Being a capitalist in business and in thinking I believe the free market should decide the outcome of our future. As a capitalist I realize I succeed or fail based on my decisions as a business owner. I believe that bigger companies have greater resources than I to make better decisions for their outcome and improve their chances of success.
With that said I realize the economical impact of losing any or all of our big auto makers.
I do question why they cannot trim their cost first. One item I heard the other day was just absurd. The automakers are forced by the unions to retain a “bank of workers” that they no longer need due to new robotics that do the job of the worker more efficiently. This bank of workers sits in the cafeterias of the auto plants idly putting in their time waiting to be called to the line if needed. My source stated that this bank amounts to 15,000 workers each day, earning in the area of $31.00 per hour. My quick math says this is approximately $100,000,000.00 per year that could be trimmed out of the auto makers cost.
If we pass a bill to save the big three automakers with out making them and the unions make concessions, would we not be subsidizing the costly unions and the demands they in turn make on the automakers?
Let’s learn a lesson from our bail out of AIG and make sure the taxpayers are not going to subsidize spa treatments for their executives and unnecessary costly demands of our unions that bog down our ability to produce a competitive product.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
i think i understand how important the auto industry is to our economy. BUT can we really just keep bailing out failing business? What do the liberal illuminati really hope to accomplish by give them a few million or billion dollars? I just don't understand.
I thought about it, and I'm already convinced it's a complete waste of money. Then again, so is everything else the left-wing illuminati call urgent.
Post a Comment