While I have many complaints that I have issued toward the Republican party, right now they are showing a certain amount of leadership that should be noted. The Big 3 (GM, Ford, Chrysler) are asking for 25 Billion dollars in bailout money. They are accusing the economy of destroying their business and furthermore threatening the country with devastation if they are allowed to fail.
Full Article
Republicans defending Americans from the auto industry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The highest wages drive up the average wage. This is a basic conclusion of supply and demand. If many potential employees demand the UAW jobs, then that means other employers in the economy must off higher wages to compete for labour. The UAW may seem high, but they are not. They are tip of the labour economy, which is why small businesses are opposed to them. They drive up the salaries of non-union employees much higher than they would have been without the UAW and other such unions in the economy. Therefore, protesting against "those people" is a protest against your paycheck.
boris, how can you defend the UAW when their salaries are twice that of other auto industry employees.
the rest of the stuff you wrote just makes no sense, period. how can anyone in their right mind defend the labor union when they have clearly destroyed the companies is beyond me.
They didn't clearly destroy those companies. Before the price of oil skyrocketed those companies were profiting.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/31/business/gm.php
As for the "rest of the stuff" I wrote, do you have a counter argument? If not, I'd say it is YOU who doesn't make sense, because "doesn't make sense" is not a logic response to argumentation.
Moreover, it does make sense. The employers are competing for the best employees. Some of the highest paying jobs in the United States are auto union jobs. This is fact. And since other companies are competing for those same workers, the average wage of non-auto and non-auto union jobs increases. That's why Toyota pays out 40+ per hour. If they didnt, their workers would move on and try to find other jobs that aren't so repetituous (factory jobs arent that nice, ya know), and since the big three paid 73 dollars an hour hence keeping the average auto factory wage high, that means Toyota would be shit up a creek. Toyota MUST pay 40+ per hour to keep with GM and to guarantee that it can get new skilled workers from lower paying industries
Everytime you guys do not answer a point I made with counter argument I have one a little battle. ;)
The argument here should not be why the BIG3 pay out so much in wages, but it should be how destructive the UAW is and has been to these companies. The UAW fights for wages and benefits of all sorts for the "good" of the members. However, their fighting has been detrimental to the "colapse" of the BIG3. The fact that they "require" these payouts and benefits isn't so much the problem with their current employment, but it continues when they retire. They continue to reap the benefits of employment long after they are retired. Cerainly that sounds like a great deal. But, the amount of money needed to fund the demands of the UAW is rediculous! If the UAW was forced to shut down, then the BIG3 would not have to ask for their own "bailout." We, taxpayers, have already "rescued" one of the BIG3 (Chrysler) already. They have failed in the past, are failing now, and will fail again in the future if they continue to fund the demands of the UAW.
I have looked for a reason to bring this up, and now may have a reason. So, look back here again blueskyboris for more.
Blueskyboris: You tend to make debate here, and continue to make regular appearances, some of us may start to like you and look forward to you.
Thanks for all the comments.
"The argument here should not be why the BIG3 pay out so much in wages,"
No, it should be about how the UAW is a moral force in the sense that it increases the average wage. Before the substansive unionization of the New Deal, the average yearly salary for a family was 6773 1990 dollars! In the 1920s!
"but it should be how destructive the UAW is and has been to these companies."
Nope. Those companies were fine before the oil crisis.
"The UAW fights for wages and benefits of all sorts for the "good" of the members. However, their fighting has been detrimental to the "colapse" of the BIG3."
Again, no. The oil crisis is brining the Big Three and the Japanese car companies down. Its called an economic crisis. You know, the car companies' economy is based on oil? And I'm sure that you can understand that 4 million high paying jobs lost overseas means 4 million less cars being bought, right? Or do you think that 9 dollars an hour is sufficient to buy a new car? But I'm sure you'll ignore my points, i.e. facts, to pontificate about what you think is the right way of looking at the facts that you select to support your politic. Do you know what that is called? Propaganda. Who was propagada's master? Hitler. What party are you apart of? The party most aligned with Hitler.
"The fact that they "require" these payouts and benefits isn't so much the problem with their current employment, but it continues when they retire. They continue to reap the benefits of employment long after they are retired. Cerainly that sounds like a great deal."
Um, where have you been? GM cut benefits for retirement and lowered the entry wage to 15 dollars an hour? This happened in 2006 or 2007.
"But, the amount of money needed to fund the demands of the UAW is rediculous! If the UAW was forced to shut down, then the BIG3 would not have to ask for their own "bailout." We, taxpayers, have already "rescued" one of the BIG3 (Chrysler) already. They have failed in the past, are failing now, and will fail again in the future if they continue to fund the demands of the UAW."
Yeah, well, if industry was more moral than the pitiful 6773 1990 dollars it paid out during the twenties or the 3 chinese dollars pays out to Chinese workers working in China, they wouldn't have this problem... but so is the profit motive! Eat and be eaten.
"I have looked for a reason to bring this up, and now may have a reason. So, look back here again blueskyboris for more."
;) I like that tie, big guy..
"Blueskyboris: You tend to make debate here, and continue to make regular appearances, some of us may start to like you and look forward to you.
Thanks for all the comments."
I've been arguing with Libertarians for the last 4 years. Time to expand my knowledge base by arguing with the far right. :)
PS I like Boris when he/she throws up links to reasonable information from reasonable sources, it makes life interesting. And Dan for the record, I like the tie too. Nothing worng with trying to look your best. Peace, I'm out.