Posted on 02/08/2013 11:59:35 AM PST by blam
In the US, it takes about 30 hours total, for the body, engine, transmission, assembly, paint, etc. doesn't include things like outsourced parts and mining the ore (or recycling old cars). the labor costs from $55-$70 per hour including benefits so about $2100 per car, or roughly 8% the cost of the average car. doesn't sound that high until you compare the Tata Nano, which costs $2500 total. Labor costs are higher at companies with older presences, because they tend to have more expensive health care, larger families, and because the pensions become more expensive over time. national health care and pensions would make doing business a lot easier. Ford and GM pay ~$70 and Toyota pays ~$55 [Source(s) unknown]. $70/hr sounds like a ton of money, but starting wage for laborers is only about $14/hr, which is barely enough to pay the bills in the US. The top earners make $29/hr. Health care and pensions cost equivalent of about $15/hr, vacation time, overtime, sick leave are the equivalent of roughly $10 per hour. Benefits for retirees are roughly $15/hr (this isn't really wages by most definitions but ends up in all the reports). Maybe its time for the US government to step up and provide reasonable health care for working and retired people who pay taxes all their lives?
Reference 2: The total labor cost of a new vehicle produced in the United States is about $2,400 which includes direct, indirect and salaried labor for engines, stamping and assembly at the automakers’ plants. This represents 8.4 percent of the typical $28,4513 price of a new vehicle in 2006. The vast majority of the costs of producing a vehicle and transporting it to a dealership and preparing it for sale – including design, engineering, marketing, raw materials, executive compensation and other costs – are not related to direct or indirect manufacturing labor.
Ok, that’s great. Where did you get these statements? Original sources, please.
I put a link to each reference, are you new to this internet thingy?
Your second reference is from the UAW, probably written by a UAW "economist". What a surprise! Don't you think an unbiased observer would conclude that this "source" could be seen as somewhat self-serving?
Sorry, you have done nothing to underpin your arguments by citing these "sources". In fact, considering your tone and your methods, you sound more and more like a union activist. I've met your type before. Are you new to this "rational argument supported by facts" thingy?
Get back to me when you have something solid to support your argument. Try sticking to the facts from unbiased sources and hold the sarcasm and ad hominem attacks that, I'm sure, are your next steps.
Hey Canuk you too busy to do any research? I will not be your research bitch. I say labor is 8% so prove me wrong or STFU.
So what do you IMAGINE the per labor vehicle labor cost is? Do you have a figure to pull out of your arse?
Hey, you came up with the initial statements, then you tried to back them up with union propaganda. Now you use sarcasm and ad hominem attacks, as if to make your point.
Buddy, prove your statements without using union propaganda or go home. They are YOUR STATEMENTS. It's your argument. In fact, don't bother, if I want sarcasm, ad hominem attacks and irrationality I'll call my ex wife.
Put up a number coward. What is it? 10%, 12%, 15 %. Then back it up. I can smell a free traitor a mile away. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH THEN FORM AN OPINION BASED ON FACT, not your FEEEEEELINGS. You are an embarrassment...Prove me wrong or STFU.
Here is the link. Click here.
Look at Table 2 Price/Cost Breakdown Based on Borroni-Bird Presentation
They have labor per vehicle at 6.5%. LOL I was too high!!!
Do some research it is fun! You should try it sometime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.