True, but engineers working for NASA are willing to accept a lower pay just for the opportunity to work for NASA. Those same engineers could probably work for Boeing or Lockheed and make twice that much.
Did you actually read the original post in this thread? An assembly line worker is not making $75/hour, he is making $25 hour. And If you want to compare "total expenses" then you should compare apples to apples and realize that "the top notch engineering talent" also ends up costing his employer twice his hourly rate, probably around $100-120 hr.
Careful. You might make his head explode if he actually tries to think about the bullshit he habitually spews.
Boeing and Lockheed engineers make less than civil servants. Unless you are in the top most senior positions.
The $60/hour figure is total expenses (salary, benefits, and overhead) On average for total expenses to the company: Auto assembly line worker - $75/hr Engineers for the next generation of space vehicles - $60/hr Granted the auto worker only "sees" $25/hr when the aerospace worker may "see" $30/hr - $35/hr due to lower benefits and overhead costs than the autoworker. I am all for some guy making money and lots of it. But there comes a point when you got to just bite the bullet and recognize your industry cannot support such above market expenses for labor and either reduce the burdened rate or go under.
a_person if you read the OP, he was referring to a statement made by someone on TV. That person said it cost $75 a man hour. he didn't say a worker got $75 an hour. those are two complete different statements. So you are right on the second half of your statement, but that wasn't what the person quoted by the OP said. I still cannot believe people can't rationally argue and debate on this site without sinking into the gutter with the namecalling.
Basically, at the mainline carriers in the US most AMT's pay anywhere from $250 to $500 a month now for healthcare insurance through their employers for a "family". This started at some airlines after the 1991 Gulf War and has now become the norm at most all other carriers since 9/11.
OK so $500/month divided by 21 8-hour workdays comes to less than $3/hour for AMT heathcare insurance. Does anybody still seriously think the Big 3 are giving UAW workers $20+/hour in healthcare insurance?
The $250 - $500 is what the employee pays for a family. The company pays much more than this, usually 3-4 times that amount. There are other benefits other than just health insurance: disability, life insurance, AD&D, unemployment, retirement (401k matching) etc. $20/hour for benefits is not unreasonable. If you look at the $75/hr you are talking about: $25 to salary $20 to benefits $30 to overhead Overhead covers everything not associated with the salary and benefits that is necessary to run a company (electricity for the plant, money to lease or purchase the plant, maintain the plant, hire security, salaries to the support staff that do not produce cars, coffee for the coffee makers, executive and management compensation, OSHA compliance, Sarbanes-Oxley compliance, EPA compliance, R&D, etc.) It all adds up. And that is just for straight time. The goes up by a minimum of $12.50/hr for overtime The bottom line is that the American worker in general is a costly proposition for any company. In the global competitive environment we live in the uneducated and unskilled are going to get hurt real bad. Even the educated and skilled are going to get hurt just not quite as soon or as much. The sooner folks realize this and accept it the sooner we as a country can find a way to mitigate this.