- Joined
- Jan 25, 2008
- Messages
- 41,324
- Reaction score
- 30,856
- Location
- Southern England
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Detroit city wasn't assembling cars for most of the last century.
Detroit could not compete with the cheap labor. They did toe the line and decided to lower wages in a country that no longer feels it needs unions or at least unions with any kind of negotiating power. Now everyone should be happy that we have added a whole new generation of the working insecure and poor to our rolls.
They do have some assembly plants left.Detroit city wasn't assembling cars for most of the last century.
You are not learning the Detroit lesson. Unions negotiated themselves right out of a job.
They do have some assembly plants left.
In Michigan, not the city.
Nobody has said that they were the only cause, but they most certainly were a significant cause, perhaps the most significant cause. Why do you think that dodging that fact makes the argument wrong? Unions have demonstrably given massive amounts of money and influence to getting Democratic politicians elected for the express reason of funding and supporting their agenda. There is no question about this whatsoever. In fact, without their funding and influence, it's questionable whether these politicians would have gotten elected at all.
Detroit has problems because they have all of the financial requirements that they had before being a right-to-work state. Changing to right-to-work doesn't invalidate all of the union contracts they've written over the years.
Why don't you understand that?
Sure they did. The question the OP raised was, "Did unions bankrupt Detroit"? Most of the posters who apparently are anti-union folks like yourself have said yes, they did. But they would be wrong.
Unions were not the only cause for Detroit's financial troubles. They may have been the leading cause, but they weren't the only cause. So, no matter how many times you guys try to spin this in your attempts to lay blame squarely on the (auto) unions, you cannot blame Detroit's problems squarely on them. There are several reasons Detroit is in the position it's in. Pensions sought and received through union efforts that weren't renegotiated over time were just part of the problem.
I don't think anyone could deny that their shrinking tax base had a devastating effect on the city. They're down over 1,000,000 people. In a city that has an income tax, that's devastating.
Sure they did. The question the OP raised was, "Did unions bankrupt Detroit"? Most of the posters who apparently are anti-union folks like yourself have said yes, they did. But they would be wrong.
Unions were not the only cause for Detroit's financial troubles. They may have been the leading cause, but they weren't the only cause. So, no matter how many times you guys try to spin this in your attempts to lay blame squarely on the (auto) unions, you cannot blame Detroit's problems squarely on them. There are several reasons Detroit is in the position it's in. Pensions sought and received through union efforts that weren't renegotiated over time were just part of the problem.
I don't think anyone could deny that their shrinking tax base had a devastating effect on the city. They're down over 1,000,000 people. In a city that has an income tax, that's devastating.
That's true, but we have to ask ourselves why the American automobile industry failed in the first place? Certainly, a lot of it was mismanagement and stupidity, they kept making cars that Americans didn't want to buy, but at least some of it was the cost, they were charging more for cars than they were worth, a lot of that was to pay off overpaid union workers. It always comes around to the unions. Had they not had to pay the union workers more, and granted, if they had a clue what kind of cars people wanted, then maybe the Detroit auto industry could have been saved and a million people wouldn't have left.
Of course, recognizing the reality, I'll just be called an anti-union activist or something. :roll:
You won't be called that by me. I agree with you. The question really is: "Can we really blame the unions for those whopping pension and healthcare benefits for retirees? And for stupid work rules that strangle corporations and turn 8-hour days into 5?"
My answer is, "No, we really can't." The position GM management took was, "We don't want a strike. Let's settle this." Kinda' like a lazy parent spoiling a 3-year-old.
At a time when the auto industry is bouncing back Detroit goes bust? Maybe because auto manufacturers have moved to right to work states? Maybe because public unions in Detroit have wage and benefit packages that are out of hand? There is a lesson here, learn it.
At a time when the auto industry is bouncing back Detroit goes bust? Maybe because auto manufacturers have moved to right to work states? Maybe because public unions in Detroit have wage and benefit packages that are out of hand? There is a lesson here, learn it.
At a time when the auto industry is bouncing back Detroit goes bust? Maybe because auto manufacturers have moved to right to work states? Maybe because public unions in Detroit have wage and benefit packages that are out of hand? There is a lesson here, learn it.
Had it not been for union influence on the politics of Detroit, they almost certainly could have worked out the rest of the problems. You can keep repeating your pro-union nonsense all you want and asserting that everyone who disagrees must hate unions, but the facts are the facts. The biggest single influence on the bankruptcy of Detroit are the unions. Deal with it.
I think they played a part. The two biggest factors I think are:
- the mortgage industry crisis of 2008 that reverberated into all industries that depended on consumer borrowing.
- the high cost of gasoline also from 2008 due to it holding an oligopoly on personal transportation, OPEC and the oil futures market middleman created a disincentive for people to buy new cars, especially the lower mpg cars that made up most of Detroit's available enventory.
- people were laid off and moved to other cities and although "the US auto industry has reboounded", its a leaner meaner industry and besides, many of the people who moved started lives elsewhere and never moved back.
What I don't particularly support is rescuing the City of Detroit. I was watching Ed Schultz over the weekend who had these grandios ideas on a federal effort to rescue ad rebuild Detroit. My question is why? If people don't want to live there then why force the matter? I can think of a lot of places I'd rather live and imagine I'm not all that different than others I that respect. I also imagine a lot f people lived there mainly because that's where their job was. To me it makes more sense to create the economic opportunity where the people are instead of trying to encourage people to move back to a freezing cold, run down environment.
I do think yanking the retirement from under former city employees and those who worked hard all of their lives living in a city they probably didnt particular enjoy and now are about to retire is tragic. I'd try to find a way to help those people in a way that doesn't try to force revitalization of city that to be honest only had a major city population because that's where the economic opportunity was. I cannot support some huge effort to rebuilt Detroit when due to geography cannot deliver the quality of life it's former residents might preferred outside of work and entertainment options for which their money created a market. With the same money I bet former Detroit residents would have better enjoyed in Nevada, California, Louisiana, New Mexico, Georgia or Florida. If someone wants to pour a ton of money into rebuilding Detroit as a US manufacturing center, it makes more sense to invite its former residents to be a part of doing so someplace nice to live...if at all.
Well, which is it? Are unions the "single influence" or are they the "biggest influence"? They can't be both.
Great post.
I've been hearing that it's racism that killed Detroit. More to come as I do a little more familiarizing...At a time when the auto industry is bouncing back Detroit goes bust? Maybe because auto manufacturers have moved to right to work states? Maybe because public unions in Detroit have wage and benefit packages that are out of hand? There is a lesson here, learn it.
I've been hearing that it's racism that killed Detroit. More to come as I do a little more familiarizing...