slimt Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Ive never been on a tour of the Gibson acoustic Shop.. they did give me free reign at one time to go where I pleased though... :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse_Dylan Posted October 7, 2015 Author Share Posted October 7, 2015 The real question, of course, is: how do they sound and play? I can live with a bit of cosmetic funkiness for that Gibson tone and playability, which is the reason I own them. My J-15 is so good that I sometimes wonder if I like it better than my Hummingbird, and that is saying a lot! Part of that is because my poor Hummingbird has been the first recipient of all the experimental strings though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Yeah, that's why I figured he might not be leading tours anymore. :P 12 hours! That's actually pretty sparing, considering. I always thought labor was the main cost in a guitar, but if it's 12 hours, that can't be more than $200 for labor, can it? You think you could get 12 hours labor for 200 bucks? There is a lot more to labor prices here in America. I think 700-1000 bucks is more like it. (including the profit you would expect, of corse). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse_Dylan Posted October 7, 2015 Author Share Posted October 7, 2015 You think you could get 12 hours labor for 200 bucks? There is a lot more to labor prices here in America. I think 700-1000 bucks is more like it. (including the profit you would expect, of corse). How are you figuring $700-1000 for 12 hours? Gibson factory workers are not exactly paid well. Not saying you're wrong, just trying to figure it out. You're right that it does seem like it should be way more than $120, but the employees couldn't possibly be paid more than $15 an hour, and sadly, they're probably paid less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mafy31 Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 How are you figuring $700-1000 for 12 hours? Gibson factory workers are not exactly paid well. Not saying you're wrong, just trying to figure it out. You're right that it does seem like it should be way more than $120, but the employees couldn't possibly be paid more than $15 an hour, and sadly, they're probably paid less. I would think that it's way more (cost wise) ; do you include every cost an employee is ? I mean insurances, taxes, management of these people (all non-productive employees...), training, and other things like retirement primes and such (i am not familiar with US working laws or uses)? The cost of an employee can't resume to what he really gets and i believe that you're far from the real cost (in my opinion Stein is closer to the real cost). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 How are you figuring $700-1000 for 12 hours? Gibson factory workers are not exactly paid well. Not saying you're wrong, just trying to figure it out. You're right that it does seem like it should be way more than $120, but the employees couldn't possibly be paid more than $15 an hour, and sadly, they're probably paid less. I don't know what they get, and obviously, don't know what Gibson has to lay out for them. But look at your own pay stub. On top of that, what's NOT shown will be insurance (worker's comp), and I forget what else. But there is more that the company has to pay that is THIER taxes and portion of what YOU have to pay in taxes. If you figure 20 bucks an hour (that's cheap labor in this country), and add 10 bucks for other taxes/insurance, that's 30 bucks. For an "investment" of 30 buck (note the investement isn't 20), they SHOULD expect to make a profit of 10-20 bucks. You think? And by profit, I don't mean profit for the whole deal, money in the bank. I mean profit to cover the expenses of THAT particular employee imposed on the company. (Lights, heat, tools, etc.) 40X120=480. What else am I missing? But, the point I am making is this: there is no such thing as 15 bucks an hour being 15 bucks an hour expense in this country, unless it is completely cash under-the-table (illegal, btw). Not saying it's wrong, but we workers get a lot of protection and benefits, and there IS a lot that by law, the employer has to pay on our behalf for the pleasure of employing us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasAK Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 We don't know what they make per hour. Concerning hourly wage cost you need to add benefits, lead men, supervisors, office workers and other necessary support personnel. Sorry, the above post was posted as I was writing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse_Dylan Posted October 7, 2015 Author Share Posted October 7, 2015 Yeah, that makes sense. But even then, it is surprising how little it costs, labor-wise... We don't know what they make, and it would be awesome to think they do make $20 an hour (and they should, plus benefits, as stated), but I fear that is not the case. I guess we'll never know, and they probably don't want us to know! I have heard such varying reports, such as that Gibson loses money on a J-15 but makes it up elsewhere, and others saying the employees are paid so low (like $10)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 We don't know what they make per hour. Concerning hourly wage cost you need to add benefits, lead men, supervisors, office workers and other necessary support personnel. Sorry, the above post was posted as I was writing. No...I am coming off perhaps smarter than I am. I honestly don't remember. It's been like, 17 years since I got a 1099 (tax form for private contractor...responsible for all my taxes). I remember MY portion not being paid by the employer was as much as my personal taxes. In other words, double. As a foreman, superintendent in charge of labor, the BARE MINIMUM charge for one man for one hour is 55 bucks. And that includes NOTHING except the cost of that hour against the company. It's working for free, literally. And really, only works if there is a job with profit to charge it to. It's really a loss. 100 bucks is the break even (don't ask me why the spread seems so much...has to do with where the loss is taken and where the profits are expected to come from). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Yeah, that makes sense. But even then, it is surprising how little it costs, labor-wise... We don't know what they make, and it would be awesome to think they do make $20 an hour (and they should, plus benefits, as stated), but I fear that is not the case. I guess we'll never know, and they probably don't want us to know! I have heard such varying reports, such as that Gibson loses money on a J-15 but makes it up elsewhere, and others saying the employees are paid so low (like $10)... Yea, the problem with what they pay and who makes what causes all sorts of problems, which is really why it's "none of our business". Obviously, if they pay too little (I am guessing less than 15), a "good" employee won't be there long. And of corse, like you say, one man's 15 an hour is another man's 20, depending on benefit packages. The way I look at things, it's not what they get, it's what they DESERVE to get. When I paw an American made Gibson and consider the work put into it and the time, I expect to have to pay because I get paid for my job. I don't have a right to expect to benefit from others and not have them paid a fair wage as I do. Would be awfully arrogant to expect a GOOD guitar for for cheap when I myself don't want to work for cheap. At that point, what Gibson pays is between them and their guys (and gals). So long as I paid for my part, then they have a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse_Dylan Posted October 7, 2015 Author Share Posted October 7, 2015 Well said and good point. You put it into words well, but that is basically my philosophy. I am a bit of a worrier, so I guess I take it a step further--do what I can and realize that provides the chance, then worry about it. :P I know it's complicated, and there are so many factors. I guess it's a miracle we still get American-made guitars like this at all, other than from individual luthiers. And apparently Gibson's biggest market is overseas, which blew my mind. Here they are in the US having to compete against cheap imports, and their biggest profit is from exports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 How are you figuring $700-1000 for 12 hours? Gibson factory workers are not exactly paid well. Not saying you're wrong, just trying to figure it out. You're right that it does seem like it should be way more than $120, but the employees couldn't possibly be paid more than $15 an hour, and sadly, they're probably paid less. Based on employee feedback, Henry J's Gibson has been ranked as one of the worst places in the nation to work. But I am guessing that is the Tennessee operation. From what I can gather, Bozeman has been allowed to run almost as an independent shop. So things there are more than likely very different (other than the marketing guys). 12 hours on a project though seems more like a hobby than a job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse_Dylan Posted October 7, 2015 Author Share Posted October 7, 2015 Based on employee feedback, Henry J's Gibson has been ranked as one of the worst places in the nation to work. But I am guessing that is the Tennessee operation. From what I can gather, Bozeman has been allowed to run almost as an independent shop. So things there are more than likely very different (other than the marketing guys). 12 hours on a project though seems more like a hobby than a job. Yeah, he's a spooky dude. His politics, personality and business kept me away from buying a Gibson for a long time. Guess I could have always gone used, though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Yeah, he's a spooky dude. His politics, personality and business kept me away from buying a Gibson for a long time. Guess I could have always gone used, though! Say what you want but Henry J. saved Gibson. The group that acquired Gibson (which included Piezo Electronics) in a hostile takeover of Norlin in 1984 were intending to phase out the musical instrument part of the business. Henry J. snagged Gibson for $5 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Yeah, he's a spooky dude. His politics, personality and business kept me away from buying a Gibson for a long time. Guess I could have always gone used, though! The only thing I know of Henry's politics was his public speaking about the raids against Gibson by the feds. And as far as THAT goes, from what I have looked into, was a total violation of rights by the feds. In the end, all that was achieved was a tarnished rep for Gibson for the half that feel that way, a confirmed bad rep for the gov. for those who feel that way, and nothing changed for the future for the return on taxpayer dollars and fines for Gibson. Henry did his part by going public to let us know what was going on. He is kinda goofy, but then, so am I. Even though I think he's cool, being a good CEO has other requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Say what you want but Henry J. saved Gibson. The group that acquired Gibson (which included Piezo Electronics) in a hostile takeover of Norlin in 1984 were intending to phase out the musical instrument part of the business. Henry J. snagged Gibson for $5 million. Yea...what year was that? "Pre-Henry", was nowhere NEAR what Gibson is making now, in terms of desirable instruments. Folks like to complain about how bad he is messing up the brand with this change or that model, but the guitars and specs we SAY Gibson should be making all came about during his watch. As in, didn't exist before he put his hand into making them exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Yea...what year was that? "Pre-Henry", was nowhere NEAR what Gibson is making now, in terms of desirable instruments. Folks like to complain about how bad he is messing up the brand with this change or that model, but the guitars and specs we SAY Gibson should be making all came about during his watch. As in, didn't exist before he put his hand into making them exist. Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissouriPicker Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 I don't care what Henry J's politics, etc. are. That would never prevent me from buying a guitar I identify with. He's had a major role in turning Gibson around. I'm glad he stood-up for himself and Gibson during those bullcrap government raids...Sending federal agents with guns drawn into the Gibson plant---what a pile of crap! That was politics and very little else. .....Regarding fit/finish and all that stuff---unless there's a really obvious flaw, I likely won't see it and likely couldn't care less. I don't care about a tiny bubble in the finish or if the grain of the wood has a flaw/blemish in it or if a corner of wood was sanded too lightly.. I think it's funny to read comments by people who are depressed and pissed-off because they found a little smear of glue inside of their guitar. There used to be lots of that on some other forums. I think the Ed Roman (think that was his name) rants on The AGF about Gibsons were the ravings of a man trying to sell guitars. I think the stories about the exploding and imploding Taylors was also a pile of crap, along with so many of the more recent cries over declining Martin quality. There may be some issues with the lower-end Martins that are not made here, but Martins made in Nazareth are sweet guitars. And there's nothing wrong with Taylors, aside from they're too clean and pristine for me. Plus, around here you're not allowed to play Johnny Cash songs on them...I don't care what the complaints are about Gibsons. The majority of them are from people who follow the internet crowd and quite likely has never owned a Gibson. I don't know what the entire Gibson process is for building guitars and how it compares to their competitors. What I do know is that Gibsons are different. There's just something about the guitars that I can't see or hear in any Taylors, and only in the big Martin dreads. Maybe it's that more human hands deal with each Gibson or maybe their CNC machines are not as cool and precise as those of other builders. Maybe their glue guns leak once-in-a-while. Maybe someone sneezes at the wrong time and gets a little blob of snot on the finish. Whatever it is, I think Gibsons make a stronger human connection than the majority of the instruments made by their competitors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Maybe someone sneezes at the wrong time and gets a little blob of snot on the finish. For the sake of seven holy sardins, nooooooo . . ! But you're kinda right about the connection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slinky1 Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 I agree with Missouripicker, but then again, I'm just a rube who plays guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissouriPicker Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 One rube to another-------keep on playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Huh? I think it's time we gave the guy some credit. In the real world, the perspective we should have of the guy really should be on the level of McCarthy, Ren. The "era" of Henry has produced the best Gibson's, maybe in the whole history of the company. But yet, whenever his name seems to come up, it's in the negative. And also, when ever a model is made that folks don't like, everyone points the finger at Henry, but somehow forgets the guitars they seem to like are also under his watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smurfbird Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Getting back to Jesse's Hummingbird and his frets, maybe that's what they mean when they say today's Gibsons are Plekked! You got a terrified top and plekked frets! Now it's up to you to find some 30 yr. old strings to put on her and you'll have that vintage sound down pat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 I think it's time we gave the guy some credit. In the real world, the perspective we should have of the guy really should be on the level of McCarthy, Ren. The "era" of Henry has produced the best Gibson's, maybe in the whole history of the company. But yet, whenever his name seems to come up, it's in the negative. And also, when ever a model is made that folks don't like, everyone points the finger at Henry, but somehow forgets the guitars they seem to like are also under his watch. I and most others do not give a fig about Henry J's political leanings. And by the way the Gibson president's name you are trying to equate Henry J. with is McCarty not McCarthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 I and most others do not give a fig about Henry J's political leanings. Exactly. I care about the guitars his company builds (and a bit about how his employees are treated). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.