"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:54:13 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:38:38 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I think the Big Three could be competitive, which is what they're
trying
to
do, for example, by removing the benefits part to a separate trust (I
believe that's what they're calling it). The UAW and other unions would
clearly need to be willing (and they seem willing) to recognize the
problems
and renegotiate their packages.

I haven't heard anything about a willingness to give up having the big
three
pay wages to people who aren't working. Have you? Do you really think
the
UAW is going to agree to something that would close that $30 an hour
wage
gap? I don't think so.

I have a very hard time believing that any company would pay someone not
to
work. It certainly can't be significant, given the other huge benefit
costs,
which is the major contributor to the cost of their autos/trucks. What's
the
percentage? I'd be interested to know. As far as giving up part of their
wages, it seems to me that if one has a choice between a job that pays a
bit
less vs. not having a job, it's a no-brainer.

Do you think that this is the time to throw an even greater number into
the
unemployment lines?

We can do it now at a cost, or later at much greater cost. I opt for
the
former.

Do you really believe that dumping 3-5 million jobs is a cost we can
stand
right now... not to mention an estimated the tax base loss of $200B or
more?
You might be right that the cost later will be higher, perhaps even quite
a
bit higher, but it seems to me we would be better able to afford it
later.

Jon, Dave's obsession with the people on the bottom of the pile making
any money is a red herring and nothing more. Labor is not even
remotely at the core of GM's problems.


Neither is labor at the core of the solution.


None of these posters have a clue. All are at least slightly brainwashed
into thinking socialism is the answer or part of the answer.

They are 100% wrong!

The answer is a 100% belief in a free market economy, 100% support of a free
market economy and 100% implementation of a free market economy. Crybabies
please leave the building! A free market economy is Darwin's evolutionary
survival of the fittest applied to the market place. Any other system allows
survival of the less fit and the unfit to the detriment and eventual
downfall of the system. Too much dead weight for even the superbly fit to
carry.

It's that simple!

Wilbur Hubbard