Detroit's Big Three and the Democrats' Economic Illiteracy 64 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
The United Auto Workers union and its supporters are arguing that The Big Three, like some other economic entities, are too big to fail. Talk about the wrong end of the stick. In reality, these companies are too big to rescue. Even those who are adamantly opposed to a bailout on principle have only a dim grasp of what it will really cost.
To talk about bankruptcy and bailouts without discussing the economics of the situation is very likely to result in an Obama administration pouring billions of dollars down a financial hole in order to pay off the UAW. The bailout would be the first installment of what would amount to a policy of subsidising Detroit. Billions of dollars would be directed away from alternative investments for no other reason than to shore up an important Democrat constituency.
Of course, some of the money would then find itself going into the Democrats' coffers in the form of political donations. (Think of it as a form of financial recycling carried out at the taxpayers' expense). Then there is the possibility that a subsidy might be in breach of international trade agreements, the breaching of which might trigger retaliatory actions.
Some defenders of a bailout have been focusing on a loss of jobs and incomes if Obama does not act. There lies a fundamental fallacy at the heart of this argument. It implicitly assumes that bankruptcy means that these companies' plants and equipment would be rendered permanently idle. There are no grounds whatsoever to support this assumption. The plant and machinery would only remain idle if there was no further use for them. For this to be the case, the loss of output resulting from a shutdown would have to be made up by other producers. This is not possible. From January to June of 2007, The Big Three produced 4.9 million vehicles. Irrespective of Detroit's financial straits it is still serving a massive market.
Make no bones about it. The Big Three are already bankrupt. It wasn't competition that did the dirty deed but the UAW. It was this union's extortion racket that broke Detroit. Thanks to its destructive policy of holding these companies to ransom they jacked labour costs up to an unsustainable $73 an hour while labour costs in foreign subsidiaries average about $42. It's obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to look that all the additional costs that a politically corrupt union piled on hiring labour could be drastically slashed without touching the net wage. For example, General Motors (GM) spends over $1,600 per vehicle on the healthcare costs of employees and its retired workers while Toyota (TM) pays about $200 per vehicle.
Thanks to the union's racketeering approach to negotiations, the companies were transformed into welfare agencies. There now exists the ridiculous situation where the number of retirees greatly exceeds the number of employees. Unlike governments, The Big Three cannot print the money to rescue themselves financially.
It is axiomatic in economics that if you raise the prices of any good or service above its market clearing rate a surplus will emerge. Moreover, there is a tendency in a free market for every factor, especially labour services, to receive the full value of its marginal product (the value of the additional output from hiring one more factor). The importance of this fact can never be sufficiently stressed. If GM's $72 hourly wage rates (the total cost of hiring labour is the real wage rate) had been determined by the market then GM would have been expanding output and taking on more labour. Its competitors would have found themselves in the same position. Instead, we find GM in dire financial trouble. Further proof that you defy the market at your peril.
The Detroit situation is a clear case of a union capturing capital. This forced the companies to absorb rising labour costs until driven into bankruptcy. There is no point in trying to blame management for what happened. Where a union has de facto control over labour costs, management will be badly hampered. In the absence of any union presence bad management would have resulted in undervalued shares that would eventually invite a takeover.
Economic logic leads to the conclusion that it is because of the UAW that no one will touch The Big Three. It follows from this that any government bailout would in fact be nothing but a shameless pay off to the UAW for its support of Obama, not to mention the state Democrats, whose own economic stupidity has wrecked Michigan's economy. Moreover, the pay off would have to be one of many, unless you are naive enough to imagine that the union that thought nothing of bankrupting Detroit would stand idly by while its victims tore up its coerced 'contracts'. (According to law coerced contracts are invalid).
For those of you who think I am exaggerating the union angle, take a look at Barney Frank's lament that bankruptcy "could undo labor contracts". Even now he cannot make the link between the UAW's thoroughly destructive activities and The Big Three's financial plight. His solution is a pay off that will guarantee union power- and to hell with the taxpayers who are going to be frogmarched into paying protection money for the Democrats.
Never mind, Frank, Pelosi, Reid, Waxman and the rest of the economic clowns that make up the Democratic Party - including Rahm Emanuel, have now come up with an absolutely spiffing idea of their own. The bailout will have conditions attached to it, some of which would include instructions from these geniuses on what types of cars are to be built. Moreover, to ensure equality, and we know how big the Democrats are on equality, foreign car manufacturers who were dumb enough to invest in the US will now have to accept the UAW as a silent partner.
The sheer brilliance of this suggestion leaves me awestruck. To make sure they receive even more money from the UAW these economic illiterates are prepared to wreck the rest of the car industry. It is to be deeply regretted that these monkeys are neither mute, blind nor deaf.
From the Iowa Hawk
Situations like this always bring out vulgar Keynesians, and David Ignatius is no exception. His solutions? Print money and socialise investment. For this he drew on Keynes' ridiculous suggestion that putting pounds in old bottles could reduce unemployment. (To tell the truth, I can never tell when Keynes is joking). (Obama should consider a national investment bank, Daily Star, 22 November 2008). Ignatius is clearly another economic illiterate who cannot grasp that the financial crisis is basically a product of Keynesian policies. It's also clear that the policy he proposes is highly inflationary.
At the moment US unemployment stands at 6.5 per cent. According to Ignatius this calls for Keynesian pump-priming. The only problem with this is that Keynes would disagree. In 1937 unemployment in the U.K. was 12.5 per cent. Nevertheless, Keynes publicly called on the British to end new public works projects, and warned it against the inflationary effects of any "general stimulus" (T. W. Hutchison, Keynes v. the 'Keynesians'...? The Institute for Economic Affairs, 1977, p. 11). Obviously our media scribblers have no idea just how much inflation concerned Keynes, even when there was heavy unemployment. The American electorate would be far better informed if ignoramuses like Ignatius refrained from giving advice on subjects of which they are undoubtedly ignorant.
Related Articles
|
Find People on SA
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largest
increase in followers
in the last 7 days-
1
David Fry
-
2
Bill Gross
-
3
TraderMark
-
4
Peter Schiff
-
5
Serge Hagopian
Fastest Climbers » -
1
-
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 64 comments:
Wha? You throw out a lot of unsubstantiated claims here, but this one is probably the most absurd.
They have been building vehicles in this country for over 100 years. Toyota and Honda don't have many retirees because they haven't been building vehicles here long enough to have retirees. Most of GM's older workers are leaving and being replaced by $14.00 hour younger replacements.with much less benefits. Ten years down the road, the tables will be just the opposite, where Toyota and Honda will start to get a bunch of US retirees and GM's workforce will be younger and lower payed with fewer retirees. I suppose you want to take the health care from the retirees that punished their bodies for 30 plus years on that assembly line you little pencil pusher?
GM makes cars in china and Europe just to name 2 of 35 countries. GM is profitable in those countries. So at this point we can't blame the management. Apparently they can run a profitable auto venture.
The Foreign transplants can make cars here and make a profit using US workers so its not the U.S. workers per se.
So whats left. The UAW and legacy.
actually no. The transplants drop kick their workers for dubious offenses just before they are elgiable to retire and thereby negate their entitlements. Now there havent been many retirees from transplants but there have been enough side stories to indicate that what I have said is true. Just like Honda made the OSHA dirty dozen list for working their US workers to death (literally) Just go google it (OSHA dirty dozen)
You are right, TOO BIG to rescue.
It's just a giant black hole that can suck the whole USA dry.
Most workers don't have life time benefits from employers.
Or sit home and get 95% pay for doing nothing. Can't be more
rediculous than that. Now they want us poor workers to pay for their
stupid contracts with GM ? Any politician who agree will be dead-meat.
Chapter 11 is the best and only way. Just TOO BIG, and TOO ABSURD
to RESCUE. UAW is too rich to rescue anyway. They got billions.
users.rcn.com/jbarab/F...
attack the middle class workers of North America. I would suggest
he take a history course on the role, the labour movement, has taken
to allow the author of this article his safe comfortable lifestyle.
Wages only account for 8% of the cost of a vehicle, that includes
management. Currently our production plant is under 18 man hours
per vehicle. I have already spent to much time correcting this useless
publication.
It has something to do with quality too.
That's why Americans hesitate to buy
Made-in-USA sometimes.
There were reports that workers were
fooling around while working. True ?
I have worked on the line and in management for Chrysler so I have seen both sides of this story and the truth is somewhere in the middle. If every american were required to spend just 30 days on an assembly line their view of this situation would change. But on the other hand management caves in to stupid handcuffing demands every time a new contract is negotiated.
I have seen the Union Stewards write grievances just so they could have trading material for the next negotiation. I have seen no good for nothing fired workers brought back via this process of trading grievances for fired workers returning to work.
The biggest problem with the auto industry is the Unions have always had an "It's us vs them" attitude. With us being the Union and them being the company. The dumb asses CAN NOT get it through their thick heads that us IS them. They are the company, they are the heart and soul of the company. There is no us vs them. When a bad worker gets fired the union should cheer, not want him back.
For this whole mess to succeed the union has to become more management oriented. The Union has to correct the dumb mistakes management makes by wanting the company to succeed.
They need to form a management oversite committee made up of management and union. The oversite committee would recommend savings and expenditures that would benefit the company and the upper management would implement the suggestions. Like getting rid of corporate jets.
I have had autos made by all three auto makers including toyota and honda and I personally would hate to see GM fail. I love the Buick line of automobiles. I am sure you Ford, Dodge, and Chevy truck owners feel the same way. Please don't force me to buy a Toyota or Honda truck they are so damned ugly.,,lol
hey, has anyone seen my private plane... I've gotta get my stock options cashed and in a bank in the Caymans, fast?
Too big to fail ? Yes. Too screwed up to continue as is ? Yes. As currently constituted, the American auto operations are unsustainable. Only two options exist. Restructure or keep them on neverending government assistance. Neither is a "good" option. Both would cause financial hardship. But only one - restructuring - would have a future payback. Keeping the Big 3 on permanent life support would eventually bankrupt the nation.
Send 'em to bankruptcy. It's where they belong.
www.thedailyshow.com/v...
0 Limit Congress from serving more than two terms. That is all that presidents are allowed.
0 Stop Congress from voting for their own raises. How did that ever get started?
0 Stop paying lawmakers their full salary after serving just one term, or at retirement. We need to get rid of that pension plan; they’ve let other companies get rid of theirs. You were lucky to get 40 to 50 per cent of your salary after working somewhere for 35 years, but they get 100 per cent.
0 Stop handing out aid to illegal aliens. If we did, then Medicaid and the food stamp program would have enough money to aid the aged and the poor.
0 Secure our borders.
0 Stop allowing babies born to illegal aliens in the United States automatic U.S. citizenship.
0 Have a computer program that cross checks Social Security numbers with fingerprints to stop fraud on many fronts. Use it on voter registration, too.
0 Stop bailing out mortgage companies and banks that give loans to people who can’t afford them.
Only lawmakers can make these changes, as they are the lawmakers.
----------------------...
I have some additional changes that might also help:
1. Institutions that make loans must retain responsibility for the loans. The loans and the associated risks/rewards can't be bundled and passed on to other agencies for investment purposes.
2. Lawmakers should pass laws that ensure that individuals responsible for their actions. For instance, people who borrow money should be aware they have to pay it back or there will be unpleasant consequences. Of course, people who borrow should be made to realize how the loans are structured.
3. NEVER allow solutions that are constructed at the expense of the people who are not responsible for the problem. People who faithfully make their loan payments should not be penalized for those who do not, just as people who exercise, watch their diet and weight, and take care of themselves should not be penalized for those who do not take care of themselves. Never reward the people responsible for the problem at the expense of those who were not.
4. Read ATLAS SHRUGGED.
I predict none of the above will happen.
.
On Nov 25 08:27 AM By all Means wrote:
> lazaris
> actually no. The transplants drop kick their workers for dubious
> offenses just before they are elgiable to retire and thereby negate
> their entitlements. Now there havent been many retirees from transplants
> but there have been enough side stories to indicate that what I have
> said is true. Just like Honda made the OSHA dirty dozen list for
> working their US workers to death (literally) Just go google it (OSHA
> dirty dozen)
Why did the banking industry write so many loans to people who could not ever repay them, perhaps GREED?
What do congressional raises have to do with anything?
Term limits throw both the good and bad out of jobs. Making the decision as to who stays in office is the job of the electorate. Codifying it in law is an abdication of the personal responsibility every American has to make sound decisions on election day.
We have already made bankruptcy laws far more punitive than they used to be. Do you know who the majority of people getting caught up in these laws are? People who cannot get medical insurance and get ill.
Institutions who make loans that cannot be repaid are made up of individuals who make these decisions. Corporate executives after a fast big bucks bonus. There needs to be a better allocation of individual responsibility here. Bonuses cannot be tied to short term performance the way they are today. There must be legislation that makes the terms of these rewards tied to longer term institutional performance.
The concept of not rescuing failed institutions died when this policy caused the Great Depression. The fact of the matter is that we know Lassiez-Faire capitalism does not work. There are a variety of solutions to the problems, they all require significant regulatory intervention. Despite the fantasies you read in Atlas Shrugged.
I hope your prediction is true.
On Nov 25 09:11 AM long_on_oil wrote:
> Wouldn't it be great if we had just one article that was impartial
> and just started the facts regarding the so called bail out. GM
> has already renegotiated the contract and the UAW has given more
> than their share to keep GM in business. The future hourly rate
> is in line with the non union plants plus they are turning over health
> care to the union thus locking in an expense that has a "sky is the
> limit" boundary. I don't know the exact details, but I wish I did.
Yes, I wish we all had the exact details but its all bound up in a 3000 page labor contract that even the UAW president has conveniently forgotten certain important details. How's this one: Any idled plant must pay workers 95% of their pay while they channel surf at home. This makes reform very difficult to accomplish. Do foreign manufacturers offer the same benefit? No way!
The fact that the big 3 have manufactured automobiles in the U.S. much longer than the foreign auto manufacturers, is no excuse for lacking the foresight to know contracts they signed in past decades wouldn't kill the industry down the road. We have a similar problem with social security except we know our workforce will likely expand with the population while the big 3 have no reason to have believed the same was true for their industry. How stupid is that? Fortunately, they have in front of them a solution known best as a prepackaged bankruptcy complete with government loans backing up the rebuild.
What thy have sown. Thy shall also reap and a bountiful harvest is in the rippen fruits that gather in riches. Is that economic?
No bailout will translate to success for the big 3 in the long run. Bankruptcy is a shoe-in for them to restructure (this time get it right big 3!) that will improve their competitiveness. Not to say that this will not be painful in the short run, but they cannot continue to bleed and support this labor force that the UAW has essentially priced out of the market.
The Big Three's contributions to the American Dream should not be under estimated. Millions of middle class workers have been a major economic boost to this country for decades with huge tax revenues. These workers have sent their children to college, their health care benefits have built hospitals, their wages have supported whole communities. If you don't believe this then take a look at places where their plants have been shuttered.
When the Unions are crushed so too will be the wages paid by the foreign automakers. In fact, it could very well be the last pillar of the middle class.
It is my contention that the dismantling of the middle class is responsible for today's economic crisis. Wages have fallen steadily for 25 years and banks have had to lower loan qualifications to feed their bottom line. Now this guy Jackson is suggesting that bankruptcy for the Big Three is the answer. Can this economy afford another 5% added to the unemployment rate? Can we afford to assume the retirement benefits of hundreds of thousands of retirees? What about unemployment benefits or lost tax revenue? This way thinking is what got us into this mess. We need more middle class jobs not less.
uh2l.blogs.com/things_...
This guy has some decent points but, it's not about who's to blame; it's about what should we do now for the good of the country.
UH2L
On Nov 25 08:15 AM lazaris wrote:
> Of course GM has a lot more retirees than those working you moron!
>
> They have been building vehicles in this country for over 100 years.
> Toyota and Honda don't have many retirees because they haven't been
> building vehicles here long enough to have retirees. Most of GM's
> older workers are leaving and being replaced by $14.00 hour younger
> replacements.with much less benefits. Ten years down the road, the
> tables will be just the opposite, where Toyota and Honda will start
> to get a bunch of US retirees and GM's workforce will be younger
> and lower payed with fewer retirees. I suppose you want to take the
> health care from the retirees that punished their bodies for 30 plus
> years on that assembly line you little pencil pusher?
info.detnews.com/video...
The following historic links are for your information.
UAW OFFICIALS BETRAY AUTO WORKERS [2007]...
unionreview.com/insigh...
VICTOR REUTHER SPEECH 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE UAW FLINT RALLY [1987]...
westfallmike.tripod.co...
MIKE WESTFALL SPEECH 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE UAW FLINT RALLY [1987]...
westfallmike.tripod.co...
HISTORIC UAW LEADER SPEAKS OUT FOR RETIREES AND WORKERS [2007]…
michaelwestfall.tripod...
EASTERN ECONOMIC MANUFACTURING SPEECH [1985] …
westfallmike.tripod.co...
ROGER & ME –FLINT CONTROVERSY [1990]…
westfallmike.tripod.co...
ARCHIVES AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION [1976-2008]…
www.umflint.edu/librar...
michaelwestfall.tripod...
westfallmike.tripod.co.../
www.monroelabor.org/li...
It is hard imho to blame the fall of detroit on the uaw when the contractual excesses were never fufilled by the companies.
www.freep.com/article/...
Too late to cry about it now.
Hate to hear the Word STRIKE for the last 48 years.
No pity from this end.
On Nov 25 09:57 AM epeon wrote:
> You are wrong. The transplants have defined contribution plans (i.e.
> 401(k) with match). Firing a worker for retirement reasons makes
> no sense in their economic model and, therefore, they don't do it.
>
>
>
> On Nov 25 08:27 AM By all Means wrote:
It does miss the point that the UAW has gotten religion and changed their contract in the right direction. Its amazing what losing about 80% of your membership will do.
They got the retiree health care off the books of the big three for a fraction of the expected cost. This was good, but is still in-process.
They also significantly cut the wages and benefits on NEW HIRES. This bodes well for the long term sustainability of the company.
But here the UAW revealed a level of selfishness and greed that is quite remarkable. They lowered the wages and benefits of people who aren't even there yet, not their overpaid selves. They also implicitly admitted that you can easily fill the plant at half the price of labor.
The UAW has got to cut its current benefits and wages...NOW. The US citizens want to see so action here so they will make the loan. Start with adopting some of the lower benenefits paid to big three salary people for years now, like larger co-pay health care and no-health cate when you reach medicare age. Also get rid of SUB pay; people are totally outraged when they hear about it, as they should be.
The UAW would probably say that this destroys job security, but I would reply that having a company run out of cash because it can't lay anyone off is worse.
This idea is no doubt too radical to merit review by the assembled executives. But everything should be on the table now, if the C word (starts with c, ends with s, two syllables) is real.
[That word will probably be the most overused of 2008. I'm contributing to its demise in my small, silent way.]
On Nov 25 02:15 PM sickofthehype wrote:
> Here's what the auto bailout is really about:
>
> info.detnews.com/video...
>
Hell, if you can do it why can't we all do it?
Because the rest of us know better, that's why.
What if we were all union workers? Welcome to socialism.
Your biggest problem today isn't defending yourselves. Most of us in the rest of the country won't buy it anymore anyway. Your biggest problem is that these aren't isolated conversations among scatterred groups of people any more. And your biggest problem right now is that maybe millions of people are reading this and nodding their heads in agreement. Many of us don't have it a fourth as good as you do and you feel and your union encourages you to feel ENTITLED to as much in pay and benefits as many doctors and successfull engineers. You will no doubt get your bailout money, and I personally won't hold it against any politician I happen to like and support for not throwing his career away by taking on the unions. Think I personally will ever contribute to you having such a better life than the rest of us again, though? I don't think so. Read the feedback from all the non-union people above. Think I alone feel this way? We all work hard for our money. Most of us do NOT get or ever have an opportunity to get a job that pays like that and allows them to retire at 50 with a nice pension and medical for life, already having made far more money than most of us will ever see working till were- well, too old to work. And now all of us have had the pleasure of driving by one of your picket lines on our way to work when there were enough jobs lost in our communities that there were probably thousands of people driving by that would have loved to take your damn job for half the money you were already making even without the benefits you already had. So a large part of the country has had it with you and your sense of entitlement. Many will never buy anything you make. YOU did this.
Over-the-top union wages. Companies pass these costs on to consumers. When the consumer price index goes up, you, of course, get your cost-of-living increases you negotiated into your contract. The rest of us, which HAPPEN TO BE THE MAJORITY, didn't participate in the mechanism which just drove prices up, even though our money is now worth less, too. When you drive prices up for everyone and protect yourself from the resulting inflation, all you've done is maintain your (artificially and unfairly) elevated economic position while at the same time making the rest of us poorer.
You have cost your company dearly. For decades their balance sheets have stunk and they were unable to fund enough research & developement. Now they can't compete. You did this. No pity from many of the rest of us. YOU"LL get "no more concessions" from at least many of us in the rest of the country. And the bailout? Won't matter in the long run.
On Nov 25 08:51 AM ralph gonzales wrote:
> you misrepresent many facts, and have no concept of the actual size
> and breath of the companies you deride. A great deal of the blame
> you give to UAW for looking out for their workers and the retirement
> benefits they enjoy. At the same time Social Security and Medicare
> are facing similar problems, did the UAW screw up the US government
> also, driving these programs to the brink of bankruptcy? Maybe if
> the Big 3 started making cars here that they make in other countries
> they would be more competitive and maybe shift some of our autos
> to natural gas in the process.
I do however, agree with the author's last sentence - The American electorate would be far better informed if ignoramuses like -------------refrained from giving advice on subjects of which they are undoubtedly ignorant.
"Thinkers" like Jackson contributed to the troubles we face today. "Thinkers" like Jackson need to step aside and allow well-informed,well-int... open-minded problem solvers to work together and put America back on the right track. The US always works best when it is UNITED.
At this moment in time, our President-elect is gathering the best and the brightest minds to make our country stronger. They deserve our support, God Bless the United States of America and God Bless our Troops.
Retired union members collect a pension and social security like the rest of the population. Why should they also get essentially free medical while the funding source is unable to pay?
On Nov 25 03:25 PM UAW Retiree wrote:
> Consider autoworkers and especially reflect on the struggling helpless
> auto retirees who were given broken promises at retirement. Retirees
> are being betrayed by the corporations, Washington, media and primarily
> by their own befuddled union officials who have used their meager
> pensions and critical retirement benefits as the big sacrifice.
>
>
> The following historic links are for your information.
>
> UAW OFFICIALS BETRAY AUTO WORKERS [2007]...
> unionreview.com/insigh...
>
>
> VICTOR REUTHER SPEECH 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE UAW FLINT RALLY [1987]...
>
> westfallmike.tripod.co...
>
> MIKE WESTFALL SPEECH 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE UAW FLINT RALLY [1987]...
>
> westfallmike.tripod.co...
>
> HISTORIC UAW LEADER SPEAKS OUT FOR RETIREES AND WORKERS [2007]…
>
> michaelwestfall.tripod...
>
> EASTERN ECONOMIC MANUFACTURING SPEECH [1985] …
> westfallmike.tripod.co...
>
> ROGER & ME –FLINT CONTROVERSY [1990]…
> westfallmike.tripod.co...
>
> ARCHIVES AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION [1976-2008]…
>
> www.umflint.edu/librar...
>
> michaelwestfall.tripod...
>
> westfallmike.tripod.co.../
>
> www.monroelabor.org/li...
>
On Nov 25 08:15 AM lazaris wrote:
> Of course GM has a lot more retirees than those working you moron!
>
> They have been building vehicles in this country for over 100 years.
> Toyota and Honda don't have many retirees because they haven't been
> building vehicles here long enough to have retirees. Most of GM's
> older workers are leaving and being replaced by $14.00 hour younger
> replacements.with much less benefits.
This shows a COMPLETE lack of understanding what is going on... I suggest you hold your tongue before calling others moron. GM did not ever follow what is called an approved pension plan. They have Unions (unlike Toyota). Toyota's costs for medical and pension will not go up, because that is not how retirement plans work. Any shift will be based on an increase in salary over the year and matched amounts (which usually amounts to 3% of salary... not much of an increase). Due to Unions, GM and friends pay above industry averages.
I love how everyone is a bonefied "expert" and disher of name calling when they assume they understand anything said at the adult table. Makes for great holiday discussion at your house I am sure.
Some of us will never see your wages...never in our life time. We will work twice as hard, twice as long and have double of your education.....help everyone out and take a pay cut NOW ! Vote out your UNION !
Don't think that no one else could take your place on the line.....this isn't 20 or 30 years ago !
Explain to everyone elese how you can make the same amount that nurses, teachers, police and parametics make ? They had over 4 years of education, not to mention countless years of training, risk their lives, are responsibe for their work etc..... what do you do that makes you so special....nothing that a monkey could be not trained to do? do tell us...
And all of you big-3 guys defending your unions and ridiculously high salaries, remember this: I have never made even close to the amount of money you make, yet for all of my driving life, I have contributed to your very comfortable wages, health care and retirements by buying your products exclusively. I have never at any point considered anything BUT American cars because they have served me well. But this issue has really opened my eyes to the kind of entitlement mentality that the spoiled union brats and their supporters seem to have, and take no shame in begging for a government handout at the expense of those who already buy your products. That said, if this passes, I will NEVER buy another American car for the rest of my days. A once very loyal customer who once loved and constantly defended your products, even up until recently, will never give you my business again. That may not matter to you...fine...I'm just one person! But if others in your already-dwindling consumer base feels the same way I do (and I know they exist, I've spoken to some of them), well, good luck with the outcome, you're gonna need it.