MSNBC’s Melissa Harris Perry: Detroit Is What Happens When Government Is Too Small

The biggest decline in Detroit happened from 1961-1976



The decline actually slowed during the years with the biggest loss of market share. The market size increased after all and those businesses grew.



So, why didn't you answer any of my questions about city management and the effect of unions? You don't think it odd those "better managed" companies you alluded to, are staying as far away from UAW as possible?

Why are the schools so bad and literacy rates so low if the teachers are being paid so much and spending per student is so high?
Why weren't pensions funded as they go?
With all those taxes and public service sector pay why are all the city services run down?

If Republicans are to blame, why did GM grow so fast and add so many American jobs under George Romney? Why did Detroit reach its height under Republican leadership?

 

How do you keep prices competitive if you are paying more then the competitor? Cut corners in material? Put off capital upgrades? Because that is what American manufacturers is according to Fiat's CEO, the new GM owner.

 

It's not that I understand the subject better than you, it's that what you understand about it is ridiculous. Your initial argument that it was the fault of Auto Company management for giving in to union demands. Right there that implies that the union demands, taken as a whole, are irrational since if left unchecked they will eventually destroy the company they are trying to live off of. They are like a parasite that kills it's host. If they had reasonable demands that recognized that they benefit if the host survives and thrives, it would be a different story, but as you said, from the union perspective, "labor's interest is in maximizing current earnings." Regardless of the health of the "host."

Well, that's exactly what they did. And that's why union membership has been steadily declining in the private sector; they've been killing off their hosts. We saw that just recently with Twinkies. The unions brought the company to their knees. Congratulations. And now those bakers and employees who do have jobs are making far less than they would have if they had recognized that they need those companies to thrive.

 

The unions held the gun. They would strike only one company and stay out as long as needed to make them give into their demands. They kept a big strike fund and the employees for the other two companies would chip in to help, as they knew once the union forced the struck company to cave in, the other two would follow without having to strike them.

When gas prices fell, the Big Three didn't worry about the imports. They knew they couldn't build a small car to compete with them and knew much of the public would go back wanting the big cars and trucks as before. They were willing too give that segment of the industry to the imports, figuring it would be small.

But the imports didn't stop with the small vehicles. They knew they had made a big impression on the American public with good, well built small cars and figured Americans would buy bigger cars if they made them and they did.

As for quality, who do we blame? I think management and union workers both have to take the blame. I remember buying a Pont. Phoenix back in the 80's. It was missing a rear door handle I noticed after gtting it home. It over heated on me driving home from the dealership and I found a pool of oil underneath it the next morning and had it towed back to the dealership and it was a brand new car. I got it fixed and was taking my parents out for dinner and as I backed out of the driveway, the tail pipe as dragging the pavement. I complained to the dealership and got no satisfaction as they said they all set that way when people are in the back seat. Or maybe my driveway as extra steep. GM gave me no satisfaction either.

So what we had was a company that felt they were doing a good business and wasn't that interested in complaints and a work force that wasn't putting together a car the way they should. That led to more and more buying foreign. More and more lose of market share and less income to compete and more and more people retiring. Things only got worse till there was no way out.

 

Have I pointed out your absolute failure to know or understand history?

First, the graph you display has nothing to do with the auto industry, it relates to suburbanization. made possible by the building of highways and mass transit.

Second

George Romney was the president of American Motors.

So......

got a problem with politicians putting their economic eggs in a single basket? OK

got a problem with unions you're as ignorant about that as you are about history.

 

People chose to buy honda, toyota, volvo, and volkswagon instead of similar class American cars because of quality despite the higher prices. the same reason people are choosing to buy Ford and Gm products today.

 

No, they're not. what is irrational is the decision to pay more in the short run, sacrificing the long term viability of the organization, in order to meet next quarter's revenue expectations. But, management's goal was the same as labors, maximize their own income.

But, management was the side with the power.
Management was the side with the fiduciary responsibility.

Where is the union's ownership interest? When sales slow and people get laid off is it the workers or management that gets laid off? When the big bonuses roll in who gets the money?

If you want to make the argument that the union and management should be in partnership to maximize the potential of both, I'm open. But, in an adversarial situation, and my roots within the unions go back to my grandfather getting his head cracked open by Pinkertons, it is the duty of both sides to maximize their return. Management chose short term returns and the stockholders eventually paid the price.

 

Please.

Management had the option to retool.
Management had the option to hire replacements.

Management chose to risk the long term viability of the company to meet next quarter's P/L requirements and get their quarterly bonuses.

Let me spell out for you all management had to say.

N-O

Really is as simple as that.

 

Those pinkertons were heroes to thousand of "scabs" that wanted to work go the offered price. Union violence and manipulation of political power is how they keep others from their jobs. No love lost. When your labor gobbles up gross revenue you can't invest in quality.

- - - Updated - - -

They didn't have the cah to retool. The labor board would not allow a mass union firing and replacement.

 

Come on, you only want to look at one side of the problem. Sure management has to take a lot of blame. But so does the union and the union workers. You just don't want to put any blame on them and they were putting together poorly built cars. How was management going to fire thousands of workers and basically start over with a new work force? Sure management could have put out better designed big cars, but they figured they had that part of the market sewed up and profit was more important. Before they knew it they lost plent of market share on their full size vehicles. Don't think for a minute it's all management's fault.

 

It's odd that you signal that you are in favor of a set of demands that you seem to acknowledge are self destructive. It's like a kid blaming their parents for not stopping them from doing something. The unions thought that the companies were golden geese, and that the goodies would never run out. I assume as the nation plays out this same scenario writ large with our national debt, you'll be one of the ones saying, "It's your fault! Why didn't you stop me?"

 

They could have retooled early on when the imports first came in. But profit was more important. But as they kept losing market share, they didn't have the money to retool. They had to stick with thee speed trannies, when the imports had 4 and 5 speed trannies. They had to put on cloth seats when the imports could put on leather, or charge so much for their cars. Then they had to cut pries thousands of dollars just to move them off the lots. They just kept digging themselves deeper and deeper. Foeign cars were known for ell put together cars, Americans were getting the reputation of putting out cheaper poorly made junk.

 

Excuse my misspelled words, I am on vacation in Toledo Ohio and using my Sister's computer with wireless keyboard and it keeps skipping a letter unless I really hit them all hard. Other misspelled words is because I'm too stupid to know how to spell them.

 

Yeah but during that time they were hiring in the south and in Canada. Anywhere away from Detroit if they can. Besides Detroit was already in free fall before the auto industry went down. A poit every leftist want to conveniently ignore.

 

Apparently management wants them gone...still. Too bad they can't run their company.

 

What was written is true, but this new management is a lot different than the old management. They are doing many things different to cut the cost of building cars. Many parts are now used on many different models. The dash on many of the Chrysler models are the same. They are now using the same side mirrors on many of their models. GM and Ford are using the same unibody on many different models so that they can cut back on one slower selling model and use it on better selling models. Chrysler's new Fiat CEO has put quality as job one. You only have to look how well built the new 5th addition Chrysler Town and Country minivan to their 4th addition minivan. You wouldn't believe it was mde by the same company. Almost every issue people had ith the old style as redone on the new one. GM and Ford are the same. Both putting out new top quality products as I showed earlier.

 

Words I never thought I would see written.

 

Yeah he is good for sure. And wants to be rid of the unions. What does that tell you?

There is a good reason factories and trained workers sit idle as new factories and new workers are hired in states outside the grip of the unions. There is a reason, it isn't coincidence and the reason is unions make business inefficient.

 

Did the unions kill Packard?
http://sometimes-interesting.com/20...ory-in-the-world-the-packard-factory-detroit/

 

Yes, through striking she they were cash strapped after the merger with studebaker which your article forgot to mention:

 

Why say that Lil Mike? I grew up here and still have three siblings living here. One reason I know so much about what happened to the auto industry. Toledo was tied to the auto industry in a big way once. Still is, but not nearly as much as it was with Libby Glass gone, Autolight and Champion spark plugs, Dana Corp and a slew of other auto parts plants.

 

I have been a union man my whole working life. It was the unions that made much of the Middle Class we had in this country. But it's also been unions that cost so many companies to flee or go under. We are in a situation today with NAFTA and Free Trade, that it can't be take, take, take anymore. There are times you have to give back to keep a company viable and competitive. I still believe there is a place for unions, but they must learn to change. Or we need laws on the books to better protect the working man from unjust firing or discipline.

 

The union didn't make the middle class it just kept a lot of middle class people from competing with their members for jobs. That union making the middle class thing is a myth. So is the one that they made the workplace safer. Free market expansion and efficiency made middle class life possible. Henry ford did much more then the UAW has done for the middle class. Same with gates, jobs, Rockefeller, etc...

Free trade makes everyone richer. What do you think we do with the dollars we send them?

Well, everyone but the unions who make a living via subsidy of non union workers. You can't take from the non union people forever though, they get tired of theft.

What about laws that don't make the employer a slave to the employee? There is a reason manufacturing seeks to avoid the unions. They kill our labor competitiveness wherever they go. That is why they are targeting government now. After all, who cares if a teacher is incompetent if they pay their union dues? If they pay their dues it should costs thousand to fire them, that will help with labor competitiveness and deliver a better quality product right?

 

Free trade makes everyone richer. What do you think we do with the dollars we send them?

I disagree with that. Unions did help make the Middle Class. Even for those who didn't belong to a union company. Non union companies would have to increase pay and benefits for their employees in order for them not to quit and go to a union shop. Our supervisors who were not union, were all for us getting better pay and raises becaue they knew management would raise theirs accordingly.

Many of the safety laws brought out by the government were done because of safety rules fought and won by unions for their members

Tell that to the millions without a job or only working part time.

 

As noted. you know nothing of history.

The Pinkertons were used to drive the workers out of the Company towns. They beat men, women, children. when pinkertons were not around the mine owners used local law enforcement for the same purpose.

and

It's called a loan. You know, go to the bank, borrow money, issue bonds. But to retool requires shutting down and shutting down means you lose sales.

And the labor board would do no such thing. The law says you can replace striking workers but you must pay the replacements the same wage as the strikers. Again, requiring shutting down while non-union replacements are trained. Shutting down means losing sales and not meeting this quarter's sales quotas.

All management decisions.