Quote:
Originally Posted by Wes
Three: if 10% labor is accurate, and $76/hr is accurate ...then one may logically derive that each auto brings in $760/hr as it moves down the line.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stentor
I am guessing you were not a math major!? data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5d2a9/5d2a9114f4d8872608a1ad7bf930186aa69bfe71" alt="Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)" I think your "logic" and calculations are flawed. data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a5a40/a5a40884dd3c337e593949d7d3f1f10e19abfa24" alt="Whacked"
|
You are quite correct Stentor. Good catch.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/985b2/985b28cc9049afcd8167cc85d5c5b8e5184dd58c" alt="Too Cool"
My bad.
I've been trying to avoid the apparent clumsy mixing of apples and oranges ever since the discord of the two opposing propogandas struck me.
It should read, "Three: if 10% labor
cost of total
cost is accurate per auto (by UAW), and $76/hr
cost is accurate per employee (by OEM) ...then one may logically derive that each auto
costs $760/hr to produce as it moves down the line."
Better? What do you calculate?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/88d74/88d7408b131df6b9fa732c449d04b6e640d3c151" alt="Confused"
No, really.
Wes
...