What REALLY happened to Detroit

Discussion in 'Lounge' started by tallbump, Sep 11, 2014.

  1. tallbump

    tallbump Supporting Member

    I see people blaming Democrat leadership, the auto workers union, etc...

    I am sure that they factor in or are largely to "blame"....but like, what actually happened?

    How did the Dems and the autoworkers kill Detroit ???
  2. MachoMelvin

    MachoMelvin Well-Known Member

    I'm sure no one intended to destroy Detroit. I'm sure it was the Democratic vision or concept to give their people SOMETHING for NOTHING! Over paying the union workers, giving them $$$$ & benefits for voluntary layoffs?
    You could make a list of the offenses that DID THEM IN!
    But, DON"T look to far, Detroit is not alone?

  3. The UAW killed American car manufacturing with their greed demanding more and more. Just like the steel industry a decade before. Moving plants out of the country is capitalism at work. I am affected by the decline of our economy with my last of 3 layoffs in 10 years in 2008 and I have not recovered. I am one of the millions in the "under employed" classification.

    I don't believe any political party killed Detroit or Cleveland or any other rust belt city. Capitalism is to blame. And the spread of wealthy to poor or middle class has widened.
  4. bluharley

    bluharley Member

    I worked in a union job when I was young. I've always been very good with my hands, and I could make "quota" in 2-3 hours. The UNION told me to slow down, I would make others look bad. That Union crap is a big reason, "more money, less work", but they got that attitude from the gov. If everyone put in an "honest days work", things would be much better than they are. But I've also worked for non-union shops where I was abused and taken advantage of. The work ethic in this country has gone in the crapper. And the new generation isn't getting any better.
  5. Back2School

    Back2School Member

    While I agree with you, I find one thing funny in all these discussions.

    Capital is expected to get more and more in every business. If they dont get it they take their ball and go home.

    Leadership is expected to get more and more every year or the company will die because no one is as good as what we have (and they have a golden parachute anyway).

    But when Labor says we want more, they are vilified for it. Labor's greed is blamed for almost every failing company or company moving overseas.

    We then justify it by saying capital and leadership need to get more $$$ so we have to move it.

    I just dont get why its perfectly acceptable for Capital and Leadership to be greedy, but its a sin for Labor (who are getting the least out of any of them) to want more as well.
  6. MachoMelvin

    MachoMelvin Well-Known Member

    It is hard to ignore the fact that most ALL of the declining cities are & have been run for decades by just one political party? All the elected positions have been filled by one party, So, I guess the citizens did it to themselves, by voting the party line instead of the person. There have been on numerous occasions when the candidate was or suspected of being a felon, and still got elected. Can anybody count how many Michigan & Illinois elected politicians have gone to prison in the past 40-50 years?
  7. bluharley

    bluharley Member

    Capitalism doesn't work! The primary function of any publicly held company is to "maximize shareholder wealth". How do you do that? You screw the consumer. We see it in the grocery store, pay more, get less. Where does it end? And insurance companies, what a conflict of interest that is. How can you take care of your insured, and maximize shareholder wealth at the same time? You can't. Insurance companies should be non-profit. What's the answer? I got no idea!
  8. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    NE Utah
    Some of you guys have a seriously distorted view of capitalism.

    How is it good to screw the people that buy your product, and thus shut off an ongoing revenue stream? How is it good to alienate your labor force, and reduce your quality? How is it good to increase prices to the point where you can no longer sell?

    That's not capitalism, at all. That's the new business model, and frankly, it's stupid, in the long run. In real capitalism, you delay gratification by keeping your customer base and labor happy, while keeping a viable revenue stream going to profit everyone involved, while also funding R&D, and building capital.

    Good capitalism doesn't required "more", it requires "enough". Enough to meet inflation, and still provide a benefit to all parties involved, including the consumer.

    You don't "maximize" profits by maxing out prices, slashing costs, raping the system, and screwing everyone for one final gasp as the beast dies and you bail out with the proceeds. You maximize profits within the constraints of keeping your company viable for the future, and maintaining a loyal customer base. A dollar a day for life beats one single sale for $1,000.

    Everyone wants the quick kill, and damn the future.:rolleyes:

    What you guys think is capitalism is actually stupid greed. If one were able to think past the next bonus period or quarterly report on stock prices, one would realize that real wealth isn't one big kill, it's a longer process, that provides a slightly smaller profit over a longer period of time.

    But somehow, our society has warped that idea into this fake capitalism we see now.
    And the really disturbing thing is...people don't get it. Compare our failed capitalism to every other system out there...and we see that capitalism is STILL the only system that will work. Communism failed spectacularly while also denying most freedoms we take for granted, socialism has failed in every country with a diverse population, while also eroding freedom.

    So if capitalism has failed...what's left?

    This is not an economic issue, at all. This is a social problem, led by the left, the so-called progressives, and an ongoing desire to live higher than we can afford, and the desire to get rich quick with no thought for the future.
  9. Back2School

    Back2School Member

    Ajole - I agree its all about greed and the new business model. Its also shortsightedness of today's people as well as greed. People used to be in things for the long run, not instant wealth today. People for the most part (outside the robber barons) were happy with simply having enough, but today there is never enough. I can't blame that 100% on the left, people are the right are the same way - its BOTH parties catering the richest in an effort to get the money they need to stay in office.

    I agree that capitalism is the best option out there, but unrestrained capitalism, in my opinion lead to what we have today - especially when morals are uncoupled from religion. If people use the idea that greed is good, more greed is better, right? its how we got here.

    And you are correct, if everyone went back to Henry Fords model of business, we might have a better economy. You know, pay people enough so they can buy your own products. Now contrast that to today's model. If you pay a penny more than what you can get in a 3rd world country , you are a fool and dooming your company and destroying your investors returns. You will soon be removed for someone who will.

    There are failures on both sides, but I can honestly say I dont think anyone really knows how to fix it without changing societies opinions.
  10. eet

    eet Member

    The problem is with restrained capitalism not unrestrained capitalism. Henry Ford was not restrained by government safety mandates, by CAFE standards and by greedy unions. It is the interference in capitalism by government and other unnatural influences that cause failure of the system.
  11. Detroit was a one industry city. When foreign car makers came on the scene 'Murican's were given a less expensive more reliable option than picking one of the big 3.

    The big 3 declined and mainly Japanese auto makers flourished.

    Anyone with half a brain should have seen this coming back in the day.

    The UAW refused to lower wages and benefits so there was no reason for foreign auto makers to build their cars in Detroit. Their car plants in the states are all over the place.

    Detroit let their ship sail away.
  12. I agree with this. Honda, Nissan, Hyundai. All have plants in the USA. Why didn't they go to Detroit where there was so much machine shop and engineering support for the auto industry? because they wanted to much money is my guess

  13. i think you have a serious misunderstanding of capitalism as an "ism". The failure of Detroit is due to democrat cronyism and self serving greed, not capitalism.
  14. They stayed away from large metropolitan areas where unions had a stronghold. They went to areas where they could pay lower wages and not be unionized. I am not against unions they serve(d) a purpose so don't get me wrong. But do some research and what I am saying is true.

    Kwiley please explain what you mean by this statement. " The failure of Detroit is due to democrat cronyism and self serving greed, not capitalism." Why would democrats, republicans or independents want or cause an entire industry to fail and the economy to collapse?

    I was in a small business. My business or any business regardless how big or small is based on profit. If I could not make profit I would look for alternative ways or fold.
  15. Back2School

    Back2School Member

    well as a business owner, you at least have that option.

    As an employee, its work hard and try to make a profit and if you don't it's work hard and fail but keep working. No way to fold as an employee
  16. Rachgier

    Rachgier Administrator Staff Member

    When I owned my company and I started to see a decline in my profit margins I didn't resort to firing employees or jacking up prices. I hired more employees, decreased my prices, and made up my profit in the volume of services I could provide with the same original quality. My people WERE my company and without them I wouldn't have been able to build the company up to what it was. I started out pushing a broom as an employee and ended up a 75% owner before I finally sold it back to the original owner.

    My crews got paid and my overhead was covered regardless of what it did to my wallet. When I wanted have more money to spend, I went out and found more clients.
  17. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    NE Utah
    You are missing the point that those people are not in the business. They see a multimillion dollar industry, and they skim a few million off the top. That's all they need, the industry and economy can die, they don't care, they already got theirs.

    In fact, one could say they use that collapse to solidify their position, if the economy sucks, its hard for challengers to afford to run against an incumbent, especially if the incumbent has the unions in his pocket. The fact that the union membership doesn't realize they are getting screwed is down to their bosses... who are also skimming off the top, in bed with the politicians, and doubling up on the damage being done.:rolleyes:

    Add in the media backing the poor laborers against the evil owners... and you get Detroit. No one gets the real story until it all falls apart.
  18. Allow me to explain in brief: In 1962 the political balance of power permanently shifted to the Democrat party, following the racial tension in US. In 1974 Coleman Young was elected Mayor, and worked to create a divisive Black Power leadership style. He ran the city for 20 years and created a culture that drove out the middle class by disenfranchising them. He raised taxes, awarded city contracts to his cronies, and allowed the union leaders unrestrained access the city coffers. What benefit did those city contracts provide? None. Look at the state of disrepair the city is in after all these years. What are the results of the union influence? Well, look at the largest group at the table trying to get paid; the city pensioners who benefited from unfunded pension promises. The mayor from 2002 to 2008, Kilpatrick was indicted on corruption and racketeering charges and faces a possible 20 year prison sentence.

    The greed of the politicians and unions did not reflect a Capitalism approach to economics; it reflected a “fleece the sheep and retain control as long as possible approach”, much like the communist Hugo Chavez. They tried to buy the loyalty of their constituents with city jobs and promises of something for nothing. In short, they wanted power and money.
    I am not as generous as others on these points; I believe the city was run into the ground for personal gain, not some misguided view of how the city would prosper.

    The politicians, and I use that term loosely, did not want the city and economy to collapse, but they didn't care if it did. They truly believed that the Federal Government or tax increases should/would prop up the city; thus allowing them to continue to fleece it. Just like a street crack dealer does not care if people die from crack, because others will continue to replace them.
  19. Moestooge

    Moestooge Member

    America is anything but free market capitalism. We are neck deep in fascism, which is correctly defined as collusion between big government and big business. Both major parties (actually two butt-ugly faces of a one-party monopoly) are guilty of bipartisan treason.
  20. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    NE Utah
    Well...yeah. That's exactly what I was saying, when I said,

    "This is not an economic issue, at all. This is a social problem, led by the left, the so-called progressives, and an ongoing desire to live higher than we can afford, and the desire to get rich quick with no thought for the future."

    Of course, the right has jumped on the bandwagon from the beginning; don't think I am blaming only the left leaning politico's.