Apparently it's only generic when it shows that you don't wish to acknowledge it.
You said the unions encouraged the higher waged employee's to retire. I replied as to why that was in their best interest. I also expanded as to why they were a part of the problem to start with and noting why I believe they are on the same path as before. If you feel it is only you allowed to bring up points, I might as well quit now.
You: According to the article, the union was the group that urged higher paid employees to retire early so that cheaper employees could be hired.
Me: It's also in the unions best interest to get rid of the higher wage earners. There is nothing the union could get away with doing for them.
You: The unions certainly deserves to be criticizd, but at the same time those aren't the very actions that got us here. They are quite different from those actions, actually.
Me: I had already addressed that I believe that their near immediate demands for higher wages (and getting them) are the same things that caused a part of the problem and will likely to lead to other stupid demands like I noted that've made before.
If you start your response by claiming I've said something inaccurate, I will request evidence to verify the veracity of your denial. Your opinions about what the Union's options were limited to are utterly irrelevant to the point I made.
The point that was made, that you claimed was false, was that this wasn't simply the same old same old from the union. Everything else you posted besides the portion I quoted was irrelevant to the point.
Now, I was allowing for the possibility that I was wrong, which is why I requested more information. Your little dance of avoidance shows me that I wasn't wrong, though, o9r at least that you were ill equipped to claim I was wrong.
It's not gone, it's invested. It can be recouped if the stocks reach a certain value.Since it's gone, someone has to pay it back.
False. It can be recouped via stock sales.One can not pay it back if the jobs move to China.
And regardless of what happens to these jobs, there will still exist other jobs which will pay taxes in order to pay back the loans that the US has.
So? Are you under the impression that the jobs that might be going to China are the only one's in the country which generate tax revenue?We did not have this money. It was borrowed.
Bully for you.I absolutely 100% believe that the company and the country would have been better off if GM had been forced through a more conventional bankruptcy.
Of course, that doesn't do squat to fix the situation that exists now and those jobs would still be gone, but I'm very happy for you that you are so strong in your belief, no matter how utterly pointless I believe it is to dwell on the hypothetical utopia that could have been.