Detroit’s Unemployment Rate Is Nearly 50%

[patb]

[quote=Casca]
This is what you get when socialism is liberally applied. The smart people vote with their feet, Atlas Shruggs if you will, and the parasites have the world fall on them. Imagine what the place would be like if the feds quit sending them money.

Detroit is the posterchild for what the Dems/left want to do to America. God bless Coleman Young, Nancy Pelosi, and all of the collective idiots who ever voted for them.[/quote]

Toyota pays pretty close to equivalent wages, So does BMW and Daimler. Detroit never embraced a culture of quality and they had lousy labor relations.

no, detroit had lots of trouble…Far more then the unions

[CA renter]

[quote=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?[/quote]

Totally agree with you, urban.

The problem with Detroit is NOT the unions, but the fact that U.S. automakers refused to properly understand the mindset of their customers. The problem was **management.**

Consumers want high-quality vehicles that will be fairly problem-free for at least a decade. When I was young, many of my friends owned a basic Toyota pickup truck (you know the one — manual everything, great gas mileage). Every single one of those trucks lasted at least 200,000 to 300,000 miles — and all they ever had to do was change the oil, clutch and air filters. If GM could have done that, it wouldn’t matter what kind of pensions/healthcare their employees had.

BTW, no mention of the fact that with socialized medicine, companies could be relieved of these “legacy costs.”

[CA renter]

[quote=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?[/quote]

Totally agree with you, urban.

The problem with Detroit is NOT the unions, but the fact that U.S. automakers refused to properly understand the mindset of their customers. The problem was **management.**

Consumers want high-quality vehicles that will be fairly problem-free for at least a decade. When I was young, many of my friends owned a basic Toyota pickup truck (you know the one — manual everything, great gas mileage). Every single one of those trucks lasted at least 200,000 to 300,000 miles — and all they ever had to do was change the oil, clutch and air filters. If GM could have done that, it wouldn’t matter what kind of pensions/healthcare their employees had.

BTW, no mention of the fact that with socialized medicine, companies could be relieved of these “legacy costs.”

[CA renter]

[quote=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?[/quote]

Totally agree with you, urban.

The problem with Detroit is NOT the unions, but the fact that U.S. automakers refused to properly understand the mindset of their customers. The problem was **management.**

Consumers want high-quality vehicles that will be fairly problem-free for at least a decade. When I was young, many of my friends owned a basic Toyota pickup truck (you know the one — manual everything, great gas mileage). Every single one of those trucks lasted at least 200,000 to 300,000 miles — and all they ever had to do was change the oil, clutch and air filters. If GM could have done that, it wouldn’t matter what kind of pensions/healthcare their employees had.

BTW, no mention of the fact that with socialized medicine, companies could be relieved of these “legacy costs.”

[CA renter]

[quote=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?[/quote]

Totally agree with you, urban.

The problem with Detroit is NOT the unions, but the fact that U.S. automakers refused to properly understand the mindset of their customers. The problem was **management.**

Consumers want high-quality vehicles that will be fairly problem-free for at least a decade. When I was young, many of my friends owned a basic Toyota pickup truck (you know the one — manual everything, great gas mileage). Every single one of those trucks lasted at least 200,000 to 300,000 miles — and all they ever had to do was change the oil, clutch and air filters. If GM could have done that, it wouldn’t matter what kind of pensions/healthcare their employees had.

BTW, no mention of the fact that with socialized medicine, companies could be relieved of these “legacy costs.”

[CA renter]

[quote=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?[/quote]

Totally agree with you, urban.

The problem with Detroit is NOT the unions, but the fact that U.S. automakers refused to properly understand the mindset of their customers. The problem was **management.**

Consumers want high-quality vehicles that will be fairly problem-free for at least a decade. When I was young, many of my friends owned a basic Toyota pickup truck (you know the one — manual everything, great gas mileage). Every single one of those trucks lasted at least 200,000 to 300,000 miles — and all they ever had to do was change the oil, clutch and air filters. If GM could have done that, it wouldn’t matter what kind of pensions/healthcare their employees had.

BTW, no mention of the fact that with socialized medicine, companies could be relieved of these “legacy costs.”

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Casca]

No, YOU don’t WANT the cities to look that way. You’re just one of the useful idiots who votes for economic slavery. That other cities have not reached Detroit’s economic meltdown yet, is not an argument. If wealth is portable, it will flee from economic persecution. Hell, you don’t even know the difference between communism & socialism. Go look up GOSPlan, then see if you can connect at least two dots.[/quote]

Where would the people and the wealth go?
People and their money follow stability and investment, not tea parties.
Atlas Shrugged was a dumb premise for a story.
The nature of capitalism is that captains of industry are interchangeable.
If a bunch of CEO’s quit and left to the mountains, not only would it not destroy the economy, nobody would care.
It is just as dumb of a premise as your silly argument.
Economic meltdowns happen for a lot of reasons.
Most (though not all) of the Detroit meltdown is confined to the city itself.
Flight resulting in loss of capital and tax base can have a snowball effect especially if enough bedroom communities exist in reasonable proximity to create a wealth donut.
Gas crises, economic changes, introduction of large outside population, and cheap auto transport(ironically) were factors here.

Every city I cited is better off now than it was 10 years ago or 50 years ago or 100 years ago.

The argument that they are just at the early stages of a Detroit-esque collapse cannot hold.

The primary difference at long view historical and philosophical level between Communism and Socialism is the tolerance of religion.
The primary bifurcation in the contemporary (post wwii) system is the level of government economic planning (eg: the difference between Sweden and Cuba).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Casca]

No, YOU don’t WANT the cities to look that way. You’re just one of the useful idiots who votes for economic slavery. That other cities have not reached Detroit’s economic meltdown yet, is not an argument. If wealth is portable, it will flee from economic persecution. Hell, you don’t even know the difference between communism & socialism. Go look up GOSPlan, then see if you can connect at least two dots.[/quote]

Where would the people and the wealth go?
People and their money follow stability and investment, not tea parties.
Atlas Shrugged was a dumb premise for a story.
The nature of capitalism is that captains of industry are interchangeable.
If a bunch of CEO’s quit and left to the mountains, not only would it not destroy the economy, nobody would care.
It is just as dumb of a premise as your silly argument.
Economic meltdowns happen for a lot of reasons.
Most (though not all) of the Detroit meltdown is confined to the city itself.
Flight resulting in loss of capital and tax base can have a snowball effect especially if enough bedroom communities exist in reasonable proximity to create a wealth donut.
Gas crises, economic changes, introduction of large outside population, and cheap auto transport(ironically) were factors here.

Every city I cited is better off now than it was 10 years ago or 50 years ago or 100 years ago.

The argument that they are just at the early stages of a Detroit-esque collapse cannot hold.

The primary difference at long view historical and philosophical level between Communism and Socialism is the tolerance of religion.
The primary bifurcation in the contemporary (post wwii) system is the level of government economic planning (eg: the difference between Sweden and Cuba).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Casca]

No, YOU don’t WANT the cities to look that way. You’re just one of the useful idiots who votes for economic slavery. That other cities have not reached Detroit’s economic meltdown yet, is not an argument. If wealth is portable, it will flee from economic persecution. Hell, you don’t even know the difference between communism & socialism. Go look up GOSPlan, then see if you can connect at least two dots.[/quote]

Where would the people and the wealth go?
People and their money follow stability and investment, not tea parties.
Atlas Shrugged was a dumb premise for a story.
The nature of capitalism is that captains of industry are interchangeable.
If a bunch of CEO’s quit and left to the mountains, not only would it not destroy the economy, nobody would care.
It is just as dumb of a premise as your silly argument.
Economic meltdowns happen for a lot of reasons.
Most (though not all) of the Detroit meltdown is confined to the city itself.
Flight resulting in loss of capital and tax base can have a snowball effect especially if enough bedroom communities exist in reasonable proximity to create a wealth donut.
Gas crises, economic changes, introduction of large outside population, and cheap auto transport(ironically) were factors here.

Every city I cited is better off now than it was 10 years ago or 50 years ago or 100 years ago.

The argument that they are just at the early stages of a Detroit-esque collapse cannot hold.

The primary difference at long view historical and philosophical level between Communism and Socialism is the tolerance of religion.
The primary bifurcation in the contemporary (post wwii) system is the level of government economic planning (eg: the difference between Sweden and Cuba).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Casca]

No, YOU don’t WANT the cities to look that way. You’re just one of the useful idiots who votes for economic slavery. That other cities have not reached Detroit’s economic meltdown yet, is not an argument. If wealth is portable, it will flee from economic persecution. Hell, you don’t even know the difference between communism & socialism. Go look up GOSPlan, then see if you can connect at least two dots.[/quote]

Where would the people and the wealth go?
People and their money follow stability and investment, not tea parties.
Atlas Shrugged was a dumb premise for a story.
The nature of capitalism is that captains of industry are interchangeable.
If a bunch of CEO’s quit and left to the mountains, not only would it not destroy the economy, nobody would care.
It is just as dumb of a premise as your silly argument.
Economic meltdowns happen for a lot of reasons.
Most (though not all) of the Detroit meltdown is confined to the city itself.
Flight resulting in loss of capital and tax base can have a snowball effect especially if enough bedroom communities exist in reasonable proximity to create a wealth donut.
Gas crises, economic changes, introduction of large outside population, and cheap auto transport(ironically) were factors here.

Every city I cited is better off now than it was 10 years ago or 50 years ago or 100 years ago.

The argument that they are just at the early stages of a Detroit-esque collapse cannot hold.

The primary difference at long view historical and philosophical level between Communism and Socialism is the tolerance of religion.
The primary bifurcation in the contemporary (post wwii) system is the level of government economic planning (eg: the difference between Sweden and Cuba).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Casca]

No, YOU don’t WANT the cities to look that way. You’re just one of the useful idiots who votes for economic slavery. That other cities have not reached Detroit’s economic meltdown yet, is not an argument. If wealth is portable, it will flee from economic persecution. Hell, you don’t even know the difference between communism & socialism. Go look up GOSPlan, then see if you can connect at least two dots.[/quote]

Where would the people and the wealth go?
People and their money follow stability and investment, not tea parties.
Atlas Shrugged was a dumb premise for a story.
The nature of capitalism is that captains of industry are interchangeable.
If a bunch of CEO’s quit and left to the mountains, not only would it not destroy the economy, nobody would care.
It is just as dumb of a premise as your silly argument.
Economic meltdowns happen for a lot of reasons.
Most (though not all) of the Detroit meltdown is confined to the city itself.
Flight resulting in loss of capital and tax base can have a snowball effect especially if enough bedroom communities exist in reasonable proximity to create a wealth donut.
Gas crises, economic changes, introduction of large outside population, and cheap auto transport(ironically) were factors here.

Every city I cited is better off now than it was 10 years ago or 50 years ago or 100 years ago.

The argument that they are just at the early stages of a Detroit-esque collapse cannot hold.

The primary difference at long view historical and philosophical level between Communism and Socialism is the tolerance of religion.
The primary bifurcation in the contemporary (post wwii) system is the level of government economic planning (eg: the difference between Sweden and Cuba).

[blahblahblah]

All I know is that if there are any problems in this country, I had nothing to do with them. They are all someone else’s fault. So if the American auto industry is in trouble, it clearly has nothing to do with the fact that I drive Japanese.

I suspect it may be the fault of unions. Or democrats. Or perhaps socialists, I don’t know but it’s got to be one of those groups I saw something on TV about that one time.

That is all, return to your discussion.

[blahblahblah]

All I know is that if there are any problems in this country, I had nothing to do with them. They are all someone else’s fault. So if the American auto industry is in trouble, it clearly has nothing to do with the fact that I drive Japanese.

I suspect it may be the fault of unions. Or democrats. Or perhaps socialists, I don’t know but it’s got to be one of those groups I saw something on TV about that one time.

That is all, return to your discussion.

[blahblahblah]

All I know is that if there are any problems in this country, I had nothing to do with them. They are all someone else’s fault. So if the American auto industry is in trouble, it clearly has nothing to do with the fact that I drive Japanese.

I suspect it may be the fault of unions. Or democrats. Or perhaps socialists, I don’t know but it’s got to be one of those groups I saw something on TV about that one time.

That is all, return to your discussion.

[blahblahblah]

All I know is that if there are any problems in this country, I had nothing to do with them. They are all someone else’s fault. So if the American auto industry is in trouble, it clearly has nothing to do with the fact that I drive Japanese.

I suspect it may be the fault of unions. Or democrats. Or perhaps socialists, I don’t know but it’s got to be one of those groups I saw something on TV about that one time.

That is all, return to your discussion.

[Author]

Posts