patrick.net

"I didn’t say that. It probably had a small effect, but by FAR the primary reason for GM’s demise was poor management."

I agree!

Blue Swan says

RayAmerica says
GM also killed the electric transit systems in major cities.
Sure, sure, we all saw “Roger Rabbit”…but is that really true? Electrified trolley lines can only go to so many places.

What I was referring to was the transit system that existed in the downtown business section of most major cities. Along with these systems there also existed public transporation from the suburbs into the city, somewhat similar to what you currently have in SF.

Who Killed the Electric Car was kind of misleading. Yes, those guys loved their cars, and would love to have bought them for $30k. Sadly it cost GM $100k to make them. And it was cheaper for GM to take them back, rather than provide the long term parts and service.

You could certainly make an argument that in the long term it could have paid off for GM. Maybe, maybe not. Developing the lead-acid battery technology in the EV1 would not be that helpful as that chemistry simply doesn't have enough potential.

But the straightforward argument that "GM killed this market as it would threaten big oil" is not quite right. GM stopped the development because in the short and mid term they could make more money marketing 4x4s as safe, in an era when few cared about mpg due to $1.50 gas.

The article ends with :"Detroit is really venturing into a new frontier."
Admittedly, the size and scope of what Detroit is facing is on a much larger scale than Youngstown, but here's what they're doing:
Now, in a radical move, the city - which has suffered since the steel industry left town and jobs dried up - is bulldozing abandoned buildings, tearing up blighted streets and converting entire blocks into open green spaces. More than 1,000 structures have been demolished so far.

wow ... there must not be any enviro-whacks in that Detroit area to allow so much deisel and dust and waste of resources. Or .. maybe ... that whole "green" thing gets tossed away as as soon as it effects a progressive-politico's votes?

On a side not .. Barry smokes (what? who knows) and drinks ... so much that it was noted by his doc. So, will his health care be removed?

Misstrial says

Yeah thomas.wong86 -
SF spends about $65k per homeless person. This was discussed at length on sfgate.com about 1 year ago.
What the city should do is simply buy a house in the flyover for each homeless person/couple.
Result: the city will have far fewer homeless and the homeless would then be homeowners.
~Misstrial

Last I heard they were giving one way tickets out of the city...

grywlfbg says

BMW, Toyota, Nissan, etc seem to be doing just fine paying market wages for US labor and obviously the workers are glad for the jobs. Making $30/hour is better than $0 if your company goes out of business and/or you get laid off.

Exactly! there are plenty and willing and skilled workers out there.

I think the bay area speaks loudly about american and japanese cars. Even if there was a 25% tariff, people aren't going to choose something other than a BMW/Mercedes for an american "equivalent" ? The mid size cars are ruled by the japanese and their quality. They turn around and put out new cars with better standards all the time. People around here have an easy choice to make. Which way do they go? I've counted "new" (most likely less than 5 years old) foreign cars on the road around in the bay area vs american and it's a horrific number. Something like 1 in 10. Obviously in detroit that number is a little more skewed towards american models, but if it is, it's to support their employers and not because of a quality number. Here we have a level playing field and 9 in 10 buy foreign. Even 25% probably wouldn't be enough to stop people from buying japanese or german.

Here are some interesting points: http://www.npr.org/news/specials/gmvstoyota/

Average Labor Cost per U.S. Hourly Worker: GM: $73.73, Toyota: $48

Health Care Costs per Vehicle in 2004: GM: $1,525, Toyota: $201

Average Hourly Salary for Non-Skilled, Assembly Line Worker: GM: $31.35/hour NOTE: Includes idle workers still on payroll and those on protected status. Toyota: $27/hour NOTE: Includes year-end bonus.

North American Workforce
- GM: White collar: 36,000 Production: 106,000. *** Retirees: 460,000 ***
- Toyota: White collar: 17,000 Production: 21,000 Retirees: 1,600

Vehicle Production in North America 2005: GM: 4,856,000, Toyota: 1,558,828

The last two numbers are interesting. Toyota produces roughly 1/3rd the cars, but employees 40% less employees to do that. Production workers.

I did some consulting work in the Detroit area back in the mid 90's. (Healthcare IT) Our data center was in the Northern Burbs'. A nice area. Whenever I had to go into Detroit (city), it was like a war zone. I can just imagine what it is like today.

I hope the mayor doesn't waste this opportunity to film a next generation of RoboCop movies.

"I’ve counted “new” (most likely less than 5 years old) foreign cars on the road around in the bay area vs american and it’s a horrific number. Something like 1 in 10. "

Plus I'll bet 50% of the domestic brand cars around SJ are rentals. The only domestic brand stuff selling in any quantity was 4x4s, but with higher priced gas that is dropping. Plus, all fashions eventually fall out of fashion, so eventually carting the family around in a 4x4 will not be as stylish as it was a few years back.

Having said that, the new Fords are looking very good. And reportedly quality is on par with honda and toyota.

Two different people at my job bought brand new fords in February. A Ford Fusion and a Mercury Milan. Good cars - the Milan is really beautiful. I don't know about the Milan, but the Fusion was assembled in Mexico.

JboBbo says

I hope the mayor doesn’t waste this opportunity to film a next generation of RoboCop movies.

:)

Ford Taurus looks pretty sweet.

Even if there was a 25% tariff, people aren’t going to choose something other than a BMW/Mercedes for an american “equivalent” ? The mid size cars are ruled by the japanese and their quality. They turn around and put out new cars with better standards all the time.

At the end of the day its the same metal, plastic, and fabrics regardless if going to US or European factory.
How you shape it depends on your skills. The Japanese easily copied the design from Euro cars.

Anything is possible, like when Ford entered GT 40 at Lemans 1966-69 beat out the Italian prancing stallion.
SWEEEEET!

That ass whoopin monster that Henry sent over seas was so unreal, them sissy's wrote the engine dispalcement rules to remove it from racing. Ford had 429 reasons why the GT lead, or broke while leading, dang near every 24atLeMans it entered.

I'd be looking to turn unoccupied areas into forest.

It's always possible to make a turn around, but so far, the culture really pushes people not to change. No one who has 5 years before retirement wants to rock the boat on a revolutionary change which might get them canned. That is probably one of the biggest problems GM has. If you make a change, you put your neck out. Either for good or bad, but when you're risk adverse, why do either? If you're 5 years away, in a city where the "only" employeer is the one you're at, why risk it?

I see no reason GM, Ford, or others couldn't out do their japanese/german counter parts, but I don't see it happening for awhile...
Hopefully electric cars will push everyone into new territories, where there aren't precedents set that will keep jobs secure. When people are forced to come up with new ideas, they'll do a great job. Who better to understand the US market, than someone living here?

Bap 33, Correction...I'm pretty sure the Ford GT-40 had 427 reasons why they kicked-ass. The (Boss) 429's were in Mustangs and NASCAR big body Fords. Very cool. But so were the 426 Max-wedge Mopars...and then came the Chrysler hemi engines in 1964. Pontiac had very powerful 421 "Super Duty" engines and Chevy had a monster 427. The 60's and early 70's were the glory days for muscle cars.

If I'm not mistaken Detroit had the highest per capita income of any city in America in the late 40's (early 50's ?). Detroit also had the first hotel in America with air-conditioning. Detroit desplayed the largest U.S. Flag in America on the J. L. Hudsons department store. J.L. Hudsons had more than one million square feet of space, the largest department store in America...probably in the world - at the time. Detroit has the 2nd oldest aquarium in the country. Detroit had Vernors Ginger Ale, Fago pop, Saunders candy stores and Unlimited Hydroplane races on the Detroit River. Plus lots of humidity and mosquito's.

Unions, in the beginning, played a vital role in securing basic workers rights. These contributions should not be dismissed. Over time, however, unions mutated to become the enemy of freedom, individual rights and prosperity.

Freedom took a major hit way back in 1935 with the enactment of the Wagner Act which FORCED businesses to recognize and negotiate with trade unions. Unions, through forced dues, began to exert a stronger influence in politics because of political donations (aka bribes). The unions, of course, received "favorable legislation" in return...the OPPOSITE of a free market and true capitalism.

Over time unions have become so powerful that in order of businesses, cities, even countries to survive they must extract concessions from unions or go bankrupt. Recent examples are General Motors, Vallejo California and Greece. The union's in Greece recently shut down roads, businesses and even hospitals. That shows how compassionate unions are.

FORCE is never a good way to conduct business. Rape has an element of force. Robbery has an element of force. Murder has an element of force.

Force is the elimination of freedom. I know, many of you embrace the elimination of freedom. And don't use that childish mantra "but we all need roads" whine, whine whine.

Collective bargaining=>collectivism=>Socialism=>tyranny.

Politicians: public servants with ethics deficit disorder.

Honest Abe says

Freedom took a major hit way back in 1935 with the enactment of the Wagner Act which FORCED businesses to recognize and negotiate with trade unions. Unions, through forced dues, began to exert a stronger influence in politics because of political donations (aka bribes). The unions, of course, received “favorable legislation” in return…the OPPOSITE of a free market and true capitalism.

Isn't that an argument for campaign finance reform? Doesn't Corporate America also receive "favorable legislation" in return for their bribes? Let's eliminate the bribes instead of worrying about unions....

OK, how about BOTH... eliminating bribes AND getting control of unions?

"If government stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" Will Rogers

Honest Abe says

OK, how about BOTH… eliminating bribes AND getting control of unions?
“If government stupidity got us into this mess, why can’t it get us out?” Will Rogers

I guess I don't understand why you pick on unions but not big business and corporate america. Big business is much less compassionate than unions are. Corporate America will let someone die rather than treat a pre-existing condition. Corporate America would rather shut down a plant in America and move the jobs to Mexico to save a dime, with little regard for all the employees and their families.

Unions don't force anything. They negotiate contracts with management. Unions leverage is the ability to strike. Management's leverage is to shut the plant down and move it somewhere else. Nobody is forced to do anything.

"Unions don’t force anything. They negotiate contracts with management. Unions leverage is the ability to strike. Management’s leverage is to shut the plant down and move it somewhere else. Nobody is forced to do anything."

So, management can just shut the plant down tomorrow for good, with no warning? Can they just terminate their relationship with the union and hire non-union workers? Can they have a combined union/non-union non-exempt workforce?

Paralithodes says

So, management can just shut the plant down tomorrow for good, with no warning? Can they just terminate their relationship with the union and hire non-union workers? Can they have a combined union/non-union non-exempt workforce?

No, most likely not, and most likely not. Depends on the state. What's your point? Does management not have the foresight to plan ahead? They have to do things "tomorrow"?

@Abe,
I thought the big incher that went over the pond was the NASCAR power-plant that tipped the inch meter at 429 (not the side oiler in the AC). But, I am way way way too young to know and am not real checked out in pony power. Either way, Ford did then what Toyota is doing today. Beating the best in their own back yard.

On unions:
I have always been a union supporter. But, I also support bosses rights. I am not an athletic supporter. bwwaa haaa ha ha
anyways, unions are kinda like churches ..... they are really handy when you need one, the folks inside always want more to come in, you pay them just a little bit for their services that you only use when you have need, the guy doing the talking up front is not a dues paying member, each one thinks theirs is the best one, and they both exist to save sinners from Satan.

If a boss is not Satan, then the union idea makes little sence.
If an employee is not a sinner, then the boss is not normally Satan.
Somewhere in there the ideal situation exists.

"If a boss is not Satan, then the union idea makes little sence.
If an employee is not a sinner, then the boss is not normally Satan.
Somewhere in there the ideal situation exists."

I have heard several HR people say that 'if your employees want to organize, you are doing something wrong.' However, if the Democrats have their way by increasing employee "free choice" by removing their right to vote for organizing by private ballot, plenty of other employees will vote to organize whether they want to or not, especially in some unions with ties to special families who will make "offers [those who would vote against] can't refuse."

Mayor Bing should be congratulated for attempting to turn much of Detroit back to farm land. Is that why Democrats like to be referred to as "progressives?"

Yea, I looked up the engine size of the Ford GT-40 and it was 427 cubic inches. Totally cool cars. I see a modern (2007?) red GT-40 around town from time to time...awesome (must be some greedy, rich business owner who exploits his workers).

Bap33, I like your analogy about the boss and the employee and somewhere in there is the ideal situation, makes sense. There are a few on this site, however, that don't realize that its the employer who takes all the risks, opens the business, and provides the jobs - NOT the other way around.

Unions leverage is to put the employer out of business via strikes. Once a business is damaged enough by the unions, regulated to death by non-business minded politicians, crucified by frivilous lawsuits, and taxed to the breaking point, yea some of them pull up everything and move away to some place thats more business friendly, probably to another country. And was greed the CAUSE? No, but could it be a result of undue pressure from labor unions, unfriendly over-regulation, preditory lawsuits and punitive fees, audits, taxes and the like? Yes it could.

And speaking of unions, collective bargaining is inherently unfair. The best, most efficient workers are harmed by being forced to accept a lower wage than they would otherwise be entitled to based on their superior performance. In other words, success is penalized. The employer is also harmed by being forced to pay a higher wage to the least productive workers who do not deserve it due to inferior performance. In other words, inferior performance is rewarded. Thats a recipe for failure in the real world, wouldn't you agree?

Phoenix is having a similar effect, but not exactly like Detroit. What you have is all the burbs are super overpriced, and while the economy was based on building that was ok. But now you have the neglected Phoenix core region that is suddenly, and surprisingly attractive for a number of reasons. Hard to say what will happen to the Phoenix burbs, but most likely it wont be fun.

tatupu70 says

I guess I don’t understand why you pick on unions but not big business and corporate america.

Well the fact is they were knee deep in bed with the Mafia for decades and decades for a start.
You trust the Mafia with your union pension ?

Honest Abe says

Bap33, I like your analogy about the boss and the employee and somewhere in there is the ideal situation, makes sense. There are a few on this site, however, that don’t realize that its the employer who takes all the risks, opens the business, and provides the jobs - NOT the other way around.

And it's the owner that gets the vast majority of the rewards, if successful. Which is as it should be.
Honest Abe says

Unions leverage is to put the employer out of business via strikes. Once a business is damaged enough by the unions, regulated to death by non-business minded politicians, crucified by frivilous lawsuits, and taxed to the breaking point, yea some of them pull up everything and move away to some place thats more business friendly, probably to another country. And was greed the CAUSE? No, but could it be a result of undue pressure from labor unions, unfriendly over-regulation, preditory lawsuits and punitive fees, audits, taxes and the like? Yes it could.

Yes, it was greed.

Honest Abe says

The best, most efficient workers are harmed by being forced to accept a lower wage than they would otherwise be entitled to based on their superior performance. In other words, success is penalized.

Now you've hit on the problems with unions. They protect the worst workers and hinder the best. I agree completely. I don't think it's a recipe for failure, but it does require different management techniques. You have to provide group incentives rather than individual ones.

thomas.wong1986 says

Well the fact is they were knee deep in bed with the Mafia for decades and decades for a start.
You trust the Mafia with your union pension ?

Did you trust Enron with yours? Or GM? There are bad people in union leadership just as there are jerks running Fortune 500 companies.

tatupu70 says

Did you trust Enron with yours? Or GM? There are bad people in union leadership just as there are jerks running Fortune 500 companies.

You forgot to include the Government.

Agreed--there are jerks in the Government as well.

When you think about it, the land might make an excellent location for farms to make and sell produce locally. Just make sure you put a good farmer's market there. Should be enough customers driving by every day too.

Wow....irreplaceable and priceless - no matter what, a modern home, modern mansion, modern anything cannot ever top the warmth, charming and nostalgic feel of an 1880's Queen Anne Farm Home....period.

Think twice on that destruction and go restoration if you want a neighborhood community to "turn around"

Proven on neighborhood research

Why not annex portions off to new townships or de-incorporate some area's?

Why because down the road, current City planners, when they retire and go into private sector, they will be in possition to then develop these "SLUMS" and distressed areas.

Anyone else nothing "Distressed" means "Property crooks I mean developers and investors want."?

T-oz:
I want what you're smoking. Seriously, it must be some good shit.

Detroit has some huge pockets of blight in the middle of town. There are many historic buildings that are in such disrepair that people are asking the city to tear them down. The town has lost its major industry and many industries that relied upon it. In one of the affluent areas, Mitt Romney's childhood home is about to be razed:
http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/109551/detroit-shrinks-itself-historic-homes-and-all?mod=realestate-homeimprove

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit
You can't annex off property that no one wants. They can't create new towships out of thin air - they can't de-incorporate without a plan. Do you propose that they de-incorporate the pockets of empty lots where no one lives?

Tenouncetrout says

Why because down the road, current City planners, when they retire and go into private sector, they will be in possition to then develop these “SLUMS” and distressed areas.

This statement is preposterous. The town once known as Motor City can't give away some of the houses - and thus far no one has stepped up to develop the empty lots. That's because there are no jobs to support people who want to move in.

Tenouncetrout says

Anyone else nothing “Distressed” means “Property crooks I mean developers and investors want.”?

Try as I might, I can't make sense of this statement.

well, if the taxes are sufficiently low, and utility infrastructure is intact (and it probably is)... then you should work with your friends and buy out an entire block and fix it up.

that could certainly work out here in PHX, and that might actually happen given that illegals are now under pressure to leave, and it seems that many are in support of removing the welfare system. This makes all the gangstas leave.