I understand your point. The beauty of it is:  This is math, not opinion.  If you doubt any of it, all you have to do is fire-up Excel and work the numbers.<p>For example, try to answer the question about how GM can survive, grow and innovate when it has nearly 5 retired employees for every one current employee.  And, every single one of those retirees is drawing a huge percentage of their salaries as their pension, for life, as well as enjoying tremendous paid benefits.<p>The problem here is the divide between people who have business experience and those who do not.  Any small business person understands, without having to run any calculations, that having the cost of a position multiplied by 6 (because you are paying 1 active worker and 5 retirees) is utterly unsustainable.  Or that, installing a series of automated welders while not being able to lay off 50 people is a formula for bankruptcy.<p>Do you hire a gardener, cleaning service or pool person?  Imagine having to continue paying them 80% of their monthly fees after they retire.  And then you have to hire a new service to do the job.<p>Now you go out and buy a robotic lawn mower, vacuum or pool cleaner.<p>And you can&#x27;t fire them.<p>You have to continue paying those service providers for a service they will not be performing because their contract says so.  Forever.<p>Get the point?<p>We can engage in the fallacy of attacking the source all we want, yet, it is impossible to attack the math, which is the point here.  These arrangements are mathematically predetermined to result in the destruction of companies and jobs unless Superman comes down from the skies and brings with him a supernatural solution of some sort.<p>Or, we pretend all is well, grab some tax money to continue propping them up and shift the problem forward to another generation.  Which is exactly what we&#x27;ve been doing with both unions and government programs.