If he goes out and says he is pro-Cancer, it won't change my opinion that he's funny because the two would be completely unrelated.
But he said something stupid last night and I feel the need to comment. Here's the clip:
He's not the first to make the argument that we should bailout Detroit because we bailed out Wall Street. But he's probably the one you were most likely to listen to (and I don't blame you for that).
Sure, GM's proposal sounds good. All three CEO's pledged to cut their salaries to $1 per year. They'll be in the poor house for sure after that, according to Slate's new baby The Big Money.
I posted earlier that the UAW concessions are a step towards this bailout working.
But I posted before digesting the details.
According to a New York Times article I also linked to two paragraphs ago, the Big Three spend an average of $78/hour per employee when you consider all the benefits.
Plus, retired workers get a lot of those same health care benefits, even though they don't work.
(Quick note off topic: In my opinion, I don't think the government should control retirement planning at all. I think we should be given our full pay check and deal with planning ourselves. That means give me back social security and give me what my employer puts into everything and let me manage my own money.)
Sure, the salary for an auto worker is only an average of around $30 an hour. But the issue is what it costs the employer. (After four years of college, I won't make anywhere close to that for years after I finish if I stay in journalism. Cue the violins and Justin Timberlake's "Cry Me A River")
WSJ.com's Evan Newmark broke down the GM plan brilliantly and I wish I would have just read this rather than everything else.
It took me a solid 15 minutes to track that post back down so enjoy this pull quote as well:
The U.S. car industry has been a credit junkie that now has to go cold turkey.
Which provides a good transition to my last link to a recent statement by Rep. Barney Frank (D, Mass.) who says an automotive bailout would negatively affect the credit crisis.
I'm a little upset that I can't find out how this would negatively affect the credit crisis, other than the obvious, if more people are unemployed then there will be less spending. (And we all know spending and racking up credit card bills is the answer rather than saving.)
But shouldn't bankruptcy be less expensive to the government than this bailout? Seriously, I'm not a bankruptcy expert so if I'm wrong, let me know.
To close, here's Bill O'Reilly giving it to Frank. I don't watch the O'Reilly factor and I think he's a little to Republican for my taste, but at least he's entertaining and a true economic conservative. Enjoy the clip:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment