"...And a number we love: for every one of those Winnebagos, it takes on average 165 of those dedicated workers to get it on the road..."My question about this is: what is it about that number that David Muir and his colleagues so adore? Presumably, it's not that it's small. Would it be a bad thing, then, if through innovation that number were trimmed to 150? 125? 100? What if the very same Winnebago could be made in the same amount of time, at no greater (and probably lower) cost, by just 50 dedicated Hawkeye State workers--perhaps 50 Jack Rebneys? Would that be a net positive for the company? Iowa? The country? Humanity? Would Diane chime in about what "great news" such ingenuity is?
Forgive me if I find an appreciation of the benefits of doing more with less to be inconsistent with the tenor of the reporting coming out of ABC