still paying for your father's oldsmobile

I heard somebody observe that GM was doomed the moment retiree benefits became a greater cost factor than current employee wages.  I was immediately reminded of Social Security.

What happened at GM, essentially, is that a deal was struck which counted on car-buyers of the future to pay for the healthcare needs of retired workers.  So that guy who built your father's Oldsmobile?  Not only did he get a pretty good paycheck, but he also never had to put any of it away for his retirement care because everybody always figured on burying that cost in the price of your Chevy today.

What nobody counted on was that you'd have access to automobiles built by workers who were not quite in the same state of denial about their future needs.  When the interests of UAW retirees became more significant than the contribution of current workers, what you saw was a preview of Baby Boom retirement.  And ultimately the market expressed a preference for sticker prices that included a little more car and a little less retiree.

Socialism, like unions, is only partly about shifting costs onto someone with greater "abilities."  It's also very much about preventing the able from throwing off the yoke.  So when Americans rejected the costs buried in GM sticker prices, those costs will now be shifted onto their taxes -- or, in this case, their kids' taxes. 

And consistent with this, you can now expect to see the government start looking for ways to guarantee that every Honda and Toyota you buy includes its own kickbacks to that guy who built your father's Oldsmobile all those years ago.  Tariffs, subsidies, tax credits -- however they choose to do it, the result is always the same: somebody somewhere will live with less so that union worker -- and life-long Democrat voter -- will never have to take responsibility for himself.

"Cradle to grave" is already here if you pay dues to the right union local.

Comments

[John P]

It comes down to this: Some of us (Americans) are concerned with prosperity, potential success, doing better for our family, and yes, owning more things. Others are more concerned with 'equality' (more precisely, their idea of equality) - meaning that the disparities of success are smaller, the wealthy don't have that much more than others, and any one industry or country doesn't have too much control, etc.

Progressive taxes, which were implemented back in the early 20th century, restrict too much success, essentially a 'restrictor plate' on income. Minimum wage, on the other hand, artificially raises income for the lowest wage earners. the idea being to reduce the disparity of incomes. Makes sense, huh? Until you take into account that this redistribution of wealth also limits the productivity of our entire economy. People aren't 'brought up' as much as the entire country, the wealthy included, are 'brought down'.

This progressive plan stiffled our economy for decades, until the early 1980's, when the highest rates were brought way down, restrictions on trade started to ease, technology grew at a rapid pace (because there was profit in it) and finally Americans were relatively free to build their wealth, and the country as a whole grew economically.

Now here we are. Some continue to blame 'unbridled' growth, and 'W' for the present economic crisis. While others see this as part of the overall eb and flow of our economy (albeit severe). I see it as a bit of both. Under George Bush the economy grew quite rapidily, perhaps too rapid. All of us were doing better, all of us were spending too much, all of us were greedy.

With this sense of success, we all bought houses too big, or spent on credit cards too much, or bought cars that were too expensive; you get the idea. At the end of his term, Bush did the one thing that, to a conservative, was inexusable: He spent too much!
Policy makers did this under the idea that all we needed to do is spend more money. Hog wash!

Never has spending more money to get us out of a financial jam ever worked. Neither on an individual nor a national level. It simply doesn't work. You can't legislate around economic laws.

The present administration has made things worse, much worse. By spending much, much more then ever could have been imagined (even a year ago), the economy is crashing. (Regardless of what the President says).

This leads me to back to the main difference between 'us' and 'them'. Obama isn't concerned with the overall success of individuals, companies or industries, rather he is concerned with changing the social character of our country, the economic crisis is simply the excuse 'they' needed to take drastic steps. The social idea of redistribution of wealth is the tool to re-engineer our society. (Economic laws aside)

So, it is pointless for 'us' to get upset with 'them' when discussing the economy, the everyday ups and downs and the policies that are destroying it. Stop pulling your hair out, or screaming at your TV set, because, it is, simply put, not 'their' concern.