I quoted the news article.  And then I even repeated myself what they said... "Total hourly labor costs at Ford are currently at $71 an hour."

But seeing as how it followed a direct quote and a second expository sentence only trolls would have a problem with it.

Oh, look, in my first sentence in THIS very post I typed "they read it in a vaccuum."

I must be accusing someone of not only existing with sustained life inside a black hole but having internet access and the ability to read in total and complete darkness.  

Most of my life, if you took pay and benefits together and broke them out hourly I've been right around $5 myself.

That's reality for most people.  Now not everyone averages the sort of hours a political hack does, but plenty of people do.  And plenty of people work harder and for less.

Short term the guy screwing the lugnuts on the car is going to lose some income if the the company actually follows through on cutting wages and/or benefits.  But long term, that person will still have a job that pays reasonably well and provides decent benefits.

Alternatively, the car company can continue on its current course, continue to lose market share, continue to lose money and continue to lay people off until the company is no longer viable or in business.  Then the guy making $70 per hour (including benefits and everything else) and all of his fellow workers is out of a job, has no income and is suddenly further behind than he would have been if he had taken the initial compensation package cut.  Did the union give the guy good advice by demanding more money and benefits or did it screw him?

At some point some people will need to realize that companies are in the business to make money.  When they have high skilled labor (as Michigan's companies do) that turn out quality products and the company compensates the workers fairly, they both make money.  When a union gets greedy and tries to stick it to a company trying to right is course, everyone will lose.  I doubt many people would object to the compensation package workers get if it was competitive and the company was successful.  That is not the case with the Big 3.

If that is your argument, you are arguing for the antithesis of capitalism.  But if that's what you think, fine.  History is replete with examples of the failure of this kind of system.  I'm not defending the people who participate in schemes like Enron because they are obviously wrong.  But to those who take the risks go the rewards.

I also agree that some CEO's make a lot of money.  That, however, is a decision that is made by the shareholders and the board of director's.  While I may disagree with the compensation package they receive, it's a decision that is made by the people who have a vested interest in the company.  Additionally, who am I to decide what public or private companies should pay someone when I have no interest in the company?  Frankly, it's none of my business.  If I owned a company or had a voice at the table of a company, then I have a vested interest and may choose a different package.  Another fundamental disagreement here, and I'm reading between the lines on this, is that there is no way I would tell a company or a person that they are making too much profit or too much money.  Since when did we decide to demonize people and companies who are financially successful?

Back to the governor.  To be clear,the Governor signed an MBT plan that was passed by the Legislature.  She was involved in negotiations resulting in the final package but it isn't the plan she wanted originally.  She can claim credit for it - and all politicians do this sort of thing - but she is not responsible for the passage of the legislation.

Additionally, while I agree with you that the state has little to do with the economic cycles in Michigan, this governor has run around for years saying that the economic problems in this state are a result of John Engler and George Bush.  If they had such a negative impact, then why would she not also be responsible for what is happening here?  And why is she not responsible for correcting it?

You may say that she has a plan - and anyone who lives in Michigan has heard this from her - and her plan is working.  That, however is not true.  When unemployment continues to be the worst or nearly the worst in the country and businesses are closing doors or choosing not to locate in Michigan her plan is obviously not working.

Additionally, her plan involves giving tax credits and other tax incentives to companies to entice them to remain or move here.  This is corporate welfare and exactly what you have argued against in the past.

Finally, what has she done to make Michigan a better place to live, work or own a business?  You can point to the MBT and that's fine but all that does is give businesses an idea of what it will cost to do business in Michigan.  It did nothing to make Michigan a better place or help businesses create jobs or improve education in the state or keep young children from being killed by their foster parent.  I could go on, but I think you see what I'm saying.

We are going to disagree on whether she is doing a good job or not.  Obviously, I think she is doing a terrible job and there is enough evidence that can be cited to back this up.

"It did nothing to make Michigan a better place or help businesses create jobs or improve education in the state or keep young children from being killed by their foster parent. "

My point, though, was not with the MBT.  It was with the suggestion that Governor Granholm has actually done anything to improve the quality of life for people and businesses in Michigan.  Her mantra of "I have a plan and the plan is working" does not accomplish this goal.  Her plan, whatever it is outside of tax credits, etc. for businesses, is clearly not working.

As for the impact, from what I've read the Chamber and other business groups had no problem assessing the impact of the MBT as it was being proposed. Patrick Anderson indicated that the primary hit is on insurance and financial institutions. As insurance companies were enjoying some of the lowest rates in the county at the expense of a lot of businesses being forced to shoulder a greater percentage of the SBT, it makes sense that they would have to pay more. Many of the growth industries are outside of insurance and financial and will benefit from the MBT. To quote Anderson again:

"72 percent of businesses in the state will see a
decrease in their taxes. There's a 65 percent cut
in equipment taxes for industrial firms and a 23
percent cut for other companies."