers produce more cars to meet the juiced demand, adding to GDP. This is what’s seen.
What is unseen is what would have been produced by the private sector had the government not confiscated future revenue via taxation.
An additional $2 billion to extend cash for clunkers -- the measure passed by the House of Representatives and is awaiting Senate action -- is a drop in the bucket compared with the trillions the government has spent, lent or pledged during the crisis.
Just think of all those broken windows, or windshields, as the case may be.
Cash ‘n Trash
Cash for clunkers requires that trade-ins be scrapped, whether they are fully depreciated or not. How is destroying something good for the nation?
James Hamilton, professor of economics at University of California, San Diego, says cash for clunkers adopts the worst of the New Deal policies and adapts it to today’s circumstances.
The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 “paid farmers to slaughter livestock and plow up good crops, as if destroying useful goods could somehow make the nation wealthier,” Hamilton writes on his blog. “And yet, here we are again, with the cash for clunkers program insisting that working vehicles must be junked to qualify for the subsidy.”
What’s more, the U.S. has effectively adopted Japanese- style industrial policy, or a government-business partnership. In the case of GM, it happens to be partnering with itself.
What about other industries that are constrained by bloated inventories? Why not offer a rebate to homeowners that trade in older, oil-heated houses for new ones using gas heat or solar panels? The government could even mandate that trade-in homes be scrapped (in this case scraped), paring inventories in the process.
If President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress think these programs are putting us on a path to wealth, they better start looking beyond the 2010 mid-term election.
Then again, what better way to demonstrate the benefits of fiscal stimulus than a parade of new, fuel-efficient vehicles cruising down a newly paved road?
(Caroline Baum, author of “Just What I Said,” is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)
To contact the writer of this column: Caroline Baum in New York at cabaum@bloomberg.net.
-
At the end of the day, it was Govt. money and wealth transfer that temporarily increased demand. The Govt. cannot give people money to buy cars for ever.
A real demand increase will be brought about by households with jobs, rising incomes, better financial situations etc. The govt. transferring 500,000 people money from other taxpayers doesn't constitute sustainable growth in the auto sector.
-
Please stop going on about the Stimulus.
I read the stupid USA today article also... Guess what... Just below that in the USA today gallop poll was a complete reversal where 65% of the respondents thought it was working.
You have yet to show me where it has failed... you're just talking some crap. You do not have an evidence to back that statement up.
It was supposed to create jobs.Its created ZRO jobs.I wuld think that would be obvious as to how its failing.
-
Decker - there is no enronoemntal impasct here other than a negative alot of the carbon foot print of car is in its mfg. Now that they are scrapping these cars, what is the impact of all these cars being trashed?
This stimulus is not doing shit other than allowing people to put more people in debt and screwing the dealers. Do you realize that the dealers still have not been paid by the Fed gov yet and have been floating allt his $$$$???
"Cars for Clunkers" is nothing more than welfare for middle class people.
There is a marginal environmental bump from the program. There's no denying that. Here's an article dumping on that effect:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32290028/ns/us_news-environment/
The main thrust of CFC was as economic stimulus. That worked extremely well.
Here's an article pointing out the safety improvement benefits, gas consumption reduction, etc.
Why 'Cash for Clunkers' workshttp://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/09/hidary.cash.clunkers/index.html
These points are never raised on these boards and they show CFC as an extremely effective stimulus plan with multiple benefits.
-
It was supposed to create jobs.Its created ZERO jobs.
I thought GM added 1500 jobs this month?
-
There is a marginal environmental bump from the program. There's no denying that. Here's an article dumping on that effect:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32290028/ns/us_news-environment/
The main thrust of CFC was as economic stimulus. That worked extremely well.
Here's an article pointing out the safety improvement benefits, gas consumption reduction, etc.
Why 'Cash for Clunkers' workshttp://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/09/hidary.cash.clunkers/index.html
These points are never raised on these boards and they show CFC as an extremely effective stimulus plan with multiple benefits.
Ok, yes, for now, but what happens when the subsidy ends?
You are going to have a massive drop off in demand as the demand has all been frotnted by the govt payment of $4500. as soon as that ends, so will the sales.
-
Talk about not seeing the logic.
It's a temporary boost in sales and demand that was brought about by a govt. spending program that transfers wealth and tax dollars around to sell cars and put more people in debt. This isn't demand and consumption brought on by an economic recovery, rising wages, decreasing U.E., more availability of credit etc etc.
Yes, the CFC program worked, it worked to bring forward demand from future quarters, take affordable old cars off the road and put many people in more debt. When this program ends, what will happen to demand? When demand falls to baseline or drops off, there will be no need for these new workers anymore.
All sales subject to ebb and flow. I don't understand your point.
You miss the larger point that simply stimulating the sale of new cars rings out through the economy--parts, distributors, mechanics, better mileage meaning less oil consumed meaning a positive effect on our trade deficit.
When you think CFC through, it is very effective as a stimulus program.
Not seeing the big picture at all, are we? That food will be on the table as long as there is demand for the cars that is brought about by a temporary govt. spending program. And even with CFC's Ford and, I believe, Hyundai were the only automakers to post month over month sales gains.
As I pointed out, it is your perspective that is slight. The benefits of these one time car sales will ring through the economy for years to come.
-
Ok, yes, for now, but what happens when the subsidy ends?
You are going to have a massive drop off in demand as the demand has all been frotnted by the govt payment of $4500. as soon as that ends, so will the sales.
And so will the national debt and deficits we have to pay to finance this program that benefits some at the expense of everyone else.
-
excerpts from ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON by Henry Hazlitt
Chapter II, "The Broken Window"
_________
-
A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker’s shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some glazier. As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? Two hundred and fifty dollars? That will be quite a sun. After all, if windows were never broken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $250 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $250 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor.
Now let us take another look. The crowd is at least right in its first conclusion. This little act of vandalism will in the first instance mean more business for some glazier. The glazier will be no more unhappy to learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death. But the shopkeeper will be out $250 that he was planning to spend for a new suit. Because he has had to replace the window, he will have to go without the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury). Instead of having a window and $250 he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit. If we think of him as part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer.
The glazier’s gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor’s loss of business. No new “employment” has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier. They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new window in the next day or two. They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye.*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- excerpted from Chapter II of Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. Find the book at http://www.FreedomKeys.com/bkecon.htm here.
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ___
DECKER - THIS WAS WRITTEN 60 YEARS AGO.
DO YOU REALIZE THE FALLACY OF CASH FOR CLUNKERS NOW???
I'm sorry but I don't have any more time to waste on the folksy bullshit of libertarian Austrian "economists". That numbnutz Bastiat coined this nonsense and you seem to have taken it to heart.
The only problem with this folksy tale - i.e., not economic - is that all analogies break down. Just like the broken window fallacy. The stimulus worked, the jobs are increasing, the related car maintenance is creating more demand-more jobs.
-
Ok, yes, for now, but what happens when the subsidy ends?
You are going to have a massive drop off in demand as the demand has all been frotnted by the govt payment of $4500. as soon as that ends, so will the sales.
As I pointed out, all sales are peristaltic in nature...ebb and flow.
The cars purchased with the CFC program will continue to provide stimulus through the years. Once the economy is humming again and people are back at work, there should be no discernible drop off in sales.
Just read that article.
No stimulu plan is targeted towards permanence.
-
As I pointed out, all sales are peristaltic in nature...ebb and flow.
The cars purchased with the CFC program will continue to provide stimulus through the years. Once the economy is humming again and people are back at work, there should be no discernible drop off in sales.
Just read that article.
No stimulu plan is targeted towards permanence.
But we will be left with the debt, inflation, and dimunution of the value of the dollar that it took to do this. You will also have many peiople in debt and default over this.
You helped some people, but you hurt many others.
-
But we will be left with the debt, inflation, and dimunution of the value of the dollar that it took to do this. You will also have many peiople in debt and default over this.
You helped some people, but you hurt many others.
Not if they are rich.
Soak the rich says I.
They can afford the expenditures.
-
Not if they are rich.
Soak the rich says I.
They can afford the expenditures.
You are clueless Decker- seriously clueless.
Anyone with a dollar in their pocket is hurt by inflation and the devaluing of the dollar.
-
You are clueless Decker- seriously clueless.
Anyone with a dollar in their pocket is hurt by inflation and the devaluing of the dollar.
And here I go to the dual trouble of playing to your prejudice and offering you free advice in another thread.
This is my thanks from you.
And a final note about your fear of debt...most growth is predicated on debt.
-
And here I go to the dual trouble of playing to your prejudice and offering you free advice in another thread.
This is my thanks from you.
And a final note about your fear of debt...most growth is predicated on debt.
Debt to finance a business or home is good debt.
Debt to finance consumption is not.
-
You are clueless Decker- seriously clueless.
Anyone with a dollar in their pocket is hurt by inflation and the devaluing of the dollar.
That's not true at all... Devaluation of the dollar helps our export businesses immensely. Inflation is a very necessary part of economic growth over a long term trend.
Who was your economy teacher?
-
That's not true at all... Devaluation of the dollar helps our export businesses immensely. Inflation is a very necessary part of economic growth over a long term trend.
Who was your economy teacher?
The average worker who gets a paycheck has less purchasing power. Why do you think it takes two incomes now to do what used to be possible one one income?
Your dollar is worthless and worth less due to inflation.
-
The average worker who gets a paycheck has less purchasing power. Why do you think it takes two incomes now to do what used to be possible one one income?
It doesn't... People WANT more. As inflation has gone up, so has salaries... Your paycheck can buy the same stuff it could before, but people aren't happy with that.
People used to have one regular average TV. Now they WANT 3 TVs all flat panel, all over 23 inches and one must be attached to surround sound and be at least 46 inches.
Don't tell me crap about inflation when it's not the value of the dollar... It's what people consider to be "valuable".
-
It doesn't... People WANT more. As inflation has gone up, so has salaries... Your paycheck can buy the same stuff it could before, but people aren't happy with that.
People used to have one regular average TV. Now they WANT 3 TVs all flat panel, all over 23 inches and one must be attached to surround sound and be at least 46 inches.
Don't tell me crap about inflation when it's not the value of the dollar... It's what people consider to be "valuable".
I agree with you on that.
I am referring to staples such as food, housing, cars, etc.
Additionally, the inflation caused salaries in the public sector to increase greatly requiring high levels taxation on the local and state level as well in order to finance their operations.
-
Hahaaha!!!
Ya, GM is higher than BMW.
Get real.
The survey came from Michigan, eh?
-
I agree with you on that.
I am referring to staples such as food, housing, cars, etc.
Additionally, the inflation caused salaries in the public sector to increase greatly requiring high levels taxation on the local and state level as well in order to finance their operations.
That may be possible, but again, let's look at this with just simple numbers... you make 100K and let's say you pay 30K in taxes.
Inflation goes up, so does your check... let's say inflation goes up 1%... Your salary goes up 1% and your tax rate stays the same, but because you got paid more and therefore more will go in to pay that extra 1 percent in raises for the government employees... You're going to break even.
Your taxes are not going up because of inflation, they are simply giving the employee of the government that extra 1 percent they got from you.
It's not quite as simple as that, but it's not what you're making it out to be.
-
That may be possible, but again, let's look at this with just simple numbers... you make 100K and let's say you pay 30K in taxes.
Inflation goes up, so does your check... let's say inflation goes up 1%... Your salary goes up 1% and your tax rate stays the same, but because you got paid more and therefore more will go in to pay that extra 1 percent in raises for the government employees... You're going to break even.
Your taxes are not going up because of inflation, they are simply giving the employee of the government that extra 1 percent they got from you.
It's not quite as simple as that, but it's not what you're making it out to be.
Not true - many items are not included in the core index that grealy impact the consumer. Additionally, as your income goes up, you get thrown into higher brackets of taxation and end up netting less $ as a result.
-
3 I just Amazoned that book.
It better be worth it or else it's YOUR ASS!!!!
>:(
-
3 I just Amazoned that book.
It better be worth it or else it's YOUR ASS!!!!
>:(
Its the number one selling economics book of all time.
-
Debt to finance a business or home is good debt.
Debt to finance consumption is not.
I would heartily disagree with you. So would credit card companies.
-
I would heartily disagree with you. So would credit card companies.
Ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!! Your kidding right???? No serious, tell me you are not joking.
Of course the credit card companies disagree me with me, they benefit off of debt slavery of millions of people.
Going into debt to finance depreciating items is the dumbest thing I could imagine.
Serious, please tell me how financing TV's, clothes, etc is a good thing?
-
Ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!! Your kidding right???? No serious, tell me you are not joking.
Of course the credit card companies disagree me with me, they benefit off of debt slavery of millions of people.
Going into debt to finance depreciating items is the dumbest thing I could imagine.
Serious, please tell me how financing TV's, clothes, etc is a good thing?
I use credit cards all the time. In fact, last december I bought a 46" LCD TV with a credit card.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
Why just this afternoon I bought a sub at Subway with a credit card. It was tasty.
You see 333333, when people buy goods on credit, they create a demand on supply. That means jobs and prosperity.
-
I use credit cards all the time. In fact, last december I bought a 46" LCD TV with a credit card.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
Why just this afternoon I bought a sub at Subway with a credit card. It was tasty.
You see 333333, when people buy goods on credit, they create a demand on supply. That means jobs and prosperity.
Oh lord. Unless you pay off your balance in full, you are likely paying double for the same item.
-
Oh lord. Unless you pay off your balance in full, you are likely paying double for the same item.
That, I would agree with.
The credit card companies never heard of fucking usury laws.
-
That, I would agree with.
The credit card companies never heard of fucking usury laws.
No kidding, its criminal. If you lent money out on your own like they did, you would be in jail. I hate the credit card companies.
-
That may be possible, but again, let's look at this with just simple numbers... you make 100K and let's say you pay 30K in taxes.
Inflation goes up, so does your check... let's say inflation goes up 1%... Your salary goes up 1% and your tax rate stays the same, but because you got paid more and therefore more will go in to pay that extra 1 percent in raises for the government employees... You're going to break even.
Your taxes are not going up because of inflation, they are simply giving the employee of the government that extra 1 percent they got from you.
It's not quite as simple as that, but it's not what you're making it out to be.
I admit I didn't read all the responses in this thread, maybe you should admit to not reading the entire article. The plant was scheduled to close in september of 2011, now its going to close in november of 2011. HOLY FUCK, I JUST SHIT MY PANTS, TWO EXTRA MONTHS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
That may be possible, but again, let's look at this with just simple numbers... you make 100K and let's say you pay 30K in taxes.
Inflation goes up, so does your check... let's say inflation goes up 1%... Your salary goes up 1% and your tax rate stays the same, but because you got paid more and therefore more will go in to pay that extra 1 percent in raises for the government employees... You're going to break even.
Your taxes are not going up because of inflation, they are simply giving the employee of the government that extra 1 percent they got from you.
It's not quite as simple as that, but it's not what you're making it out to be.
wtf?
-
wtf?
Expound please
-
Expound please
what the fvck ;)
-
what the fvck ;)
Haha, you don't say?
-
wtf?
Please explain then how my statement is incorrect... Apparently your ability to comprehend math must be greater than mine. ::)
I admit I didn't read all the responses in this thread, maybe you should admit to not reading the entire article. The plant was scheduled to close in september of 2011, now its going to close in november of 2011. HOLY FUCK, I JUST SHIT MY PANTS, TWO EXTRA MONTHS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I read what the OP posted... That's all.
So yes, you're right... I didn't read the article. I read what was posted. If you're going to post a piece of an article, why not the entire thing?
How does that negate anything I've stated.
Oh right... It doesn't.
-
Please explain then how my statement is incorrect... Apparently your ability to comprehend math must be greater than mine. ::)
I read what the OP posted... That's all.
So yes, you're right... I didn't read the article. I read what was posted. If you're going to post a piece of an article, why not the entire thing?
How does that negate anything I've stated.
Oh right... It doesn't.
I was just stating that the plant is going to close two months later now, no real effect on anything.
-
That thinking worked out great with mortgages and home equitiy loans didnt it?
We are in this financial mess because of debt, and you think it is a good thing to encourage more debt after the beating the economy took due to bad debt in the housing market?
How dumb can some people be not to realize that the govt is doing the same thing autos that they did with homes?
So what do you and Bindare want me to say? Nobody buy anything? Don't create demand? People will always be in some kind of debt.
Even if the jobs are temporary, it is still jobs that these people will be able to feed their families with, I'm sure they are happy to be working right now is my point. That is never a bad thing.
I hear what you guys are saying, I don't totally agree with this program, but comparing car buying to the mortgage scandals(which are two totally different things because dealerships didn't inflate a false demand like banks did with homes) is crazy.
1. Do I like people buying cars with taxpayer money? Nope
2. Does this mean that people can't afford these cars? Nope. People still have secure jobs and might have been in the market anyways...this just made them buy sooner. That is my point fellas. I think it is stupid to tell people they shouldn't be buying cars. It's their money...I figured you guys would be all about that considering it's about personal freedom.
3. 333 and Bindare, calling me dumb isn't helping the problem.
-
So what do you and Bindare want me to say? Nobody buy anything? Don't create demand? People will always be in some kind of debt.
Even if the jobs are temporary, it is still jobs that these people will be able to feed their families with, I'm sure they are happy to be working right now is my point. That is never a bad thing.
I hear what you guys are saying, I don't totally agree with this program, but comparing car buying to the mortgage scandals(which are two totally different things because dealerships didn't inflate a false demand like banks did with homes) is crazy.
1. Do I like people buying cars with taxpayer money? Nope
2. Does this mean that people can't afford these cars? Nope. People still have secure jobs and might have been in the market anyways...this just made them buy sooner. That is my point fellas. I think it is stupid to tell people they shouldn't be buying cars. It's their money...I figured you guys would be all about that considering it's about personal freedom.
3. 333 and Bindare, calling me dumb isn't helping the problem.
did not want to imply you were dumb, only that many people are overlooking many negatives of this program that will reveal thesmelves later.
Of course it looks good at first blush, but upon further examination and recent history, the fallacies of programs like become more and more evident.
-
Please explain then how my statement is incorrect... Apparently your ability to comprehend math must be greater than mine. ::)
I read what the OP posted... That's all.
So yes, you're right... I didn't read the article. I read what was posted. If you're going to post a piece of an article, why not the entire thing?
How does that negate anything I've stated.
Oh right... It doesn't.
I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. were you suggesting that wages always keep up with inflation?
-
I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. were you suggesting that wages always keep up with inflation?
No... I don't have that as a fact.
I can however state confidently that in the past 15 years since I've been regularly employed that my wages have in fact kept up with inflation, if not surpassed the inflation curve.
-
No... I don't have that as a fact.
I can however state confidently that in the past 15 years since I've been regularly employed that my wages have in fact kept up with inflation, if not surpassed the inflation curve.
Thats great but the national average isn't. The year is a bit old but it is a trend that happens more often than not.
On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that hourly earnings of production workers - nonmanagement workers ranging from nurses and teachers to hamburger flippers and assembly-line workers - fell 1.1 percent in June, after accounting for inflation. The June drop, the steepest decline since the depths of recession in mid-1991, came after a 0.8 percent fall in real hourly earnings in May.
Coming on top of a 12-minute drop in the average workweek, the decline in the hourly rate last month cut deeply into workers' pay. In June, production workers took home $525.84 a week, on average. After accounting for inflation, this is about $8 less than they were pocketing last January, and is the lowest level of weekly pay since October 2001.
-
Thats great but the national average isn't. The year is a bit old but it is a trend that happens more often than not.
On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that hourly earnings of production workers - nonmanagement workers ranging from nurses and teachers to hamburger flippers and assembly-line workers - fell 1.1 percent in June, after accounting for inflation. The June drop, the steepest decline since the depths of recession in mid-1991, came after a 0.8 percent fall in real hourly earnings in May.
Coming on top of a 12-minute drop in the average workweek, the decline in the hourly rate last month cut deeply into workers' pay. In June, production workers took home $525.84 a week, on average. After accounting for inflation, this is about $8 less than they were pocketing last January, and is the lowest level of weekly pay since October 2001.
So you're saying I'm lucky... Isn't that what the Republicans care about? Themselves? Why all of a sudden a worry about someone else?
Isn't that a Socialist idea?
-
So you're saying I'm lucky... Isn't that what the Republicans care about? Themselves? Why all of a sudden a worry about someone else?
Isn't that a Socialist idea?
no, what he is saying is that you are not typical of the average worker.