Interesting story from the AP

Don, Not sure what you are reading, but when did I make any mention of how much a retiree makes a month? Not sure how you conclude that I am "misinformed" when I never even mentioned average monthly costs.

When did I state that retiree's shouldn't get a pension? If you read what I wrote (something you rarely do...) you would have seen this

I have no disdain for the assemblers. More power to them to be able to command those types of retirement packages. My point is that those costs are overwhelming GM's resources and limiting their ability to be a profitable company.

I also wrote this

Great for the retiree... not so much for stockholders (the US gov't) or GM customers that are paying substantially more per vehicle to cover those costs.

I don't have any problem with the union trying to get the best they can for their employees. My point from the beginning has been that because GM management agreed to these overly generous benefit packages for retiree's, it is seriously cutting into their margin and making it very difficult to be a profitable company.

For the record, I invest in a 457 deferred compensation plan that takes MY earned money out pre tax and invests it how I see fit. That is MY money, invested in companies that I chose to support my family after I retire. I am not counting on a pension and I don't have any faith that Social Security will have enough money to pay me what current retiree's are afforded.

Back on topic... GM is not a profitable company because they have such exorbitant overhead costs. Check out this article, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/12/uaw-workers-actually-cost-the-big-three-automakers-70-an-hour . Here is a quote from the article

Retirement Benefits Alone Cost $31 an Hour

The argument that retiree pension and health benefits inflate the hourly labor costs of the Detroit automakers cannot withstand basic scrutiny. For instance, General Motors UAW retirement plan paid $4.9 billion to 291,000 retirees and surviving spouses in 2006.[11] That works out to $31.04 an hour when apportioned among active workers.[12] That figure accounts for virtually all GM's benefit costs--before accounting for health care costs, disability benefits, supplemental unemployment benefits, or any of the other benefits GM provides. GM pays too much in retirement benefits to have labor costs of only $70 an hour if that figure included benefits to current retirees

Furthermore, GM is paying benefits on 2 retirees per current worker, whereas Ford and Chrysler are paying benefits on a 1-1 ratio. Ford and Chrysler have MUCH lower overhead costs as a result. I've got news for you, those high overhead costs and low profit margins are what caused GM to have serious financial problems that led to the bailout. While things are slightly better now than they were 5 years ago, they are still way out of whack and will continue to cause serious consternation for GM execs as they attempt to dig out from the pile that they built for themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if these pension and benefit packages continue to cause financial problems for GM.

Sorry to get off topic, but I follow wherever the thread leads me...