The Indy Star, in an editorial entitled Let’s learn from GM’s woes, strategy calls GM’s 25,000 job cuts “harsh but necessary”.
The editorial seems to approve of placing burdens squarely on the worker. Mention is made that management and government may be part of solutions. But the Star focuses on what workers need to lose to make the company successful: health benefit cuts, concessions on wages, pensions, and work rules. In an era in which workers are consistently on the short end of the stick it’s typical that the Star would recommend more of the same.
For our long term health, I suggest that: 1) We need to place our trade partners on an equal footing — that is to say require as part of a free market that other countries not be able to tie one hand behind our back by dumping costs on atrocious environmental practices and unconscionable treatment of workers. 2) Stop the increased concentration of wealth in the hands of the hyper wealthy — use the estate tax at the level it was envisioned by our founders as a source of revenue for the government and as a means of inhibiting the development of an American aristocracy, use the revenues from the estate tax as a means by which to reduce income tax. It’s indefensible that our policy makers have decided to pursue the elimination of the estate tax as “tax relief” before reducing the income tax. Who has a greater claim to their money: the worker to his paycheck at the end of a weak of labor or the heir to his father’s estate? 3) Healthcare — the costs are spiraling upward at an alarming rate. The money is not resulting in better or more healthcare for the general population, increased income for doctors, or (despite what you’ve heard) increased medical malpractice lawsuit awards. The answer probably isn’t socialized medicine, but rather some sort of single payer insurance capable of wringing out whatever waste is obviously being committed in the healthcare system.
I would also suggest that the loss of our manufacturing base puts our national defense in serious jeopardy. Our success in World War II was based largely on our ability to convert private manufacturing into military manufacturing. If another war comes along that requires the production of a great deal of hardware, we simply won’t have the capacity or people skilled in such manufacturing. On the other hand, we’ll have no problem bagging our conqueror’s purchases when they occupy our Wal-marts.
Leave a Reply