Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorubet
The shortsighted Detroit CEOs who got our whore congressmen to gut the increased mpg mandates for decades are to blame as well. If they had transitioned to high mpg and hybrid vehicles like they were supposed to, they would be more competitive now. They took the short term SUV cash cows over the long term welfare of the company. You cannot blame all of that on unions. Slave labor is not the freaking answer either. Spending money on factory modernization instead of big dividends is an idea too. But the dealerships have to be reduced, the brands consolidated, and the pension benefits cut to a more reasonable level. Theyworked for thirty years, you cannot throw them to the curb totally.
|
No doubt the CEOs are partly to blame here. However, let's go back to my original question: who's really protecting the workers? Recent events have shown that the notion that the union protects workers from the evil of capitalism is unfounded, that the union has only contributed to the short term benefits for its members while precipitating the eventual demise of the industry. The market simply does not value automakers' salaries the way that union leaders do, and they have the ultimate veto by the virtue of purchasing power.
Quote:
|
But here we are talking about something that is more important than consumer preference. I mean, the market would want land yachts that got 7 mpg. Assuming that is what the market wants, you cannot reconcile the need for less dependence on foreign oil with the market forces wanting less efficient vehicles.
|
The premise of this argument seems to be that the market is inefficient in balancing the costs and benefits of reliance on oil. The irony is that emprical evidence supports quite the contrary. The demand for big SUVs have greatly diminished as the general demand for private automobiles have gone down. If the bankruptcy of the Big three says anything at all, it surely screams that America demands less reliance on high price unrenewable energy.