Detroit’s Unemployment Rate Is Nearly 50%

[moneymaker]

Never been to Detroit,can’t comment. I do own an F-150 truck however that seems to drive like a cadillac and gets the same mileage too. While @ See’s candies tonight I was amazed how many people are willing to stand in a 30 minute line to buy overpriced chocolate, and during a recession too. Obviously this recession isn’t affecting everyone equally. I do love See’s candies but I hear Brach’s is not that far behind. I also love my F-150 Lariat, just had to say it!

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Rt.66]Really?

I think the auto workers get paid too much so F’em; I’ll buy a Toyota and when the market share shrinks for the US companies I’ll blame the resulting problems on the workers and unions?

Really? WTF?[/quote]

Scarlet: Same old, same old. You are willing to blame the US Gov’t and corporations and correctly, in my opinion. However, you remain completely unwilling to put any of the blame on the unions, organized labor or the workforce itself.

Anyone that disagrees with you about unions or organized labor becomes a “union basher”, without any thought as to the facts. Those facts being that the cost/pricing model in Detroit was fundamentally out of whack and had been for years, thus eroding Detroit’s competitive position and ultimately sinking GM and Chrysler.

Sad to say, it isn’t 1958 and things have changed. Unfortunately, Detroit did not change, nor did it adapt.

I would be the first to say that the US needs to implement a sweeping Industrial Policy, similar to the one used during and after WWII. That Policy, however, does not include unions nor does it include organized labor, both of which are pernicious and destructive forces when it comes to US competitiveness. Use of Germany is a red herring, in that the US does not enjoy that sort of homogeneity, nor do we have a center-left socialized labor force that harbors under a government subsidized and supported system (and if you think I’m wrong, check out Germany’s unfunded pension(s) program(s)).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Rt.66]Really?

I think the auto workers get paid too much so F’em; I’ll buy a Toyota and when the market share shrinks for the US companies I’ll blame the resulting problems on the workers and unions?

Really? WTF?[/quote]

Scarlet: Same old, same old. You are willing to blame the US Gov’t and corporations and correctly, in my opinion. However, you remain completely unwilling to put any of the blame on the unions, organized labor or the workforce itself.

Anyone that disagrees with you about unions or organized labor becomes a “union basher”, without any thought as to the facts. Those facts being that the cost/pricing model in Detroit was fundamentally out of whack and had been for years, thus eroding Detroit’s competitive position and ultimately sinking GM and Chrysler.

Sad to say, it isn’t 1958 and things have changed. Unfortunately, Detroit did not change, nor did it adapt.

I would be the first to say that the US needs to implement a sweeping Industrial Policy, similar to the one used during and after WWII. That Policy, however, does not include unions nor does it include organized labor, both of which are pernicious and destructive forces when it comes to US competitiveness. Use of Germany is a red herring, in that the US does not enjoy that sort of homogeneity, nor do we have a center-left socialized labor force that harbors under a government subsidized and supported system (and if you think I’m wrong, check out Germany’s unfunded pension(s) program(s)).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Rt.66]Really?

I think the auto workers get paid too much so F’em; I’ll buy a Toyota and when the market share shrinks for the US companies I’ll blame the resulting problems on the workers and unions?

Really? WTF?[/quote]

Scarlet: Same old, same old. You are willing to blame the US Gov’t and corporations and correctly, in my opinion. However, you remain completely unwilling to put any of the blame on the unions, organized labor or the workforce itself.

Anyone that disagrees with you about unions or organized labor becomes a “union basher”, without any thought as to the facts. Those facts being that the cost/pricing model in Detroit was fundamentally out of whack and had been for years, thus eroding Detroit’s competitive position and ultimately sinking GM and Chrysler.

Sad to say, it isn’t 1958 and things have changed. Unfortunately, Detroit did not change, nor did it adapt.

I would be the first to say that the US needs to implement a sweeping Industrial Policy, similar to the one used during and after WWII. That Policy, however, does not include unions nor does it include organized labor, both of which are pernicious and destructive forces when it comes to US competitiveness. Use of Germany is a red herring, in that the US does not enjoy that sort of homogeneity, nor do we have a center-left socialized labor force that harbors under a government subsidized and supported system (and if you think I’m wrong, check out Germany’s unfunded pension(s) program(s)).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Rt.66]Really?

I think the auto workers get paid too much so F’em; I’ll buy a Toyota and when the market share shrinks for the US companies I’ll blame the resulting problems on the workers and unions?

Really? WTF?[/quote]

Scarlet: Same old, same old. You are willing to blame the US Gov’t and corporations and correctly, in my opinion. However, you remain completely unwilling to put any of the blame on the unions, organized labor or the workforce itself.

Anyone that disagrees with you about unions or organized labor becomes a “union basher”, without any thought as to the facts. Those facts being that the cost/pricing model in Detroit was fundamentally out of whack and had been for years, thus eroding Detroit’s competitive position and ultimately sinking GM and Chrysler.

Sad to say, it isn’t 1958 and things have changed. Unfortunately, Detroit did not change, nor did it adapt.

I would be the first to say that the US needs to implement a sweeping Industrial Policy, similar to the one used during and after WWII. That Policy, however, does not include unions nor does it include organized labor, both of which are pernicious and destructive forces when it comes to US competitiveness. Use of Germany is a red herring, in that the US does not enjoy that sort of homogeneity, nor do we have a center-left socialized labor force that harbors under a government subsidized and supported system (and if you think I’m wrong, check out Germany’s unfunded pension(s) program(s)).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Rt.66]Really?

I think the auto workers get paid too much so F’em; I’ll buy a Toyota and when the market share shrinks for the US companies I’ll blame the resulting problems on the workers and unions?

Really? WTF?[/quote]

Scarlet: Same old, same old. You are willing to blame the US Gov’t and corporations and correctly, in my opinion. However, you remain completely unwilling to put any of the blame on the unions, organized labor or the workforce itself.

Anyone that disagrees with you about unions or organized labor becomes a “union basher”, without any thought as to the facts. Those facts being that the cost/pricing model in Detroit was fundamentally out of whack and had been for years, thus eroding Detroit’s competitive position and ultimately sinking GM and Chrysler.

Sad to say, it isn’t 1958 and things have changed. Unfortunately, Detroit did not change, nor did it adapt.

I would be the first to say that the US needs to implement a sweeping Industrial Policy, similar to the one used during and after WWII. That Policy, however, does not include unions nor does it include organized labor, both of which are pernicious and destructive forces when it comes to US competitiveness. Use of Germany is a red herring, in that the US does not enjoy that sort of homogeneity, nor do we have a center-left socialized labor force that harbors under a government subsidized and supported system (and if you think I’m wrong, check out Germany’s unfunded pension(s) program(s)).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rt.66]Really?

I think the auto workers get paid too much so F’em; I’ll buy a Toyota and when the market share shrinks for the US companies I’ll blame the resulting problems on the workers and unions?

Really? WTF?[/quote]

Nope.
The problem is that they don’t have a 20+ legacy of really reliable cars.
Basic free market imperatives kill them.
Only Lou Dobbs and fools wave their flag at the cash register.

People get vitriolic about the poor decisions made by the unions and the companies.

However, if the companies were doing really well and the workers were being paid really well, then I don’t think this conversation about “lazy” union workers (probably better described as “poorly represented”) would be happening.

But the unemployment rate in the Detroit area (where my family, over a century ago started working in real estate) is not my concern when I buy a car.

What concerns me is the fact that Hondas and Toyotas often last 20 years as a primary vehicle and remain fun to drive.

It is not some conspiracy that gives Japanese cars great resale values.

I am not willing to gamble with reliability to support (or, more precisely, enable) a bad company just because its headquarters are in the lower 48.

If American vehicles were to start offering Hyundai (a brand earning a rep for reliability) style warranties (10 year, 100,000 mile, bumper to bumper), then I would really seriously consider them.

Currently they offer the least competitive warranty (5 year, 60,000 mile, power train).

That tells me they don’t believe in their own cars.

If they don’t trust their own products, why should I?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rt.66]Really?

I think the auto workers get paid too much so F’em; I’ll buy a Toyota and when the market share shrinks for the US companies I’ll blame the resulting problems on the workers and unions?

Really? WTF?[/quote]

Nope.
The problem is that they don’t have a 20+ legacy of really reliable cars.
Basic free market imperatives kill them.
Only Lou Dobbs and fools wave their flag at the cash register.

People get vitriolic about the poor decisions made by the unions and the companies.

However, if the companies were doing really well and the workers were being paid really well, then I don’t think this conversation about “lazy” union workers (probably better described as “poorly represented”) would be happening.

But the unemployment rate in the Detroit area (where my family, over a century ago started working in real estate) is not my concern when I buy a car.

What concerns me is the fact that Hondas and Toyotas often last 20 years as a primary vehicle and remain fun to drive.

It is not some conspiracy that gives Japanese cars great resale values.

I am not willing to gamble with reliability to support (or, more precisely, enable) a bad company just because its headquarters are in the lower 48.

If American vehicles were to start offering Hyundai (a brand earning a rep for reliability) style warranties (10 year, 100,000 mile, bumper to bumper), then I would really seriously consider them.

Currently they offer the least competitive warranty (5 year, 60,000 mile, power train).

That tells me they don’t believe in their own cars.

If they don’t trust their own products, why should I?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rt.66]Really?

I think the auto workers get paid too much so F’em; I’ll buy a Toyota and when the market share shrinks for the US companies I’ll blame the resulting problems on the workers and unions?

Really? WTF?[/quote]

Nope.
The problem is that they don’t have a 20+ legacy of really reliable cars.
Basic free market imperatives kill them.
Only Lou Dobbs and fools wave their flag at the cash register.

People get vitriolic about the poor decisions made by the unions and the companies.

However, if the companies were doing really well and the workers were being paid really well, then I don’t think this conversation about “lazy” union workers (probably better described as “poorly represented”) would be happening.

But the unemployment rate in the Detroit area (where my family, over a century ago started working in real estate) is not my concern when I buy a car.

What concerns me is the fact that Hondas and Toyotas often last 20 years as a primary vehicle and remain fun to drive.

It is not some conspiracy that gives Japanese cars great resale values.

I am not willing to gamble with reliability to support (or, more precisely, enable) a bad company just because its headquarters are in the lower 48.

If American vehicles were to start offering Hyundai (a brand earning a rep for reliability) style warranties (10 year, 100,000 mile, bumper to bumper), then I would really seriously consider them.

Currently they offer the least competitive warranty (5 year, 60,000 mile, power train).

That tells me they don’t believe in their own cars.

If they don’t trust their own products, why should I?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rt.66]Really?

I think the auto workers get paid too much so F’em; I’ll buy a Toyota and when the market share shrinks for the US companies I’ll blame the resulting problems on the workers and unions?

Really? WTF?[/quote]

Nope.
The problem is that they don’t have a 20+ legacy of really reliable cars.
Basic free market imperatives kill them.
Only Lou Dobbs and fools wave their flag at the cash register.

People get vitriolic about the poor decisions made by the unions and the companies.

However, if the companies were doing really well and the workers were being paid really well, then I don’t think this conversation about “lazy” union workers (probably better described as “poorly represented”) would be happening.

But the unemployment rate in the Detroit area (where my family, over a century ago started working in real estate) is not my concern when I buy a car.

What concerns me is the fact that Hondas and Toyotas often last 20 years as a primary vehicle and remain fun to drive.

It is not some conspiracy that gives Japanese cars great resale values.

I am not willing to gamble with reliability to support (or, more precisely, enable) a bad company just because its headquarters are in the lower 48.

If American vehicles were to start offering Hyundai (a brand earning a rep for reliability) style warranties (10 year, 100,000 mile, bumper to bumper), then I would really seriously consider them.

Currently they offer the least competitive warranty (5 year, 60,000 mile, power train).

That tells me they don’t believe in their own cars.

If they don’t trust their own products, why should I?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rt.66]Really?

I think the auto workers get paid too much so F’em; I’ll buy a Toyota and when the market share shrinks for the US companies I’ll blame the resulting problems on the workers and unions?

Really? WTF?[/quote]

Nope.
The problem is that they don’t have a 20+ legacy of really reliable cars.
Basic free market imperatives kill them.
Only Lou Dobbs and fools wave their flag at the cash register.

People get vitriolic about the poor decisions made by the unions and the companies.

However, if the companies were doing really well and the workers were being paid really well, then I don’t think this conversation about “lazy” union workers (probably better described as “poorly represented”) would be happening.

But the unemployment rate in the Detroit area (where my family, over a century ago started working in real estate) is not my concern when I buy a car.

What concerns me is the fact that Hondas and Toyotas often last 20 years as a primary vehicle and remain fun to drive.

It is not some conspiracy that gives Japanese cars great resale values.

I am not willing to gamble with reliability to support (or, more precisely, enable) a bad company just because its headquarters are in the lower 48.

If American vehicles were to start offering Hyundai (a brand earning a rep for reliability) style warranties (10 year, 100,000 mile, bumper to bumper), then I would really seriously consider them.

Currently they offer the least competitive warranty (5 year, 60,000 mile, power train).

That tells me they don’t believe in their own cars.

If they don’t trust their own products, why should I?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I would be the first to say that the US needs to implement a sweeping Industrial Policy, similar to the one used during and after WWII. That Policy, however, does not include unions nor does it include organized labor, both of which are pernicious and destructive forces when it comes to US competitiveness. Use of Germany is a red herring, in that the US does not enjoy that sort of homogeneity, nor do we have a center-left socialized labor force that harbors under a government subsidized and supported system (and if you think I’m wrong, check out Germany’s unfunded pension(s) program(s)).[/quote]
I disagree that unions necessarily undermine competitiveness.
I think it would be more accurate to say that short-sighted unions perform poorly at representing the long-term needs of their members.
Saying that unions are anti-competitive is like saying regulation is anti-competitive.
I seem to remember a giant phone company when I was a kid whose regulation led to a much more diverse and innovative telecommunications environment.
I think it would also be fair to say that companies that get too large (and that includes unions) are anticompetitive.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I would be the first to say that the US needs to implement a sweeping Industrial Policy, similar to the one used during and after WWII. That Policy, however, does not include unions nor does it include organized labor, both of which are pernicious and destructive forces when it comes to US competitiveness. Use of Germany is a red herring, in that the US does not enjoy that sort of homogeneity, nor do we have a center-left socialized labor force that harbors under a government subsidized and supported system (and if you think I’m wrong, check out Germany’s unfunded pension(s) program(s)).[/quote]
I disagree that unions necessarily undermine competitiveness.
I think it would be more accurate to say that short-sighted unions perform poorly at representing the long-term needs of their members.
Saying that unions are anti-competitive is like saying regulation is anti-competitive.
I seem to remember a giant phone company when I was a kid whose regulation led to a much more diverse and innovative telecommunications environment.
I think it would also be fair to say that companies that get too large (and that includes unions) are anticompetitive.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I would be the first to say that the US needs to implement a sweeping Industrial Policy, similar to the one used during and after WWII. That Policy, however, does not include unions nor does it include organized labor, both of which are pernicious and destructive forces when it comes to US competitiveness. Use of Germany is a red herring, in that the US does not enjoy that sort of homogeneity, nor do we have a center-left socialized labor force that harbors under a government subsidized and supported system (and if you think I’m wrong, check out Germany’s unfunded pension(s) program(s)).[/quote]
I disagree that unions necessarily undermine competitiveness.
I think it would be more accurate to say that short-sighted unions perform poorly at representing the long-term needs of their members.
Saying that unions are anti-competitive is like saying regulation is anti-competitive.
I seem to remember a giant phone company when I was a kid whose regulation led to a much more diverse and innovative telecommunications environment.
I think it would also be fair to say that companies that get too large (and that includes unions) are anticompetitive.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I would be the first to say that the US needs to implement a sweeping Industrial Policy, similar to the one used during and after WWII. That Policy, however, does not include unions nor does it include organized labor, both of which are pernicious and destructive forces when it comes to US competitiveness. Use of Germany is a red herring, in that the US does not enjoy that sort of homogeneity, nor do we have a center-left socialized labor force that harbors under a government subsidized and supported system (and if you think I’m wrong, check out Germany’s unfunded pension(s) program(s)).[/quote]
I disagree that unions necessarily undermine competitiveness.
I think it would be more accurate to say that short-sighted unions perform poorly at representing the long-term needs of their members.
Saying that unions are anti-competitive is like saying regulation is anti-competitive.
I seem to remember a giant phone company when I was a kid whose regulation led to a much more diverse and innovative telecommunications environment.
I think it would also be fair to say that companies that get too large (and that includes unions) are anticompetitive.

[Author]

Posts