The workers for the big three making too much money? Hardly. I think the problem isn't those that make around $25-$30 an hour, but those that are making millions of year while making poor business decisions. I know that they've put out some bogus statistics that shows the UAW workers make $70 an hour but the way they came up with those numbers is by averaging in a ton of retired people, their pensions, and all this other crap that doesn't reflect the real wage. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1234921/average_uaw_pay_28_not_70.html To blame the union workers for this is to blame a private in the Army for the war in IRaq.
Crime has already gone up huge in the past few years, they've already built new 'prisons' (Google FEMA camps), they've already announced in the associated press 20,000 more troops on the street by 2009.
What a p***y you are. Blame others for your own problem. US imports low-priced goods from China to keep the inflation under control. And now China is loaning the money it has earned from the trade to the US, so it's basically US is using the Chinese money for free, FOR NOW, if the US has any credibility in future. China would like to buy a lot of stuff US won't sell. Garbage like Starbucks, McDonald's and Coca Cola shouldn't be in Chinese market in the first place, and they are making huge amount of money. GM is perhaps garbage here, but they are treasure in Shanghai! The blind kindness of the Chinese make them look stupid now. The ultimate cause of this mess US in right now is GREED, which is deep-rooted in capitalism system. Not that I think communism is the solution. People spend the money they never had or will not have and the society as a whole does not produce enough real economy. It just doesn't make any economical sense. The international trade benefits the absolute minority of the society, AKA traders. People who don't work much get pyramids amount of money, but people who sweat doing the real work get peanuts. Who doesn't want to work less and get more? The morality is degrading in US when it has been sitting on the no. 1 seat too long and ignorance, arrogance and corruption are starting to take over, like any empire in the world history. And the brainwashing mass media will not tell you that.
I wish I made $25 an hour. I make half of what an average assembly line worker in the UAW makes and I have a college degree. I make low for my profession, I enjoy my work environment too much to go elsewhere, but it is still ridiculous to think how much more they make then me.
For a full time worker $25 an hour is livable but not excessive, especially seeing what the guys at the top are making. It is also a far cry from the $70 an hour that some opponents of theirs' are making.
I'm not a libertarian but I don't support the bailouts. I understand that allowing AIG and the Big Three to fail will cause a lot of hardship but I think what has led us to this situation is moral hazard where these businesses took a lot of needless risk knowing that they could pass on the losses while reaping the rewards. Now when that system comes crashing down we are looking at yet another moral hazard where we keep them alive so that they know that pretty much no matter what they do they will continue to be supported. I just don't see that as being a recipe for creating a sound, efficient and competitive industry. Understanding though that the failure of the Big Three and much or our banking system will cause a lot of problems I think that our government needs to do something. IMO the money spent on bailouts should be going to help out the people directly through programs that help renogotiate or even buyout mortgages and to strengthening the social safety net for those lose their jobs and to providing health care. If we are worried about our industry collapsing we should bring back the PWA and WPA to put money into repairing our crumbling infrastructure. Bailing out mismanaged and uncompetitive private industries to me though is just throwing good money after bad.
I think we have a reason why many hate the UAW and unions. They feel that they should make more because they went to college. Interestingly they don't seem to begrudge those who are in finance making many times more than auto workers because they went to college and they consider them their superiors or something. Take responsibility. If you like your job which pays little, suck it up. If you would rather be an industrial worker with a union contract do that. Depending on where you work you might be able to get in a union to do the type of office work you do. College educated workers often don't have the sense to join unions feeling that their education is sufficient, when often it is not. Then you won't have to begrudge those that have a union and make more than you do.
The only thing is the skills required do the factory jobs for big three is not worht nearly as much anywhere else. That is part of the reason why big three are in big trouble. But the biggest reason is the head of big three over the years have made real bad decisions (giving these contracts to UAW being one of them).
The moral hazard argument doesn't really work here. In both cases, the bailouts help out people that weren't involved in creating the mess in the first place - not the owners of the companies. The stocks of all these companies have been obliterated. Financials are down a huge amount even since the TARP passed. Sure, you could say it's better that Citibank is at $7 instead of $0 - but it's coming from $50, so the vast majority of the owner's value is already gone. The people benefiting from the bailouts are everyone else not associated with the problem.
Its true the shareholders are already screwed and the ownership now isn't exactly the ownership during the 70', 80's and 90's who largely created the problem but the idea that the US government cannot allow private companies to fail does create a moral hazard. Seriously what incentive is there as a CEO to engage in radical reform if you know that in the end you won't be allowed to fail? I will give you a couple of recent examples of where moral hazard has come in play. For instance after AIG gets a bailout they still go out and send their executives on a junket than cutting costs. Many of the banks who have gotten TARP money aren't freeing up credit but using that money to buy out other banks. Even though many would consider these actions unsound and not beneficial to the economy these companies are still free do do so knowing that the government hasn't let them fail.
The deal with AIG and Bear Stearns is that they were holders of a huge amount of credit default swaps worth trillions in paper money. That interconnection would've caused a great deal of panic if they were allowed to declare bankruptcy. It was more about that than allowing an insurance firm to break itself up or a bank to fold. BTW, AIG swindled us good. They magically pulled another 20 billion dollars worth of toxic CDS out of their butts. There is a similar risk with the Big 3 should they be allowed to fail. http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-autos/idUKTRE4B940420081210?sp=true 1. The potential costs and damage of letting them fail will likely cost more than a bailout/bridge loan. 2. The government has been sponsoring programs to help homeowners. The problem is that the government is wary to bailout speculators and irresponsible people. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/business/31bailout.html?_r=1&hp 3. A total homeowner bailout could easily cost in the high hundreds of billions, yet it's goal is mostly to prop up current housing value that homeowners have mostly liquidated or lost. Current relief proposals are to focused on prospective buyers in order to shore up the credit market and fuel housing demand. 4. Obama will likely pursue a high hundred billion dollar plan to repair infrastructure. However, if there is an explosion of layoffs from the Big 3 and its suppliers restructuring itself while under chapter 11, then you're still going to have a large amount of unemployed workers. 4a. Furthermore, giant public works projects take several years to plan and filter through. A sudden bust and mass worker layoff would be immediate. It's not like the government will start digging in all 50 states the moment the ink dries on a construction bill.
I would imagine the incentive is the same regardless of the potential of a bailout - the desire to see your company succeed and that you keep your job. The AIG junket myth has already been dismantled. What banks have used TARP money to buy out other banks? The only ones that I have seen are Citi and Wells Fargo trying to buy Wachovia. Citi only did so because the government asked them to and offered to help. Wells Fargo did it on their own - but they are arguably the healthiest of the banks and are still lending - and didn't even want TARP money in the first place.
I was trying to be nice... I think Alex Jones is an irritating jerk nutjob of the first degree and said so in my first post.
