Well-done, poignant reminder of the point of Christmas, without being preachy.
Author: Aren Cambre
Auto worker unions are eyeball gougers
THANK YOU to the Senate for killing the automaker union bailout.
Yes, union bailout. Unions are mostly behind the domestic auto industry’s failure. They literally killed the “goose that laid the golden egg” by forcing salaries almost 60% more than PhD college professors!
$160K total compensation for repetitive, assembly line work.
This bailout is–literally–leftist Congressmen buying votes from their leftist union friends. A few supposed conservatives jumped on for flaky reasons, including “my district needs a bailout, too”; paranoia of economic apocalypse; and because they fear unionized constituents.
Generations of automaker management have failed to convert their supposed vision into quality products. That’s partly why domestics have made crap cars for decades.
But if vision is currency, unions are the eyeball gougers. When unions guzzle so much revenue, what’s left but scraps? What funds innovation? Management’s #1 fault is playing nice with unions.
Did the Senate kill the union bailout? Perhaps, but, again, the unions caused the failure: they stubbornly refused meaningful compensation concessions. Senate Republicans demanded they drop wages to PhD college professor-levels instead of medical doctor levels. Either way, union members would still be overpaid for turning a screwdriver all day.
I hope this debate causes a colossal shift in union legitimacy.
Unions have their place. I support them when they rise against bona fide workplace abuses.
But when become institutionalized, when their purpose is a monopoly on labor, when they violate our Constitutional right to free association (“closed shop”), unions are a strategic blunder. They shift broad economic focus from what makes the United States special–innovation–and instead try make us like every other gray, socialist or communist country–artificial wage inflation. That’s why domestic automakers are failing–unions converted them from innovators into a socialist jobs program.
It’s time for the auto unions to go. If the foreign automakers’ non-union employees are so highly paid, then domestics can pull it off, too.
One last note: Nancy Pelosi claims we’re playing “Russian roulette” by not bailing out her union buddies. In fact, any Russian roulette is when the bailout debt causes future inflationary pressure.
Facebook friend categorization
It’s been a while since I posted here. Too keep you entertained, I categorized all 184 of my Facebook friends by primary relationship type.
Wikipedia wastes my time
Last night, I finally gave up Wikipedia editing. It’s not worth it.
Wikipeida is a bona fide nonprofit, and work on it is charitable. But what makes charitable work “worth it”? Here’s a few reasons:
- Have a connection. Charity work with a group of friends counts, as does charity work for an organization in which I have a relationship.
- Get value out of it. I like my volunteering with Boy Scouts and my neighborhood association because it’s as much an education for me as it is a benefit for them. Also fulfilling a religious calling is a value.
- Some kind of permanence. My charitable effort must make a lasting difference in someone’s life.
Wikipedia does none of these.
I have no connection. I only know two editors, and I have met netiher in person. I value relationships, but I only have “so much time” to develop them. I’m not interested in spending that scarce resource on people whose connection is only editing an encyclopeda.
I get little value out of it. I see no “higher purpose” merit. Sure, maybe a little entertainment on the debates, maybe a little pride in knowing I affected some articles. But whatever value I get is totally offset by the lack of permanence described below.
Among Wikipedia’s largest flaws is the lack of authority. Any clown can destroy your changes. Content that is both not part of common sense of laymen and not easily verifiable will be destroyed by successive edits.
I think it was Science magazine that found that Wikipedia is remarkably accurate for scientific articles. Maybe so, but it’s only because the facts are so easily verifiable. The accuracy and verifiability of other articles are debatable. I’ve especially noticed this in articles with a political slant; way too often they conform to how political authorities market things in ways they aren’t.
Good bye Wikipedia. It was interesting, but you’re not worth my time.
Lies about the bailout
Politicians keep lying about the bailout:
| Lie | Truth |
| It won’t cost more than $700 billion. | When have huge government programs ever cost as much as promised? NEVER! Paulson, et al, have hardly a clue what their bailout will cost, partly because… |
| The government will pay a fair price for troubled debts. | Nobody knows how to price these troubled debts. That means means that “we the people” will get soaked. |
| The government could make a profit. | Think about it: if loans will be profitable and that the companies can cover any losses, then why are we even buying these loans? That’s a sound market environment! |
| Financial firms will repay the government for any losses. |
Only one thing is certain about this bailout: the taxpayers will be screwed.
The economy may have to take a bitter pill. Don’t let the government screw it up worse!