smackie wrote:What exactly is overhead? Well, I guess it's pretty much anything, if you're moving sale
Very well done.
Moderator: Jesus H Christ
smackie wrote:What exactly is overhead? Well, I guess it's pretty much anything, if you're moving sale
Smackie Chan wrote:They're resigned to the fact that they're not going to sell more product. The issue then becomes the cost of selling product versus profitability. If the ratio of profit to cost increases as a result of selling less product (and conversely decreases by selling more), it makes economic sense to close stores. Happens in retail all the time.Cuda wrote:if you have fewer people trying to sell your product, you're NOT going to sell more product.
WacoFan wrote:Flying any airplane that you can hear the radio over the roaring radial engine is just ghey anyway.... Of course, Cirri are the Miata of airplanes..
Overhead are those costs that are not directly traceable to a product. Pretty much every cost a manufacturing company carries except direct labor and direct materials is considered overhead.smackaholic wrote:Alright then, smartass. What exactly is overhead? Well, I guess it's pretty much anything, if you're moving sale, but, what is it with regards to expenses. And the complexity of the product sure the fukk does have everything to do with the % of labor costs. If you manufacture 10-32 x 3/4" stainless steel screws, your labor costs are pretty damn low. Your material costs are high.War Wagon wrote:Labor is most assuredly not a portion of overhead, you ignorant fuckwit. Furthermore, the complexity of the product has nothing whatsoever to do with the % of labor that any given product costs, be it a squadron of F-22's or a bag of hammers. And yes, if the labor to produce anything exceeds a certain threshold of the total cost, let's call it 30%, there's absolutely no way to make a profit.smackaholic wrote:There's no fukking way to say that labor has to be some predetermined % of cost. It depends on the complexity of the product. Cars are fairly complex and take a fair bit of labor to assemble. Same goes for planes. No fukking clue what the actual % is, but, to say it needs to be under 25 or any other number for manufacturing in general is almost as stupid as saying that labor is not overhead.
Many things... like rent, utilities, depreciation, insurance, shop expense, etc. One thing it most decidedly is not, is labor.smackaholic wrote: What exactly is overhead?
Pretty much, with two small exceptions. Outside labor and set-up labor, which are usually never more than about 5% of the total cost of the product.Rack Fu wrote: Overhead are those costs that are not directly traceable to a product. Pretty much every cost a manufacturing company carries except direct labor and direct materials is considered overhead.
That had fuck all to do with the quality or experience of their salespeople, dipshit. CC had been getting the stuffing beat out of it for years by Best Buy and Walmart and had been rendered insignificant. Their death march took a few years to complete.Cuda wrote:Circuit City is a great example of that. Sometime in 2007, the geniuses in charge decided they were paying their best salespeople too much in commissions- so they fired them. A year later, they had to liquidate and go out of business because the remaning salespeople weren't selling enough stuff. Very successful strategy
You've repeatedly shown yourself over the years to be an utterly retarded dipshit, but now you're dropping the bar to an all-time low. What the fuck does my employer have to do with the issue being discussed? Are you implying that only those who work in the private sector are privy to the secret machinations of economics? You make KN appear to be a Rhodes scholar by comparison.Cuda wrote:what the fuck would you know about it? you've never been in the private sector. all you've ever done is work for Auntie Sam.
Who said anything about raising prices? The purpose of closing stores or dealerships is to reduce the cost of selling goods while keeping prices attractive to consumers and profitable to manufacturers and sellers. Sure, they could potentially sell more units by keeping dealerships open or even opening more, but the cost to do so would be prohibitive and would pull down profits. You do realize that increased unit sales doesn't necessarily translate to greater bottom-line profit, don't you? And that increased unit price doesn't necessarily mean the company makes more money?you're right that the idea is not to sell more cars, but to raise prices- and that's not going to help them either because their prices are already too high. The dealers have to sell the econoshitboxes at a loss or else they don't sell at all. That's not going to change- at least not for the better.
Yes, it does. Retail chains routinely close stores during tough economic times, and open more when people are spending. Doesn't mean that the companies go out of business (though some do), but that a balance has to be maintained between supply and demand. As S&D fluctuates, so do the number of retail outlets. This is basic stuff, coods, though I'm not shocked that you fail to get it.Oh, but it happens in retail all the time, eh?
You're arguing against points I never made. Circuit City is a great example of a company that couldn't keep up with the competition. When did I ever suggest that firing your best employees was sound business practice? The auto industry may ultimately fall prey to the same forces that doomed CC, but in the meantime, it's trying to take steps that will ensure it can survive until what will hopefully be better business strategies take hold and the economy turns around. The formula RJ laid out suggests that rather than firing the employees (dealerships) that are performing, they're cutting loose the dead wood, which makes economic (not political) sense.Circuit City is a great example of that. Sometime in 2007, the geniuses in charge decided they were paying their best salespeople too much in commissions- so they fired them. A year later, they had to liquidate and go out of business because the remaning salespeople weren't selling enough stuff. Very successful strategy
For struggling companies that have multiple mfg. facilities located around the country or the world, overhead makes all the difference in deciding which plants to close and which plants stay open, even if they have identical labor costs.mvscal wrote: Labor might not be considered overhead, but it's still an operating cost and is built into the price structure of any product or service so you're making a distinction without any practical difference.
Stonie, the manufacturers don't fucking OWN the dealerships. They don't pay any of their expenses. Closing them doesn't do a fucking thing to reduce the cost of selling cars. The manufacturers sell their cars to THE DEALERS. They don't sell a fucking thing directly to the consumer. They make their profits from THE DEALERS, not from the public. Eliminating dealerships doesn't save the manufacturers a fucking dime. In the best case scenario, fewer dealers means less competition for buyers and increased sales prices. The flaw in that theory is the fact that higher prices will only ensure fewer sales- and lower profits.Smackie Chan wrote:Who said anything about raising prices? The purpose of closing stores or dealerships is to reduce the cost of selling goods while keeping prices attractive to consumers and profitable to manufacturers and sellers. Sure, they could potentially sell more units by keeping dealerships open or even opening more, but the cost to do so would be prohibitive and would pull down profits. You do realize that increased unit sales doesn't necessarily translate to greater bottom-line profit, don't you? And that increased unit price doesn't necessarily mean the company makes more money?you're right that the idea is not to sell more cars, but to raise prices- and that's not going to help them either because their prices are already too high. The dealers have to sell the econoshitboxes at a loss or else they don't sell at all. That's not going to change- at least not for the better.
OK, name three. On second thought, don't bother- GM & Chrysler aren't in the fucking retail business and they don't own their stores.Yes, it does. Retail chains routinely close stores during tough economic times, and open more when people are spending. Doesn't mean that the companies go out of business (though some do), but that a balance has to be maintained between supply and demand. As S&D fluctuates, so do the number of retail outlets. This is basic stuff, coods, though I'm not shocked that you fail to get it.Oh, but it happens in retail all the time, eh?
You're totally missing the real point: eliminating sales people will not result in increased sales- which, by the way is the exact reason we're being given for why the number of car dealerships need to be reduced; because, supposedly, that's the only way to increase sales!You're arguing against points I never made. Circuit City is a great example of a company that couldn't keep up with the competition. When did I ever suggest that firing your best employees was sound business practice? The auto industry may ultimately fall prey to the same forces that doomed CC, but in the meantime, it's trying to take steps that will ensure it can survive until what will hopefully be better business strategies take hold and the economy turns around.Circuit City is a great example of that. Sometime in 2007, the geniuses in charge decided they were paying their best salespeople too much in commissions- so they fired them. A year later, they had to liquidate and go out of business because the remaning salespeople weren't selling enough stuff. Very successful strategy
Well, you certainly overloaded it with bullshit, which only points out that you have no better understanding of business & commerce than War WagonI know I overloaded that last bit with way too many cliches, but I'm trying to make it simple for you to understand, cooter. I'm helpful like that.
WacoFan wrote:Flying any airplane that you can hear the radio over the roaring radial engine is just ghey anyway.... Of course, Cirri are the Miata of airplanes..
They're not closing plants right now you goddam moron, they're closing dealershipsWar Wagon wrote:For struggling companies that have multiple mfg. facilities located around the country or the world, overhead makes all the difference in deciding which plants to close and which plants stay open, even if they have identical labor costs.mvscal wrote: Labor might not be considered overhead, but it's still an operating cost and is built into the price structure of any product or service so you're making a distinction without any practical difference.
WacoFan wrote:Flying any airplane that you can hear the radio over the roaring radial engine is just ghey anyway.... Of course, Cirri are the Miata of airplanes..
The strike was 52 or 54 days, something like that. But for each day that they crybabies were out pushed the first flight back three days. So the strike cost Boeing something like 156 or 160 days.Diego in Seattle wrote: Please tell everyone how long the strike was, and how far the plane is behind schedule.
That is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen posted on this board. Yep Mgmt wanted the workers to strike. Yeah, Boeing wanted 15% raises for every worker, health care costs to employees capped at 2005 levels, and a bonus to the whiners just for signing a contract and coming back to work.Diego in Seattle wrote: that's why management wanted the strike.
Right, anything non-union supplied is to be blamed for the delay.Diego in Seattle wrote: Additionally, the delays with suppliers were huge...many were caused by non-union suppliers. They got what they paid for.
I have forgotten more than 10 times what you will ever know about manufacturing one. Get back to me when you have memorized the complete fuel system, wiring diagrams, complete hyd system, etc for a type rating.Diego in Seattle wrote: You might know how to fly a plane, but you don't know shit about manufacturing one.
Moving Sale wrote:I really are a fucking POS.
Softball Bat wrote: I am the dumbest motherfucker ever to post on the board.
.Cuda wrote: They're not closing plants right now you goddam moron, they're closing dealerships
Overhead costs don't make any difference to the bottom line?mvscal wrote: It doesn't make any difference, dolt. It's all opex. The fact that it rolls up to a different GL account doesn't effect the bottom line.
No, he's got it bang on. GM is in competition with themselves - there's a glut of dealerships all within ten blocks of each other. Increased sales and profitability aren't married at the hip - maximised profit comes from shortage, that's just basic economics, you should know this :?Cuda wrote: You're totally missing the real point: eliminating sales people will not result in increased sales- which, by the way is the exact reason we're being given for why the number of car dealerships need to be reduced; because, supposedly, that's the only way to increase sales!
Again, how far behind is the 787 program? Or were you intentionally leaving that out of your answer?Left Seater wrote:The strike was 52 or 54 days, something like that. But for each day that they crybabies were out pushed the first flight back three days. So the strike cost Boeing something like 156 or 160 days.Diego in Seattle wrote: Please tell everyone how long the strike was, and how far the plane is behind schedule.
Where the fuck did I say that Boeing wanted to give it's workers more? Try mixing in some reading comprehension skills.That is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen posted on this board. Yep Mgmt wanted the workers to strike. Yeah, Boeing wanted 15% raises for every worker, health care costs to employees capped at 2005 levels, and a bonus to the whiners just for signing a contract and coming back to work.Diego in Seattle wrote: that's why management wanted the strike.
So sorry to burst your bubble, but this is where most of the delays came from. They've said so themselves.Right, anything non-union supplied is to be blamed for the delay.Diego in Seattle wrote: Additionally, the delays with suppliers were huge...many were caused by non-union suppliers. They got what they paid for.
[/quote]I have forgotten more than 10 times what you will ever know about manufacturing one. Get back to me when you have memorized the complete fuel system, wiring diagrams, complete hyd system, etc for a type rating.Diego in Seattle wrote: You might know how to fly a plane, but you don't know shit about manufacturing one.
9/27/22“Left Seater” wrote:So charges are around the corner?
Finally, the commie gets a rack.Dr_Phibes wrote: - maximised profit comes from shortage, that's just basic economics, you should know this :?
WacoFan wrote:Flying any airplane that you can hear the radio over the roaring radial engine is just ghey anyway.... Of course, Cirri are the Miata of airplanes..
RJ wrote:The formula that was used to punk the immediate 1,100 dealers was looking at dealer sales, profitability, Customer Service Scores (CSI-which fucking SUCKED, im sure) and working capital (Cash in the bank).
The more you post, the more you show yourself to be an imbecile.Cuda wrote:the manufacturers don't fucking OWN the dealerships. They don't pay any of their expenses. Closing them doesn't do a fucking thing to reduce the cost of selling cars. The manufacturers sell their cars to THE DEALERS. They don't sell a fucking thing directly to the consumer. They make their profits from THE DEALERS, not from the public. Eliminating dealerships doesn't save the manufacturers a fucking dime.
While the estimates may be subject to debate, the fact that the automakers incur costs as a result of having to support the dealerships is not. Even the dealerships admit this:How much does having too many dealers cost Detroit's automakers?
According to the best publicly available estimate, about $436 per vehicle, or $3.9 billion, according to CNW Marketing Research in Bandon, Ore.
CNW has measured the cost through confidential research annually since 2002. The $436 figure represents the average of what General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and the Chrysler Group spend above the industry average.
The estimate, which is likely to be controversial, includes the cost of delivering vehicles to stores, as well as a variety of administrative expenses that automakers incur to support their dealers.
Those services include marketing assistance, parts and service support, training, auditing and other behind-the-scenes activities, such as communications about financing and new products. Many automakers maintain a fleet of salaried workers who provide this support and regularly visit dealerships.
But industry experts say GM, Ford and Chrysler need to streamline their dealership network. Having to provide all those services to thousands of unnecessary dealerships is a huge cost disadvantage for Detroit's automakers.
What I find unfathomable is this:"It costs them money to deal with us," said Mike Foley, who owns Foley Chrysler-Jeep outside Pittsburgh.
Probably?!? How the fuck don't they know what's contributing to their costs? Gee, tough for me to understand why the industry is floundering when they don't "put a pencil to it" and be able to provide numbers of their own. If they want to be taken seriously when they criticize the estimates for being excessively high, they should easily be able to refute them by providing their own calculations, which sound business practice would dictate is done as a matter of routine.Detroit's automakers all criticized the estimate as excessively high.
"There's probably some cost involved in having excess capacity," said Cisco Codina, Ford's group vice president for sales, marketing and service. He said CNW's number was too high, though he could not provide one of his own.
"I have not put a pencil to it," he said.
Screw_Michigan wrote: Democrats are the REAL racists.
Softball Bat wrote: Is your anus quivering?
Umm...my company has a little to do with the automotive industry. Actually, about 150 million little things to do with it yearly. Well, it used to. GM, Ford and Chrysler all use our products. GM and Chrysler have cut back....WAY back on their purchases from us. Now, I know car companies switch up thier product year in and year out, but I imagine all cars still have braking systems, no?Cuda wrote:Trouble is, neither Chrysler nor GM are even considering cutting their production.
Goober McTuber wrote:One last post...
Not in the "services" industry.Derron wrote:Overhead is always generally more than labor expense.
We have to know all about it so when the union hacks on the production line or the A&P union hacks that maintain them make a mistake it doesn't kill someone. Thankfully our company employes a wonderful A&P guy who is an employee and not a union hack.Diego wrote:You might know what the insides of a crop duster, but I highly doubt you know anything about manufacturing of commerical jets. Your statements of ignorance prove that.
The 787 is years behind schedule. But as I pointed out before, it would be in the air today but for the union strike. It still would have been behind schedule, but today May 18th it would be in the air. Fact is most new airplanes are behind their target delivery dates and first flight dates. That is why discounts are offered for the early delivery positions. We just saw it happen with that hiddeous A380, and it will happen with the A350 also.Again, how far behind is the 787 program? Or were you intentionally leaving that out of your answer?
Moving Sale wrote:I really are a fucking POS.
Softball Bat wrote: I am the dumbest motherfucker ever to post on the board.
why would GM keep buying from you when most of their production is shifting to their factories in China?IndyFrisco wrote:Umm...my company has a little to do with the automotive industry. Actually, about 150 million little things to do with it yearly. Well, it used to. GM, Ford and Chrysler all use our products. GM and Chrysler have cut back....WAY back on their purchases from us. Now, I know car companies switch up thier product year in and year out, but I imagine all cars still have braking systems, no?Cuda wrote:Trouble is, neither Chrysler nor GM are even considering cutting their production.
So not sure where you are getting your information but I know where I get mine on the subject. Oh yes...production is being cut for damn sure.
WacoFan wrote:Flying any airplane that you can hear the radio over the roaring radial engine is just ghey anyway.... Of course, Cirri are the Miata of airplanes..
I don't know. Maybe because we have factories in China too? We also have factories in Thailand, Poland, Ireland, and Mexico as well as some in the good ole US of A. Additionally, we know when we win or lose a bid for product. When there is no offer for a product, we can't bid on it. They aren't dropping us as a supplier, they just aren't ordering as much which we know they plan on slowing production.Cuda wrote:why would GM keep buying from you when most of their production is shifting to their factories in China?IndyFrisco wrote:Umm...my company has a little to do with the automotive industry. Actually, about 150 million little things to do with it yearly. Well, it used to. GM, Ford and Chrysler all use our products. GM and Chrysler have cut back....WAY back on their purchases from us. Now, I know car companies switch up thier product year in and year out, but I imagine all cars still have braking systems, no?Cuda wrote:Trouble is, neither Chrysler nor GM are even considering cutting their production.
So not sure where you are getting your information but I know where I get mine on the subject. Oh yes...production is being cut for damn sure.
Goober McTuber wrote:One last post...
WacoFan wrote:Flying any airplane that you can hear the radio over the roaring radial engine is just ghey anyway.... Of course, Cirri are the Miata of airplanes..
What fucking planet do you live on?Cuda wrote:
neither Chrysler nor GM are even considering cutting their production.
War Wagon wrote:What fucking planet do you live on?Cuda wrote:
neither Chrysler nor GM are even considering cutting their production.
They've been idling assembly lines for the past 6 months .
WacoFan wrote:Flying any airplane that you can hear the radio over the roaring radial engine is just ghey anyway.... Of course, Cirri are the Miata of airplanes..
I'm sure that has Marty plenty steamed and by extension, his sycophant CoodsWhile many would expect the U.S. to be the big loser here, virtually all of the related production loss occurs in Canada.
who held the majority of interest in Chrysler, be it secured or unsecured? simple answer-the Union did...they have no intention of killing Chrysler off, because if they do, there goes their retirement benefits, etc.mvscal wrote:And the rights of secured creditors to get paid before unsecured creditors in bankruptcy proceedings?BSmack wrote:the rights of workers to bargain collectively.
Bueller? Anyone?
The most successful parasites don't kill their hosts.
If they'd filed Chapter 7, I'd agree with you that the secured debtors should be payed first, but this was a chapter 11 reorganization so I think Obama was asking everyone (UAW included) to make some serious concessions in order for Chrysler to complete the merger with Fiat and once again become a viable automakermvscal wrote:And that has what, exactly, to do with bankruptcy law? What part of secured creditors get paid before unsecured creditors are you struggling to comprehend?Felix wrote:who held the majority of interest in Chrysler, be it secured or unsecured?
but they weren't going to get paid in full no matter how it played out and they knew it....mvscal wrote:If they get paid in full and first as they are supposed to in bankruptcy proceedings, then they don't have to cash in on that taxpayer funded default swap now, do they?
Word.Left Seater wrote: On the other hand this could be a future road map for all unions.
And now how much are they getting?mvscal wrote:They were being offered 30 cents on the dollar. I'd tell them to shove it up their ass, too.Felix wrote:just wondering why it was four of the SMALLEST hedge fund investors in Chrysler that killed the original deal and forced the bankruptcy?
any thoughts on that?
Who wouldn't?
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
30 cents on the dollar.BSmack wrote:And now how much are they getting?mvscal wrote:They were being offered 30 cents on the dollar. I'd tell them to shove it up their ass, too.Felix wrote:just wondering why it was four of the SMALLEST hedge fund investors in Chrysler that killed the original deal and forced the bankruptcy?
any thoughts on that?
Who wouldn't?
WacoFan wrote:Flying any airplane that you can hear the radio over the roaring radial engine is just ghey anyway.... Of course, Cirri are the Miata of airplanes..
Dumbass says what?Left Seater wrote:The strike was 52 or 54 days, something like that. But for each day that they crybabies were out pushed the first flight back three days. So the strike cost Boeing something like 156 or 160 days.Diego in Seattle wrote: Please tell everyone how long the strike was, and how far the plane is behind schedule.
That is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen posted on this board. Yep Mgmt wanted the workers to strike. Yeah, Boeing wanted 15% raises for every worker, health care costs to employees capped at 2005 levels, and a bonus to the whiners just for signing a contract and coming back to work.Diego in Seattle wrote: that's why management wanted the strike.
Right, anything non-union supplied is to be blamed for the delay.Diego in Seattle wrote: Additionally, the delays with suppliers were huge...many were caused by non-union suppliers. They got what they paid for.
I have forgotten more than 10 times what you will ever know about manufacturing one. Get back to me when you have memorized the complete fuel system, wiring diagrams, complete hyd system, etc for a type rating.Diego in Seattle wrote: You might know how to fly a plane, but you don't know shit about manufacturing one.
9/27/22“Left Seater” wrote:So charges are around the corner?