An Open Apology To Fellow Columnist Andrew Sorkin

For the record. I accused Andrew Ross Sorkin, of The New York Post, of being a Conservative. After further review (and a look at his column from last week - see below), it's apparent he's not. I stand corrected.

 He also rightly pointed out that hourly costs that I sited weren't accurate (as I didn't add production costs into the equation). Once again, I stand corrected.

I'm pointing out my mistakes in all fairness.

It's the least I can do for not doing better research on this column ("Conservative media lying about auto worker's wages"). I appreciate his points and his professionalism.

Here's a copy of the email Mr. Sorkin sent me this morning. 

Dave,
I just finished reading your article in The Times-Standard.
I was disappointed to see you place so much blame on me, in part,
because that facts are a bit different than you suggested.
First, I'm not a conservative columnist. Most people who read me
regularly would suggest I'm probably part of the "liberal media" --
though I don't like that label much either. Take a look at my column
from last week:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/business/media/09sorkin.html?ref=media.
Second, and more importantly, I did not come up with the $70 figure.
It's been used by GM and analysts on Wall Street for years. I am
attaching a chart produced by Deutsche Bank's research department,
which was distributed widely prior to my column, that goes through
GM's hourly wage costs line by line. The chart might help explain the
issue a bit better. Please look at the left hand column marked
"2007GM." You'll see that the total price comes to $70.84 an hour.
Toyota, on the other hand, comes to $47.25 an hour (look at the
right hand column.) If you factor out OPEB, you could probably argue
the number is closer to $55, or more likely $61 an hour, which is
still twice the hourly wage of the average American worker. The
additional wages and benefits at GM add an average of $800 per vehicle
over the cost of rivals like Toyota and Honda, making it pretty hard
to compete on price -- which contradicts what you said in your piece.
Also, these hourly costs do not include production costs (steel,
components, etc), as you said in your article, but wage and benefits
costs.
I imagine you may have thought I started the $70 number because that's
what Keith Olbermann said on his program. Keith has since written me
to apologize. Indeed, if you do a search of articles prior to my
column, you'll find at least 143 references to the $70 an hour figure
by other journalists, analysts, etc.
I very much hope that the automobile makers survive – I don't want
them to falter. The column was an effort to offer a solution that
would allow the companies to continue long into the future and make
them stronger.
I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if you want to speak about
this issue further.
Best,
Andrew