Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Our conservative friends at RightMichigan are saying what should be obvious. You know who's to blame for the auto industry problems don't you? Yep, it's the gays. If only the Big Three would stop providing health benefits to same-sex couples, their problems would melt away:
They could save some $$ by eliminating benefits to partners of same-sex couple. Anyone discussing that??
Nope, only you. He then engages in a little fuzzy math. After noting that the UAW has 460,000 members, he writes:
I could not find much on the cost of providing these benefits howeverA 2005 Hewitt Associates study revealed that a majority of employers experience a total benefits cost increase of less than 1 percent.
Several studies have shown that enrollment rates tend to be in the 1 percent to 2 percent range.
For Example:
2% of 446,000 is over 93,000
93,000 @ $395 for health care for active workers and $950 for retirees. Equals for active workers $36,735.000.00 and for retirees $88,350.000.00
Total $125,085.000.00
Eliminating same sex couple partner benefits is an over 25 million savings to GM.
So if we are going to talk about eliminating benefits for actual employees...
Actually, 2% of 460,000 is 8920. But why let a little simple math that the blogger, presumably, learned in the 4th grade stand in the way of a perfectly good ignorant rant?
Politics
Comments
Even if $125 million were an accurate number, it still is far short of the $30 billion the industry was asking for.
Posted by: Royale | December 11, 2008 9:37 AM
Huh. I thought that gays were supposed to stop being gay and marry heterosexual partners. If the homophobe campaign were to succeed to the expectations of the bigots, then there would be no savings for the auto makers. The auto makers save money only if the gays continue to be gay. So RightMichigan should not only be encouraging the auto makers to stop providing benefits to gay couples but to encourage gays to continue to be gay.
Weird.
Posted by: Chiroptera | December 11, 2008 9:38 AM
I'm sure that this thread will soon be hijacked by Mr. Mroberts who will post a rant on same sex marriage.
Posted by: SLC | December 11, 2008 9:42 AM
Actually, 2% of 460,000 is 8920.
Uggh, no it isn't.
Never mind, 8,920 is 2% of 446,000.
Sigh.
Posted by: Jim Ramsey | December 11, 2008 9:42 AM
Actually, 2% of 460000 is 9200. But other than that...
...what an epic fail. It just goes to show, you can blame an outgroup for ANYTHING if you try hard enough.
Posted by: KristinMH | December 11, 2008 9:43 AM
Ed wrote:
"Actually, 2% of 460,000 is 8920. But why let a little simple math that the blogger, presumably, learned in the 4th grade stand in the way of a perfectly good ignorant rant?"
Now that is funny. At least you were within an order of magnitude. Who's law was that, again?
Posted by: delurking | December 11, 2008 9:44 AM
2% of 446,000 is over 93,000
Well, if you honestly believe that you can strip entire demographics of worker benefits just because you personally don't like them, then what chance does basic math have of escaping your brain unmolested?
Posted by: schism | December 11, 2008 9:44 AM
Wouldn't they save more by eliminating benefits to partners of opposite-sex couples?
Posted by: Dave S. | December 11, 2008 9:52 AM
This is stupid on many levels. First, of course, you have the moronic math. Second, you have the fact that $25 million in savings when the company is tens of billions in debt is like buying premium instead of super premium for the car you can't afford the payments on. Finally, if GM (or any other company) were to arbitrarily strip benefits away from one group of employees the way this idiot suggests they would spend far more than that in legal fees and damages after they lost the law suit.
Again, there goes that pesky reality with its damnable liberal bias...
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 11, 2008 9:56 AM
"We work hard; we play hard."
{"Everybody dance now..."] - :D DINGO
Posted by: DingoJack | December 11, 2008 9:57 AM
That's some of the worst math I have ever seen, to say it is just "a bit off" is being pretty generous. Also, wouldn't that 93,000 be divided between active workers and retirees? What he's got here is 93,000 x $395 for active workers added to 93,000 x $950 for retirees. That's almost 200,000 UAW members. Tell me if I got that wrong.
I'm waiting for this line of reasoning to be extended to disabled people. After all, (some number I pulled out of a hat without citing a source) percentage of disabled people are imposing their agenda on us non-disabled Americans... etc, etc...
Posted by: Imrryr | December 11, 2008 10:03 AM
SLC,
No one has the power to hijack a thread if the other participants don't buy in to it.
Jim51
Posted by: Jim51 | December 11, 2008 10:07 AM
In the comments someone pointed out the math error and the blogger admitted it but said "the principle is the same". But even though his final tally is off by a factor of ten, he doesn't correct the post, or even change the title, which has the $125,000,000 figure in it. If you don't correct your mistake, it's no longer a mistake. It's a lie.
Posted by: Taz | December 11, 2008 10:16 AM
Dave S.: Wouldn't they save more by eliminating benefits to partners of opposite-sex couples?
I'm just making a guess what these people feel about unions and union contracts in general, but I bet this is also on their agenda.
Posted by: Chiroptera | December 11, 2008 10:25 AM
It's a lot easier to beat on the gays than to beat on the unions.
Posted by: Dave S. | December 11, 2008 10:27 AM
Jim51, we can always count on SLC to hijack the threads on mroberts's behalf -- preemptively!
Posted by: Squiddhartha | December 11, 2008 10:28 AM
Re Jim51
Unfortunately, Mr. mroberts screeds are so moronic, that the temptation to eviscerate them is irresistible.
Posted by: SLC | December 11, 2008 10:29 AM
mroberts must be enjoying his power. We hijacked our own thread on his behalf, and he got to sleep late.
We rock!
ice
Posted by: ice9 | December 11, 2008 10:35 AM
That's fine, SLC, but how about you wait until he writes them? He doesn't need a harbinger and herald...
Posted by: Squiddhartha | December 11, 2008 10:37 AM
I was never very good at maths;
446,000 workers * 2% = 8,920 workers
assume 4,460 are active; 4,460 are pensioners (50/50 split)
4,460 active workers * $395 = $1,761,700
4,460 pensioners * $950 = $4,237,000
Total cost is $5,998,700*
Now, isn't a little under $6M LESS THAN a little over $25M?
Any number wizards out there? [/snark] - DJ
*If number of workers is 460,000 then total cost will rise to $6,187,000, assuming everything else remains the same.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 11, 2008 10:44 AM
As for the above "arithmetic," how many interior decorators does the auto industry need? By the way, Ive visited several auto plants over the years, and Teh Gays must really hate GM.
More to the point, it's the UAW's fault for calling itself a Union that attracted all Teh Gays in the first place. Imagine the problem if they had called themselves a Labor Marriage.
Nope. Even when I try to be unhinged I can't top this guy.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 11, 2008 10:45 AM
Well duh, of course it's the gays fault. If they hadn't forced their evil gay agenda on Ford then the AFA wouldn't have needed to call for boycott of them. According to the AFA the boycott caused an average drop in sales between 9% - 10% month on month for its duration. That's $2.7 billion in lost revenue 2007. In fact the boycott was so successful that sales continued to plummet even after the AFA called it off last March.
Stupid gays, look what you made them do.
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 11, 2008 10:55 AM
Couldn't have anything to do with marketing geniouses who build a car marketed to females....and then name it....the Probe?
Posted by: Rev. AJB | December 11, 2008 10:56 AM
Taz:
"If you don't correct your mistake, it's no longer a mistake. It's a lie."
There's another way of looking at it. He might just be too frikkin' stupid to understand that it IS a lie.
Posted by: democommie | December 11, 2008 11:10 AM
democommie wrote:
There's a way to test that. Post some comments on his blog about the mistake, explaining it in detail, and see if they get posted.
If they don't show up on his blog he's hiding the truth.
I've got a thread where I'm collecting information about blogs that censor comments:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-they-want-to-silence-us.html
I see no comments on his blog, yet, correcting him. Why not?
Posted by: Norman Doering | December 11, 2008 11:24 AM
No one with half a brain, sweetheart. Nice fisking (as always), Ed.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 11, 2008 11:35 AM
Actually, they could save a lot more money by eliminating opposite-sex partner benefits! How did they miss that?
Posted by: Scott Simmons | December 11, 2008 11:48 AM
Ofcourse, he is off by an order of magnitude and still screws up the math, assumes a worst case scenario (postulates a 1-2% enrollment, assumes 2%) and doesnt factor in the fact individuals would still need healthcare, even if they werent supporting their partner.
I think the dingbat might actually be accurate here. The Auto Industry, as part of their PR campains during Union negotiations, publicizes thier Labor costs on a per employee basis. This is where the $73/hour figures come from. But although those labor costs include the costs for retirees, they are only divided by the number of current workers. About $15-$20 of that $73 figure represents costs of retirees. So I wouldnt be at all surprised if it costs GM $950/current employee to maintain health care for retirees. Yes, its somewhat of a meaningless number, but its in the Auto industry's interest to pad their cost per employee during union negotiations.Posted by: Dave | December 11, 2008 11:49 AM
SLC,
"Unfortunately, Mr. mroberts screeds are so moronic, that the temptation to eviscerate them is irresistible."
I can tell you in all sincerity, I understand. I often struggle with such things, myself.
Jim51
Posted by: Jim51 | December 11, 2008 11:58 AM
Posted by: Dave | December 11, 2008 11:58 AM
As an insider in the employee benefits industry I'm afraid I have to tell everyone that the numbers as posted are completely worthless. So any arguing about whether the numbers include GM only, whether 2% of 460,000 is 93,000 or 9,200 or 8,920 is pointless when the entire premise is wrong.
Here's the reason:
1-2% enrollment is typical for voluntary benefits where the employee pays most, and usually all, of the associated costs. So any costs are being born by the employees not the employer. Therefore not allowing employees to cover their same-sex partners, or opposite-sex partners, doesn't save GM or Ford or Chrysler a single dime.
Enrollment in employer funded plans is typically well over 50%.
Posted by: NoAstronomer | December 11, 2008 12:35 PM
I'd imagine getting rid of all worker benefits would save the companies huge amounts of money. If one is going to suggest dropping benefits for some, why leave everyone else off the table? For that matter, why leave some benefits off the table. Medical and dental insurance, retirement plans, stock options and so forth can still be obtained by the employees through other means, so why place that burden on the company to provide it for the workers?
To me if they wanted to increase profits I'd say they could start by looking at the ridiculous salaries of upper management, ineffective business practices that limit their market and so forth.
Posted by: AL Jeremy | December 11, 2008 12:41 PM
Ever since the Gay Conspiracy started buying used UN Black Helicopters, their power has been growing rapidly. The demise of the auto industry is only the latest of their many steps toward World Domination.
Posted by: llewelly | December 11, 2008 12:41 PM
Hi team, Nick here from RightMichigan.com.
Wanted to make a couple quick points...
1) You're right, that math is way goofy.
2) I see the math error was called out by one of RightMichigan's regular bloggers almost immediately the same day the blog was posted.
3) RightMichigan, for those of you who aren't familiar with the site, is a community blog. I'm the webmaster there (that's why I'm typing this) but the site is an open blogging community for anyone to the right of center.
4) The story in question was a user blog submitted by a third party well over a week ago now.
5) The story was goofy and thus was never promoted to the front page and by the next day wasn't even LINKED anywhere on the front page (until today when a new user posted a fresh comment).
6) That's one of the cool things about blog communities. The cream rises to the top while inaccurate stuff like this fades quickly away (as it did).
Whether or not I personally agree with a post (in this case, personally, I'm not a fan of same-gender-benefits the same way I'm not a fan of live-in-heterosexual-partner-benefits, but neither am I a fan of rotten rithmatic nor do I believe this is anywhere close to the underlying problem afflicting the Big 3), the nature of a blog community leads to a variety of opinion being posted.
The BEAUTY of a community, though, is that things like bad math can be corrected (as it was in this case) by other users and stories without merit can disappear from the front page if they're ignored by the broader community (again, as it was in this case).
7) The assertion by "Norman Doering" above that "no comments" are posted on this story is patently false. I assume ND was maybe looking in the wrong place. Simply scroll down.
There are currently five comments posted on this particular blog entry and four of them are as many as eight days old. They were there the whole time.
8) Long live discourse. Now, there's some cold pizza and soda with my name on it.
Best,
--Nick
www.RightMichigan.com
Posted by: Nick | December 11, 2008 12:43 PM
Yep, and the fifth (and most comprehensive) might look kind of familiar if you scroll up this thread. :) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 11, 2008 12:48 PM
"I'm not a fan of same-gender-benefits the same way I'm not a fan of live-in-heterosexual-partner-benefits"
And there's a crystal clear example of the logic of the right- deny same sex partners marriage rights, then deny them benefits because they aren't married.
Posted by: Rick R | December 11, 2008 12:52 PM
Nick wrote:
You're right. I missed it. There are two short comment on the bad math. Both of which seem to be wrong and not to the real point.
Posted by: Norman Doering | December 11, 2008 12:59 PM
Wait...didn't The American Fuckhead Association (AFA) boycott at least one of the 'big three' for offering same sex couple benefits?
Since they like to claim so much credit for the effectiveness of their poycott campaigns, I think we can lay the blame squarely at the feet of the AFA, and the other christonutters who oppose equal rights for all.
Posted by: FastLane | December 11, 2008 1:23 PM
Of course the gays are responsible for the Big Three's problems. When's the last time you saw a a gay guy driving a Ford Explorer? They're all into Nissans and Subarus.
Or course, like all of us, they do enjoy test driving Hummer.
Posted by: James Hanley | December 11, 2008 1:25 PM
Wait a second...what if the auto companies instead eliminated partner benefits for heterosexual relationships!?!111! Then their savings would be (grabs calculator) 46 times more than for eliminating homosexual partner benefits. That would be (typity type) $5.75 billion!!!111!!! Or, by Ed's commie math, $551 million (stupid commie math).
Why is no one making this obvious argument? Limiting benefits to same-sex couples makes more financial sense, but the politically correct crowd won't let you say that. It's too disrespectful to the hetero special interests. When will the heteros stop demanding special rights? They have the same right to enter into same-sex relationships as anyone else, and get the same benefits. It just makes good financial sense.
Posted by: Shygetz | December 11, 2008 1:31 PM
Nick - Another nice thing about blogs is that they're easy to edit. Having a commenter point out the bad math is not the same as correcting it.
Posted by: Taz | December 11, 2008 1:43 PM
Shygetz asked:
Because you and the rest of us are too lazy to post on that website and make the argument. Here you go, make your case:
http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2008/12/3/115232/059
Posted by: Norman Doering | December 11, 2008 2:01 PM
OK this is good. As my teenage daughter starts to resist math, I can use this.
"You need Algebra so you can be a blogger like your dad..."
Posted by: Greg Laden | December 11, 2008 2:18 PM
Nick stated:
I am also not a fan of live-in partner employee benefits. However, I support gays having the same access to marriage that I have so they are able to get access to the same benefits as heterosexuals. I also support such partner benefits in states where gays are have not yet secured their rights but only until that right is secured.
Did you defend gays' right to marriage in the MI 2004 proposal or did you lobby against their being able to access their right to marry?
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 11, 2008 2:44 PM
Greg Laden wrote:
Weapons of math instruction
Posted by: Norman Doering | December 11, 2008 3:19 PM
My brother did call the Pontiac G8 GXP "pretty damn gay."
Then I called him a schnitzel driving 'tard.
Posted by: Ian Kennedy | December 11, 2008 6:22 PM
"Actually, they could save a lot more money by eliminating opposite-sex partner benefits! How did they miss that?"
Hey if you're going to arbitrarily deny some of your staff equal treatment why not deny partner benefits to unmarried straights; non-Christians, Blacks, Jews or some other group you disapprove of?
Posted by: Ian Gould | December 11, 2008 7:16 PM
Why don't they just stop paying people altogether. Now, THAT, would show some cost savings.
Posted by: democommie | December 11, 2008 7:48 PM
Gays caused the auto industry crisis? Gee. Who knew?
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | December 11, 2008 7:53 PM
It seems the author could've stopped right there, eliminating the math, yet keeping perspective. Eliminating same-sex benefits could possibly save less than 1 percent of benefits cost, which is itself some smaller percentage of total labor costs.
Posted by: Citizen Z | December 11, 2008 8:04 PM
Unless the author thinks the Detroit auto industry has an abnormally large percentage of homosexual workers who would seek same-sex benefits. (N.B. The Simpsons, much like the Flintstones, is not a documentary.)
Posted by: Citizen Z | December 11, 2008 8:17 PM
Citizen Z, Norman Doering - Nice to see you read what I type. Not. *sigh* - :( DJ
PS Citizen - "Keep reaching for that rainbow"
Posted by: DingoJack | December 11, 2008 9:41 PM
Hatred and scape-goat politics fuel the right-wing machine, as you well know. Whether it be gays, minorities, immigrants, women, or simply those who don't share their political views, the right needs an enemy on which to project it's hatred, and they would be truly lost without it. As ridiculous as it may be to blame gays for the auto industrie's economic woes, such demagoguery is all too typical; nothing these people say shocks me any more. Raymond Minton
Posted by: Raymond Minton | December 11, 2008 10:55 PM
Fixed it for ya. ^.^
Posted by: Azkyroth | December 12, 2008 12:40 AM
Greg Laden:
You could try Danica McKeller's book Math Doesn't Suck .
Posted by: llewelly | December 12, 2008 2:22 AM
Interestingly enough, hitech companies such as Microsoft, Dell Computer, Apple Computer, HP, etc offer these types of benefits. Doesn't seem to hurt their bottom line.
Posted by: SLC | December 12, 2008 9:03 AM
They could also save money by auditing every auto workers' tax forms to see how much they donated to churches and religious groups, then cutting each worker's pay by that amount!
Posted by: Tom Woolf | December 12, 2008 9:28 AM
"Of course the gays are responsible for the Big Three's problems. When's the last time you saw a a gay guy driving a Ford Explorer? They're all into Nissans and Subarus."
I had heard that a large percentage of women who drive Jeeps are lesbians, so apparently teh gayz are at least helping Chrysler. :-)
And my neighbor really likes his Ford Escape (he bought a newer model last year). :-) His buddy drives a Toyota, though. :-(
Posted by: Tom Woolf | December 12, 2008 9:37 AM
There's a second problem with the math. You can't be both an active worker AND a retiree. He's counted the 2% (actually, because of the first mistake 21%) twice. Maybe we should sign this guy up to help Paulsen out.
Posted by: JP | December 12, 2008 10:57 AM
Looks like a calculator (or utter math ignorance) error - he did (446,000)*(0.2), ie 20% not 2%. Really dumb thing not to check, and a quick glance at it should have showed him it was wrong.
Posted by: Katherine | December 12, 2008 2:34 PM
I've got a better idea! Eliminate same-sex benefits, and then fire all the heteros and hire only homos! Then they won't have to pay benefits for partners at all! That would save a s%^#t-load of money! Yay!
Posted by: rebmarks | December 12, 2008 6:14 PM
Scott Simmons,
But see, that's discrimination. :-P
Posted by: Bachalon | December 12, 2008 6:32 PM
This guy's writing make him look like the biggest idiot that I have ever read. BOYCOTT STARTED!
Posted by: John Matsy | December 16, 2008 4:55 PM
Redtube Cam
Posted by: cece | March 1, 2009 12:39 PM