The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Special Report

The Five-Cent Lemonade Stand

Another name for Obamanomics’ trillion dollar business model.

Harry Stonecipher, the tough-talking CEO of McDonnell Douglas from 1994 to 1997, executed one of the great turnarounds in corporate history. He made no apologies for failing to provide greater job protection for employees. As he liked to say, the aerospace giant could “not afford one more worker than the minimum needed to satisfy the customer.” Or, more succinctly still, he would say, “Only the customer can guarantee your job.”

If having a job depends, ultimately, upon satisfying a paying customer — a lesson many of us first learned as school children in mowing lawns, shoveling snow and doing other chores for neighbors — what is one to think of the sustainability of the 3.5 million jobs that will supposedly be created or saved by the $787 billion federal stimulus package?

Still more, what is one to think of the future of the U.S. domestic auto industry — or some of our leading financial institutions, which are now on federal life-support?

The key to understanding “Obamanomics” — which is not so much hard-core socialism as it is wishful thinking masquerading as pragmatism — is that it is based on a different business model arising out of childhood experience: not the self-initiated and arduous tasks undertaken by 10 and 11 year-olds seeking to earn extra spending money, but the more pleasant if boring job undertaken by much younger children in setting up a lemonade stand.

To a child of five or six (or to anyone these days who happens to be making economic policy in the Obama Administration), there’s no such thing as real money; it’s all play money, designed to imbue those who are throwing it around with a spurious sense of power and authority. 

The lemonade stand is subsidized front end and back — with free inputs of lemons and sugar from parents and the indulgence of other adults who make a show of acting as discriminating customers.

Little kids see through the phoniness of thinking of the lemonade stand as a real business and soon tire of it. But the current economic crisis — in undermining belief in the efficiency and fairness of the marketplace — has revived faith in long-discredited economic nostrums, beginning with the idea that government is up to the task of restructuring big companies and, in doing so, turning lemons into lemonade. Thus, we saw the curious spectacle of four members of the President’s auto-industry task force parachuting into Detroit last month and (“Here we go again,” as Ronald Reagan might have said) getting a cram course on the economics of the automotive industry.

To review what would seem to be a simple story: In holding a monopoly over the supply of labor, the UAW, over a period of many decades, has used the threat of strikes to extract unreasonable pay increases and other benefits from management; in doing so, the union has been the willing and not exactly unwitting instrument of its own destruction.

So what did members of the task force learn on their fact-finding mission that might help them devise a cure for the fatal disease of excessive union power? 

Well, the first thing they learned was that they shouldn’t have worn suits in visiting auto plants, because that is a sight that offends the delicate feelings of the working men and women, or at least it does those of their UAW bosses. And second, they learned from their UAW hosts that, rather than being concentrated in the state of Michigan, retired autoworkers are spread out across the United States — which is somehow supposed to make their fate a matter of national concern (note to the reader:  though the UAW surely did not go out of its way to emphasize the point, it is safe to assume that a disproportionate number of retired autoworkers are living in states such as Arizona and Florida, where golf is played year around). This second piece of information caused a soulful Steven Mousener, the task-force chairman, to confide in the Wall Street Journal, “At the end of all the numbers we are generating, there are real people.”

Rattner (excuse me, it’s Rattner, not Mousener) would have learned even more if he had simply picked up a copy of Roger Lowenstein’s book While America Aged: How Pension Debts Ruined General Motors, Stopped the NYC Subways, Bankrupted San Diego and Loom as the Next Financial Crisis, published in early 2008. Back in 1973, as Lowenstein recounts, the UAW won full pensions for early retirees under a “thirty-and-out” plan. This meant that an autoworker starting at a factory out of high school could retire with full benefits before the age of fifty — becoming a permanent ward of the company while still in the prime of life. What a deal!

As described in Lowenstein’s book, the gushing stream of cash flow that once went to GM’s shareholders as dividends was thereby diverted to GM’s current and future retirees:

Over a fifteen-year stretch ending in 2006, GM poured $55 billion into its workers’ pension plan, compared to only $13 billion that it paid out in dividends. In other words, the company paid its pensioners four times as much — not including the money that it spent on their generous health care benefits — as it did to its ostensible owners!

And that explains why the company’s stock has been in continuous decline — not just over the past few years, but over the past four decades. GM’s leaders over the years may be described as quislings for knuckling under to the union’s demands. But there can be no denying the central part that union has played in the unraveling of the business. Rattner went to the right place when he started his visit to Detroit at the UAW’s headquarters. It’s just too bad that he went hat in hand.

Like the community organizer he once was, President Obama’s approach to saving Detroit has been keyed to bringing different people and factions together…and selling them on his idea of a green and desirable future. He has called for “a set of sacrifices from all parties involved — management, labor, shareholders, creditors, suppliers, dealers.” In return for such “sacrifices,” he promises various subsidies and speaks of a revitalized Detroit that will “lead the world in building the next generation of clean cars” and create new jobs that “cannot be outsourced.”

Page: 1 2  

About the Author

Andrew B. Wilson, a frequent contributor to The American Spectator, writes from St. Louis.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (21) |

Appleby| 4.14.09 @ 6:35AM

Look for the Union Label ....

Here in Kanukistan GM unionistas are shrieking that the Province of Ontario -- currently in massive deficit despite the 46% tax rate on the average employed person -- has a *Moral Duty* to support these bloated pensioners in the manner to which they demand, whether or not anybody ever buys another GM car.

That will be their next move in the USA. Count on it.

CS Lewis| 4.14.09 @ 8:39AM

To lump pensions just to the UAW and auto workers, who made a deal with the business, worked the work and then retired with their pensions is to ignore other pension holders not auto workers, who made a deal with the business, worked the work and then retired with their pensons also rightfully earned.
Businesses grew, prospered and made America the most successful country in the world by this process.
Not a word about government employees who have done the same with much less work required and a pension gained in so short a time and perks far beyond the average worker which they created and expanded while destroying businesses by making laws and remaking them until we have arrived at the condition the country is now in.
I don't hear anyone demanding to take away government employees retired or working, pensions or perks, or health care. They are in control, they are set for life.
And, it's getting worse, just as the article, "Scientific Pretense vs. Democracy" relates.

dcd| 4.14.09 @ 9:32AM

And don't forget those lazy soldiers who made a deal with the government that included extravegent pensions and benifits merely to risk their lives for national defense.

Robert Rosencrans| 4.14.09 @ 9:37AM

The bills have come due, and GM can't pay them.

Marc Jeric| 4.14.09 @ 12:15PM

Show me a strong union and I'll show you a dying or dead industry. Examples abound - automobiles, textile, electronics, steel, etc. Given enough time every union will come under the sway of either the mafia or the communists (which is the same thing). With one exception - unions of government employees. Their "work" cannot be outsourced so the destruction is continuing and permanent - see teacher unions where our education industry manufactures millions of illiterate morons voting for that empty suit and marxist Abu Hussein from Kenys. Or the bureaucrat who issued the visa extension to the 9/11 terrorist 6 months after he died his martyr's death.

CS Lewis| 4.14.09 @ 1:52PM

dcd... right on. the ones (vets), Janet the head of homeland security who is defaming, calling them right wing possibly ready to do harm to others.
This is to try to discourage Vets from going to Tea parties.
And just think of our military who gave their life for this country and their familes were just left with peanuts. Thank God for those people who are taking care of soldiers and their familes since the Iraq War began.

Rick Josey | 4.14.09 @ 2:54PM

We MUST care for our Veterans. They kept us free.

And we MUST vote out all these lunatics who are wrecking our country with their failed socialistic policies. You CANNOT get out of debt by throwing yourself further into debt. You have to stimulate economic growth through INCENTIVES. Does any sane business person walking this planet think it's an investment incentive to be TAXED INTO OBLIVION????

The nuts in Washington must go. VOTE THEM OUT... and meanwhile...

Head for a Tea Party...

www.PatriotHangout.com

nem| 4.14.09 @ 3:27PM

The comments regarding veterans pensions are interesting. But being a retired veteran (infantry and then Special Forces), I really am of two minds. First, I certainly believe that we need to care for those injured in the service of their country (I happen to be the only SF guy I know who does not have a disability) and certainly we need to provide sufficient incentives so as to get folks to volunteer for the military. But that said, the package really is pretty generous. Particularly when you consider that most of the fighting and dying is done by the youngsters. But a pension is only obtained by hanging around for 20 plus years (combat is not a prerequisit). So, regardless of one's MOS, deployments, sacrifices, etc., we all get the same pension based on rank and number of years at retirement. Approx 50% pay after 20 years and up to 75% after 30.

Its hard to gage what is appropriate. I understand the feeling that we deserve every penny of what we get. But, I can look at folks who really did earn their pay so to speak. Guys who routinely risked their lives. And I can look at a person who served in the Quartermaster Corps who never heard a shot fired in anger (nothing against QM guys). If sacrifice is the measure, why do they get the same pension?

Maybe some changes are needed. Don't know what, but if we are advocating that Vets deserve it because of their sacrifices, then the system should account for the differential in sacrifice. If not, then.......? What? I don't know. But I am not going to cry that I am underappreciated because I don't get enough money from the public weal.

Alan Brooks| 4.14.09 @ 10:56PM

play money? like the hundreds of billions for the prescription drug program?

Alan Brooks| 4.14.09 @ 10:59PM

or the 1990 Disabilities (i.e. cripples hoisted on buses) Act?

now, whose father signed that bill?

Warren A Scaman CPA| 4.15.09 @ 12:32PM

How about a 100 % Funded Pension, then they have a Right to their % as a secured creditor.

But get real... an Unfunded Promise is an unsecured Creditor. Place them all on Medicare. They had 30 year for their Union to get it funded properly.

Warren A Scaman CPA| 4.15.09 @ 12:32PM

How about a 100 % Funded Pension, then they have a Right to their % as a secured creditor.

But get real... an Unfunded Promise is an unsecured Creditor. Place them all on Medicare. They had 30 year for their Union to get it funded properly.

More Articles by Andrew B. Wilson

More Articles From Special Report

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/14/the-five-cent-lemonade-stand

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Pick Obama's Brain

Paul Kengor | 5.16.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

Pray and Grow Rich

Christopher Orlet | 5.16.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

From Bimbos to Benghazi

Jeffrey Lord | 5.9.13

ADVERTISEMENT