This one is more apropos for Sen Obama:

Change

One can naturally assume that the writer is:
A) A lib/dem
B) A member of a union!

All-in-all, it's a typical crappily (howz that for a word?)written story designed to make us feel sory for the union working class!

I coulda been livin' the high life courtesy of GM, AND the Gub'mint as well!

All seriousness aside, I challenge anyone to show me a union contract that offers so much gold!

Your response is so littered with defensive non sequiturs and tortured logic that it's difficult to know where to begin.  Well, here goes...

I have an '86 Nissan built in Tennessee.  I have a '99 Ford.  Nothing wrong with either of them and the prices were comparable even 13 years apart. If Japanese cars are indeed better than American cars, then that is due to design-many 'foreign' cars are assembled by American workers be they unionized or not.  My Dad's bought mostly American cars all his life.  He's not in the poorhouse nor stuck on the side of the road.

So, what?  Do you actually think that your anecdotal "evidence" constitutes proof that Detroit automobiles are of equal or better value for money to/than Japanese cars?  Well, sir, the market certainly disagrees with you.

So, did Indie Mac, Lehman Brothers and all those .coms go under because of unions?  I didn't realize AIG is a union shop.

They went under because of a combination of government interference and bad management...just like the Detroit-based auto makers.  What you fail to acknowledge, however, is that a crucial aspect of management is in negotiating and properly budgeting for labor compensation/costs.  The "Big 3" negotiated unsustainable contracts with the UAW.  Why were they unsustainable?  Because the labor obligations were out-of-step with the revenue generated from sales of the manufactured automobiles...the companies were effectively paying out more than they were taking in.  Why?  Because when an American consumer makes a purchase decision, his or her main concern is feeling like he or she got value for his or her money.  All prices being equal, a car purchaser is going to be more concerned with the benefits he receives from the automobile than he is concerned with the benefits a Union employee will receive from the sale of that automobile.  Which is better for my family and me?  A car that gets good gas mileage or one that subsidizes someone else's artificially-inflated wages?  Do I want a satellite radio, or would I prefer to pay that guy to sit on his a** all day, everyday, after he turns 52?  Do I want a superior maintenance and warranty program with this money, or do I want to pay for his health care?

Also, we're much better off with millions of jobs being sent to the People's Republic of so that CEO's didn't have to mess around with unions because they found it easier to go elsewhere with the government's collusion. Huh, never thought of it that way. But, then we complain about Chinese products.  Nope, we're never satisfied.

Your continual retreat to the limp lifeline of class envy suggests that you are totally unfamiliar with the concept of the "cost of doing business".  You see, businesses are not in business to give you a job, to pay for your health care coverage or to pay you a "living wage" from cradle to grave.  Jobs are created when businesses succeed, when the demand for their products or services reaches a point that the businesses have to add staff to help them meet that demand.  In order for a business to succeed it has to be profitable.  If its operations are weighed down by onerous taxes, regulations and labor costs, its potential for profitability declines.  Why would anyone put their own capital at risk if they have little chance of making a profit?  So, then, why are jobs leaving California, New York and Michigan?  Could it have anything to do with the fact that other states have become more competitive...have created business climates that make it easier for companies to prosper.  Yes?  And what have States like Tennessee, Alabama and Nevada done to become more competitive?  They've loosened the chains a little more than the net losers have...they've avoided over-taxing, over-regulating and over-burdening with artificial labor costs.  This same principle also explains why American companies are often forced to "ship jobs overseas".   

We pay many, many times more for a Chinese-made product than what it actually costs to make.  But that's just fine and dandy.  Who cares if that money isn't going back directly into our economy by way of income taxes, spending and investing.  Who cares if millions of Americans lose their jobs so we can save a few bucks-besides, as Dear Leader says, we shouldn't be greedy and be happy with what we do get.

Do you really want to get into a discussion of the intrinsic value of money?  What good is money if it can't really buy you anything?  If something can be manufactured in China more cheaply than it can be here (your "they charge many more times what it costs to make" claim notwithstanding), it probably means that the item is going to be cheaper at the distribution level and cheaper at the retail level...meaning that more people (across all socio-economic categories) can afford to buy those goods.  Unsold inventory doesn't generate revenue...and the one way to guarantee inventory will remain unsold is if it's priced too high.  Meanwhile, sold inventory generates a demand for replacement inventory...which in turn creates more demand for manufacturing, which leads to more jobs...and even if they don't manufacture the products here, they certainly sell them here.  That creates more consumer spending, more jobs and more income tax revenues.  We call this "economic growth".  Seems to me like you're more ready to accept "Dear Leader" than you think.

We Americans spend billions of dollars a year supporting the NFL, NBA, MBL, NHL, etc....watching and cheering players who make millions and buying jerseys with their names and numbers on them.  They're union.  We spend billions going to the movies to watch actors, many of whom are millionaires.  They and the writers are union.  We watch the TV stars and their shows.  They and they're writers are union.  No problem.  We're being entertained...that's all that counts.

That paragraph was all rant, no substance...a huge non sequitur.  Do you think anyone gives a rat's a** whether professional athletes, writers and actors are unionized?  And there you are with that class envy business again!  Union or not, professional athletes and actors get paid what they do relative to the perceived value that they bring.  Professional athletes and movie stars are blessed with a highly marketable talent and/or appeal.  Nobody would pay 5 cents to watch me play basketball, but some would pay 5 Grand to see Kobe Bryant play.  UAW workers do not bring any special, irreplaceable talent to their jobs.  That is not an indictment of the work that they are charged with doing, it's a simple fact.  You can find more people capable of working an assembly line than you can find heart surgeons or great quarterbacks...this is why heart surgeons and star quarterbacks usually earn more than auto workers do.  Angelina Jolie commands over $20 Million per film...her presence in the film is perceived to generate enough revenue to justify her compensation.  Rest assured, the moment that projection fails to bear out, Ms. Jolie will be commanding no such figure...if she gets any work at all.  Same thing goes for the NBA, MLB, NFL and, especially the NHL.  The NHL has been a poorly managed league that failed to capitalize on a spike in interest because (who'd have thunk it?) of a labor dispute.  All the goodwill generated by Gretzky's rejuvenation in LA, Lemieux's Hodgkin's recovery and the New York Ranger Stanley Cup run was undone within months as the teams failed to get a handle on spiralling labor costs...and the players failed to realize that this hockey madness was only a temporary fad.  A league that once possessed somewhat realistic aspirations of eclipsing baseball and basketball now found itself fighting it out for scraps with the WNBA, MLS, Pro Beach Volleyball and Indoor Lacrosse.  After the lockout was settled, the NHL continued to expand into unsustainable markets on the promise of huge expansion fees...all in an effort to recover revenue promised to disproportionately paid athletes.  In short, we spend our money on sports and entertainment because we believe that we get a value for what we pay.  And, the best part about sports and entertainment with regard to value: when the events fail to meet audience expectations, the "businesses" are allowed to fail.  When we do not perceive value for our money in these enterprises, we exhibit our dissatisfaction through empty seats, bad opening weekends, booing.  This makes the businesses accountable to those they are charged to serve.  And don't get me started on Unions and movie production...you don't think that films "set" in New York or LA often get filmed in Vancouver or Toronto because Vancouver and Toronto look more like New York and LA than New York and LA do?  Do you?

But, when working class people get more than the average wage we get all bent out of shape, and say, "How dare they! They're messing up the country and costing me money!".  

Oh, yes, the world is begrudging union workers because they're "working class".  Grow up.  The concern is not that they get "more than the average wage", it is that they get more than they are worth.  Unlike Angelina Jolie or the CEOs you seem to detest, most Union compensation is not structured to be tied to the success or failure of the company.  If Angelina Jolie can't bring the revenues required to justify her compensation, the likes of Paramount and Universal will look for someone else who can...or at least they will pay Jolie a lot less the next time around.  And if a CEO fails to ensure that investors realize a reasonable return on their investments, they'll vote him out.  And believe me, investors would much rather pay millions in compensation and bonuses to an effective CEO than pay nothing to an ineffective CEO.

Try learning some simple economics before lecturing me on misplaced values.

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan

fitzfong.blogspot.com