[OAC_Sparky]

NefCanuck,Nov 16 2007, 02:39 PM Wrote:No, I understand that, but my question was: Did they make more money taking the cut then and being laid off now and on EI versus getting thrown on EI back then with no wage consession by the CAW? [right][snapback]252959[/snapback][/right]

The result would likely have been the same. They still would have worked as long (they don't close a plant at the drop of a hat -- they're phased out) and made more money.

Quote:Thing is:  Where else can Ford (or any other automaker) cut?  There are certain fixed costs that they can do nothing about (capital costs are one example) so they look at the only cost where they believe that they have flexibility, that being wages.

The last I checked, Big 2.5 CEOs and their underlings still get paid 10x th amount of their Asian counterparts. Seeing that a Big 2.5 hourly worker makes 1.15x what one does at a Asian transplant factory, I would say there is plenty of room.

Quote:Which is of course a fool's errand, fewer people working, fewer people available to buy their product, not the mention all of the ancillary economic activity lost as a result of the terminated jobs and the wages they spawned.

That's only a small part of it. Considering I pay at least $70 000 a year in property, income and sales taxes a year, the money would start flowing the other way; drawing $20 000 out of the system on EI. That's a $90G cost to the taxpayer.