Employment in the Auto Industry

[Dave]

>>Employment in the Auto Industry
>>Looks like it's thriving.
>>
>>http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iagauto.htm

EMPLOYMENT, SEASONALLY ADJUSTED (some data preliminary and subject to revision)
All employees, in thousands
____________________________4/2011____4/2012____Change
Motor vehi. & parts MANUFACT________712.4_____ 763.8____+51.4
Motor vehicle and parts dealers_______1,680.5___1,717.7____+40.4
Automobile dealers_________________1,049.7___1,079.9____+33.4

[Riverwind]

Romney said let them go under, which would have cost thousands of jobs, the President bailed them out, now they are health and thriving.

River

[bobover3]

It's good that employment is up in the auto industry. That means production is up.

Follow Dave's link to see some less-good news. For auto manufacturing (where the President did his bail-out), hourly wages and number of hours worked (not seasonally adjusted) have declined in the same period. It looks like a deal was struck to hire more people but to pay them less.

The figures for the US auto industry include employees of Japanese, Korean, and other foreign manufacturers with US factories. The weak dollar has made the US a place for low-cost manufacturing by foreign companies, like the Asian countries used to be.

Finally, much of US auto production is for export. It's sales in China and others that are keeping us afloat.

[Riverwind]

So they are making a little less as apposed to?


River

[devi]

It looks like President Obama had made the right decisions regarding the auto industry. Most of us (me included) said at that time it would be better to go ahead and let the industry go. Probably President Obama's success wasn't due to just his supporting the industry finanacially but more because he knew how to use a certain amount of leverage in order to change much the corporate structure of GM including the firing of the bastard CEO at that time.

[A-1]

It looks like President Obama had made the right decisions regarding the auto industry. Most of us (me included) said at that time it would be better to go ahead and let the industry go. Probably President Obama's success wasn't due to just his supporting the industry financially but more because he knew how to use a certain amount of leverage in order to change much the corporate structure of GM including the firing of the bastard CEO at that time.

Yep!

...and if memory serves that "bastard" is the "bastard" who made the decision to call in all of the EV-1 electric car leases so that GM could smash them and to start building Humvees to replace them. See here...

Perfectly good electric cars, well designed and a true innovation were smashed so that GM would not have to go against the oil industry one of who's former CEO's was none other than George W. Bush.

Consequently, Rick Wagoner was FIRED when GM was bailed out because of this (and other) stupid decision(s).

Luckily, he got a 20 MILLION golden parachute... which should ALSO be outlawed...

See "Revenge of the Electric Car..." it is HATED by Tea Party and Republican activists EVERYWHERE...

[Mac]

And the Auto companies continue to screw their salaried employees and retirees.

Ford Motor Company took away their medical coverage for salaried retirees at age 65 about 3 years ago. Now they are cancelling the salary pension plan with buyouts beginning in July. General Motors has also announced their intent to follow with termination of their salary pension plan and retiree medical. These benefits were promised to the retirees during their years of active employment as incentives to retain them. Why should these plan terminations be allowed when the UAW union has been allowed to keep their pension plans and retiree medical coverages? Looks like government preference to a certain voting block.

Don't tell me that I am full of s**t as I know what I am talking about. I am one of the effected people. Look it up on the web.

[Dave]

I have this awful vision of a world where no company has a retirement plan and that only Social Security and IRA's or 401's or whatever personal financial instruments you have will be any sort of retirement plans.
More than just the auto industry have screwed their employees out of retirement funds and medical insurance.

[Riverwind]

How true, here in Wisconsin the governor killed the state pensions. Your right Dave, the only thing that will be left is Social Security and that is under attack by the republican daily for the last 75 years.

If they ever win that battle then nobody will have retirement except of course



River

[moi621]

I wonder how the Toyota assembly plants in America are faring?
Last I heard, a Toyota built in America was more perfect then the same model built in Japan.
Are their workers "happy"?

Moi

[A-1]

And the Auto companies continue to screw their salaried employees and retirees.

Ford Motor Company took away their medical coverage for salaried retirees at age 65 about 3 years ago. Now they are cancelling the salary pension plan with buyouts beginning in July. General Motors has also announced their intent to follow with termination of their salary pension plan and retiree medical. These benefits were promised to the retirees during their years of active employment as incentives to retain them. Why should these plan terminations be allowed when the UAW union has been allowed to keep their pension plans and retiree medical coverages? Looks like government preference to a certain voting block.

Don't tell me that I am full of s**t as I know what I am talking about. I am one of the effected people. Look it up on the web.

Sincere feelings of regret that they did this to you. As you know, Mitt Romney, and the Republicans in general do not care if you have Medical expense coverage or not.

They would do away with Medicare, too, if they had the chance to do it. I do not understand how anybody in your position can continue to support them, mac.

Oh yes, they blame it on Obama, sure. Obama has pushed through medical expense coverage for all Americans. The Republicans STILL try to repeal it. The STUPID Republican Congressman from my district is a former heart surgeon and he just campaigned on a platform to "...repeal Obamacare".

After this and what they did to Dick Lugar as far as I am concerned ALL of the Republicans can all go straight to hell. I would not vote for them under ANY circumstances. AND THAT IS PUTTING IT AS MILDLY AS I KNOW HOW.

THEY SUPPORT bastards like this one who is too cheap to pay even the 15% Capital Gains and Dividends taxes... Eduardo Saverin

As far as I am concerned people like the bastard Saverin need AND DESERVE the same thing that binLaden got. They DO NOT care that people like mac have no medical coverage. They just don't give a damn about people. Republicans. PISS ON THEM!

They are like a bunch of contemporary blood-sucking vampires that we see in the new horror movies. They are attractive as Hell to the poor people and the honest Tea Party folks and twice as evil. They have this whole class under their spell. They suck money instead of your blood and the poor and destitute are all entranced enough to let them...

WASHINGTON -- Populist anger at Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin's decision to renounce his U.S. citizenship -- a move that could save him hundreds of millions in taxes if his Facebook stock gains value after the company goes public on Friday -- has inspired two senators to propose legislation that could hit Saverin with heavy taxes and bar him from ever reentering the United States.

Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.) are unveiling the Ex-PATRIOT Act, which stands for "Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy," on Thursday. The bill would force anyone who "expatriates for a substantial tax purpose -- as judged by the Internal Revenue Service" to pay a mandatory 30 percent tax on future capital gains. The ex-citizens would also be turned back at the border if they ever tried to come back.

"This is a great American success story gone horribly wrong," Schumer told reporters Thursday. "Eduardo Saverin wants to defriend the United States of America just to avoid paying taxes. We aren't going to let him get away with it."

Schumer called Saverin's behavior "outrageous," arguing that "Saverin has turned his back on the country that welcomed him and kept him safe, educated him and helped him become a billionaire."

Schumer also predicted the GOP would go along with the measure.

"Why wouldn't they?" he said. Casey added, "I'd like to hear the reason why not."

According to his lawyer, Saverin renounced his citizenship in September, although his name just showed up on an Internal Revenue Service list two weeks ago, and has become a permanent resident of Singapore.

The New York Times on Thursday reported that Saverin said he had been misunderstood when it came to allegations of tax avoidance. "I'm not a tax expert," he told the Times. "We complied with all the known laws. There was an exit tax."

The tax laws that apply to extremely rich people who renounce their citizenship are, not surprisingly, hideously complex. (Here are two tax professors trying to explain some of the many variables.)

On the one hand, Saverin's renunciation left him on the hook for an "exit tax" on the estimated capital gains from his stock holdings at the time of his renunciation. Bloomberg estimates that levy will cost him about $365 million, but could be deferred indefinitely until he sells his shares.

Bloomberg also calculates that renouncing his citizenship in September, as Saverin did, should save him about $67 million in income taxes versus renouncing his citizenship today, because his attorneys could argue that his Facebook stock was worth less then that it is now.

The big advantage for Saverin is that, assuming the price of Facebook stock continues to rise, any future gains will not be subject to tax at all, because Singapore doesn't tax capital gains.

Saverin's Facebook stock, thought to be about 4 percent of the total, is likely to be worth $3 billion to $4 billion as of Friday. If the price doubles over time, not having to pay capital gains tax would save him $600 million at the current 15 percent U.S. rate, which could go up in the future.

Noting that there are other ways for the ultra-wealthy to finagle income taxes, the Times suggested the thinking behind Saverin's citizenship renunciation could have had more to do with estate and gift taxes. "Mr. Saverin’s decision to leave could have been a wager that the cost of an exit tax now -- 15 percent of whatever valuation he could get the Internal Revenue Service to agree to -- would be far less than the 35 percent or more in estate tax his heirs would face on his holdings when he died," the Times wrote.

There is already a law on the books, dating back to 1996, that prohibits the issuance of visas to former citizens who renounced their citizenship to avoid U.S. taxation. But it requires a finding by the attorney general, and has rarely, if ever, been enforced. A Justice Department spokesman reached by HuffPost was unable to find any information about enforcement one way or the other.

Yale Law professor Bruce Ackerman on Wednesday wrote an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times lamenting the rise of "Citizens of Davosland," who "can look with disdain upon the struggling 99.9% who believe that a commitment to their country is a lifetime affair."

He noted that "[t]he number of Americans renouncing their citizenship grew from 238 in 2008 to 1,534 in 2010. This sixfold increase no doubt includes a hefty portion of super-rich cosmopolitans."

Ackerman proposed legislation much like Schumer and Casey's, arguing, "If an American wishes to separate himself from this country and its people, he is taking a step of deep significance. He should not be able to easily return and brag to his friends about the billions he is making by evading civic responsibilities."

But David Jones, an immigration lawyer with the labor and employment law firm Jackson Lewis, said some people have legitimate, non-tax-related reasons to renounce their citizenship and shouldn't be punished for their actions.

"What might be more sensible, if the government can show that you're trying to avoid taxes, is not making the renunciation effective," Jones said. "That would probably be a more useful tool -- or not making it effective for tax purposes."

UPDATE: 5:48 p.m. -- In a statement issued later on Thursday, Eduardo Saverin denied he was ungrateful to the United States.

He wrote, "My decision to expatriate was based solely on my interest in working and living in Singapore, where I have been since 2009. I am obligated to and will pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes to the United States government. I have paid and will continue to pay any taxes due on everything I earned while a U.S. citizen. It is unfortunate that my personal choice has led to a public debate, based not on the facts, but entirely on speculation and misinformation."

[Mac]

Our Congressmen, Senators and President (no matter which political party) are only out for themselves. They have voted themselves premium medical coverage (active & retirement), pension plan, and guaranteed annual salary increases. None of them care about any of us as long as they get what they want for themselves.

[IEunuch]

Our Congressmen, Senators and President (no matter which political party) are only out for themselves. They have voted themselves premium medical coverage (active & retirement), pension plan, and guaranteed annual salary increases. None of them care about any of us as long as they get what they want for themselves.

Replied to for truth, in hopes that having read it twice, it will sink in with more people.

[A-1]

Our Congressmen, Senators and President (no matter which political party) are only out for themselves. They have voted themselves premium medical coverage (active & retirement), pension plan, and guaranteed annual salary increases. None of them care about any of us as long as they get what they want for themselves.

Yes, I understand where you are coming from with that.

You know, at least SOME of them cared enough to put a plan in place. That is, a majority at that time and the majority was Democrats. Then, the financial clout of the medical world takes over and politics demands that it be repealed. Or perhaps I should have said GREED.

So now the rich, greedy Republican Party wants to take it back? Well, piss on them! I will vote Democratic.

[Riverwind]

Our Congressmen, Senators and President (no matter which political party) are only out for themselves. They have voted themselves premium medical coverage (active & retirement), pension plan, and guaranteed annual salary increases. None of them care about any of us as long as they get what they want for themselves.

Yes these 550 people set it all up just for them, the president of a major corporation makes oh 50 million give or take a year plus bonuses the president of the United States makes oh 350K but gets to fly around in a world class airplane, the rest get less, I see your point Mac, they are in it for the money.

I know this is why Romney is in the running for president, that 42Million a year is hardly enough to live on he needs to be president just to make ends meet.


Mac, of all the things you have posted, this ranks right up there at the top.


River