Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
GM is a fine company. It's management is as capable as any. It and Ford and Chysler get blamed for Detroit's, Flint's and Dearborn's demises, but it is really the UAW that is responsible. It imposed impossible disadvantages on these companies that made them unable to ward off the Japanese challenge.
What a load of crap! The Big Three were serially guilty of horrendous management errors. Unions bent over backward to grant concessions in hopes that time could be bought to give the companies a chance to adjust and recover. Gross financial mismanagement elsewhere (e.g., DC and Wall Street) sadly led to the Great Recession which ran out the clock on all of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyfan
And the auto industry is thriving throughout much of the US. But only in those parts no infested with the UAW.
Get a grip. The non-union shops in the South simply piggyback on UAW contracts. If they didn't, significant portions of their workforce would simply leave for greener pastures. It's a classic free-rider situation -- auto-workers in the South benefit from the work of the UAW, but don't pay any dues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyfan
The same may be said of the USW which bankrupted US Steel, Bethlehem and others. Non-union Nucor is doing just fine, as are its workers and the cities where it's located.
More poly-unsaturated bull crap. Steel as an industry in the US killed itself by refusing to modernize even as competitors abroad were making significant advances and inroads. Then Reagan boosted interest rates and imposed steel tariffs, all in the process plunging the US into what was at the time the worst economic decline since the Great Depression. None of that worked out well for America at all.
In theory, bulldozing the low income areas, and replacing them with new, top notch retail and residential neighborhoods makes sense.
Well, it would provide subsidized short-term profits to developers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericsvibe
In the real world, the Democratic politicians, SJWs, and government would fight such a project tooth and nail.
In the real world that is Washington, DC -- a veritable hotbed of Democratic politicians, what you folks like to call SJWs, and of course government -- a replacement of aging slums and projects with trendy modern multi-purpose development has gone on for a good while now, most of it including significant numbers of low-income housing units. Sucks when this stuff turns out well, doesn't it.
Well there is Detroit. 135 square miles that once housed about 2 million people and employed considerably more, now only about 700,000. Lots of areas will need to be shed and demolished if they ever manage to consolidate the populated areas.
Pittsburgh was the Steel City. Detroit was the Motor City. Rochester was Kodaktown. To one degree or another, they each took a licking but kept on ticking.
Now you get to define what is "affordable". Not just what it might be to the mythical lower income household of four...but to the entirety of the city; the other people they live among and the City itself.
All those municipal services (schools, libraries, parks, transit, fire, police, etc) cost bucks.
After a lot of back & forth you'll come to a point where you realize that the real problem
with "affordable" is less about what an $X sells for than how much the person can earn.
That they can't earn enough... or in too many instances WON'T earn at all.
You weren't really doing well, but it was at least not much worse than average until crumbling into that last bit of woeful nonsense.
What a load of crap! The Big Three were serially guilty of horrendous management errors. Unions bent over backward to grant concessions in hopes that time could be bought to give the companies a chance to adjust and recover. Gross financial mismanagement elsewhere (e.g., DC and Wall Street) sadly led to the Great Recession which ran out the clock on all of that.
Get a grip. The non-union shops in the South simply piggyback on UAW contracts. If they didn't, significant portions of their workforce would simply leave for greener pastures. It's a classic free-rider situation -- auto-workers in the South benefit from the work of the UAW, but don't pay any dues.
More poly-unsaturated bull crap. Steel as an industry in the US killed itself by refusing to modernize even as competitors abroad were making significant advances and inroads. Then Reagan boosted interest rates and imposed steel tariffs, all in the process plunging the US into what was at the time the worst economic decline since the Great Depression. None of that worked out well for America at all.
The UAW killed the big three. One of their 1990's contracts alone cost GM $7 per share for pension benefits. Now, they want to kill the two-tier wage schedule which they accepted in 2009. They'll wind up making $30 an hour while the non-union companies will pay $20. GM's Lordstown, NY plant was the scene of car quality actions in the 70's that drove customers into the arms of foreign companies.
"Gross financial mismangement" was necessary because they were reduced to junk bond status by the UAW.
Southern non-union plants have voted down the UAW plants time after time. They know better than to make a bargain with the devil.
The 1965 USW contract killed the steel industry. They had no money left to modernize. After that it was only a matter of time. By the late 70's they were closing plants everywhere.
The UAW killed the big three. One of their 1990's contracts alone cost GM $7 per share for pension benefits. Now, they want to kill the two-tier wage schedule which they accepted in 2009. They'll wind up making $30 an hour while the non-union companies will pay $20. GM's Lordstown, NY plant was the scene of car quality actions in the 70's that drove customers into the arms of foreign companies.
"Gross financial mismangement" was necessary because they were reduced to junk bond status by the UAW.
Southern non-union plants have voted down the UAW plants time after time. They know better than to make a bargain with the devil.
The 1965 USW contract killed the steel industry. They had no money left to modernize. After that it was only a matter of time. By the late 70's they were closing plants everywhere.
So you honestly believe that overseas competition and cheap labor had nothing to do with these plants closing down? Really?
So you honestly believe that overseas competition and cheap labor had nothing to do with these plants closing down? Really?
No. If they paid like Toyota and had benefits and work rules like Toyota they would be as prosperous as Toyota. How do I know this? Because they are in China.
$20 and hour and reasonable benefits is nothing to sniff at especially for unskilled labor. Reaching for $30 is killing the golden goose.
You might start by understanding that few if any situations are more favorable to all involved than a successful union-management partnership.
That's why Boeing opened a plant in SC and every foreign auto plant (except Honda) was built south of the Mason-Dixon line.
A "successful union-management partnership" is by definition successful. And a non-successful one is, let me guess, non-successful?
You can look anywhere in the Northeast and see the debris left by union devastation. And they haven't learned. GE just moved some of its transformer work from Vt. to FL. Some is always followed by all.
Remington has moved work from Ilion, NY to Tennessee or Georgia. But they never learn. The old workers have seniority and could care less if new hires get canned. Carrier demolished the last of its buildings in Syracuse. (They always keep a few "R&D" people around to quiet the local "smart economy" people.)
That's why Boeing opened a plant in SC and every foreign auto plant (except Honda) was built south of the Mason-Dixon line.
A "successful union-management partnership" is by definition successful. And a non-successful one is, let me guess, non-successful?
You can look anywhere in the Northeast and see the debris left by union devastation. And they haven't learned. GE just moved some of its transformer work from Vt. to FL. Some is always followed by all.
Remington has moved work from Ilion, NY to Tennessee or Georgia. But they never learn. The old workers have seniority and could care less if new hires get canned. Carrier demolished the last of its buildings in Syracuse. (They always keep a few "R&D" people around to quiet the local "smart economy" people.)
It depends on the company really. Being non-union will not guarantee that a plant will stay open.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
