jump to navigation

Megan McArdle Takes the UAW Down a Notch December 14, 2008

Posted by A Texan In Grad School in Unions.
Tags: , ,

McArdle explains the different cost structures of banks and car companies.  Before this, she has quite a good response about the failure of the automotive bailout:

I’m hearing the truly bizarre argument that the UAW didn’t scuttle the negotiations; it was the Republicans unreasonable insistence that they cut their wages to levels comparable to that of their competition.  After all, the UAW was perfectly willing to negotiate their compensation package–in 2011, when their current contract expires.

And I think that’s perfectly reasonable.  We’ll just wait until 2011 to give them the money, then.

Real Clear Markets has a good chart to keep in mind during these discussions.



1. A Texan In The Professional World - December 14, 2008

indeed… as ATIGS pointed out… this really doesn’t make any economic sense. I can’t figure out for the life of me why the President is supporting the Dems in this case. Competition is a center piece of our economic system… and we’re not requiring it! Essentially, the UAW has a monopoly of sorts on Big 3 production ability through its control of the labor supply.
Perhaps he’s doing it as a favor to the incoming administration? I’ve no idea…. but one thing’s for sure, this is not a measure supported by the American people. This is an example of the “enlightened statesman” doing something VERY unpopular to start with. This ranks right up there behind Bush’s illegal immigrant amnesty plans in my list of the administration’s foolish choices.

2. A Texan In Grad School - December 14, 2008

Actually it’s a very shrewd move on Bush’s part. He’s angered his own base so much that they didn’t show up at the polls for McCain, so the only part of his legacy he can try to improve is his relationship with the Democrats. Especially if he is backing a bill he knows won’t get passed.

3. A Texan In The Professional World - December 15, 2008

I don’t think it’s a matter of legacy so much as what he either a) actually believes, or b) is trying to do for the Obama administration since they’re going to do it anyway. I’m leaning towards A. And the bill doesn’t have to “get passed” b/c the money is already left to the discretion of the treasury secretary thanks to the financial system bailout.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: