Detroit becomes Largest City in US History to File Bankruptcy

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

That is pure speculation about the pension dollars leaving. Detroit hasn’t shrunk much in recent years, the flight has happened gradually over decades.

I agree that is a big part of the burden, and pensions are going away. However, do you believe it is fair to tell someone “if you work for such and such amount, you will make this much to live on after retirement” then renege on that promise?

As far as this investment you are talking about do you mean military bases? That is just another form of entitlement. How is Texas handling their money better just because they can keep bases open and Michigan can’t?[/quote]

How is it Speculation? The population has decreased from 2 million to 600,000 citizens in the city. Probability shows a lot of it is moving away.

I agree if you make a promise you need to pay it, but HOW is it going to get paid if the money is not there?

Military Bases are not an investment. I am talking about investments into corporations. Giving them tax breaks or incentives to move their manufacturing plants to Texas. Texas and Conservatives know that if you give a corporation a tax break they will spend more money in a given location. They will expand a plant and hire more people. When you hire more people more income is taxed. Texas does not have an income tax but a sales tax. When there is more money in the hands of the people that earned it they have a choice whether to spend the money or save the money. I am all for saving money, but I still spend on big ticket items with cash. If there is more money to spend then more goods are purchased (sales tax receipts goes up) and now more jobs can be created because there is more money coming back to the company. This is Econ 101, and when you place the Government in the place of Companies it screws up the whole machine. Capitalism increases the PIE for everyone. Government keeps the PIE the same size and over a period of time starts to decrease the PIE because productivity goes down.
[/quote]

It went from 1.8 mil to 700K over FIFTY years. The recent flight has slowed waaaaay down. It has been a 700K for the last decade.

Do you really think Detroit hasn’t done the same thing with tax breaks for corporations?
[/quote]

The people with money have already left the city, or have a reason to stay.

No I do not think Detroit has done anything to encourage business growth. If they have it was too late. It is not only tax breaks, it is regulations, and unions also.

82

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:
I agree that is a big part of the burden, and pensions are going away. However, do you believe it is fair to tell someone “if you work for such and such amount, you will make this much to live on after retirement” then renege on that promise?[/quote]

Give me 15% of your check and I’ll pay your full salary forever until you die, plus benefits. You agree, I should follow through, but that doesn’t mean I should have made the promise in the first place or that the arrangement will work.

Pensions are for suckers, just give me my check and I’ll take care of my retirement.[/quote]

Pensions are paid for by the government or the company 100%. These people should have at least saved some money of each pay check. Pensions and SSI were never designed to be 100% of your living expenses in retirement. Defined Benefit Pensions, Defined Contribution Pensions, SSI, IRA (Roth, Tradtional, and Simple), 401k, 403b, 457, Keogh, Investments, Savings, and others are all tools to use to pay for Retirment. I seperated out the two Pensions there are because they are very different.

Defined Benefit Pensions define what benefit you get every month once you retire (This is the one killing governments and Union Companies).

Defined Contribution Pensions are one that define the contribution that will be made every year by the company. My wife has the second one. The put 3-5% of her salary away every year in an account and then make an interest payment based on the lesser of 1 year treasury + 1% or the 10 year treasury not to be less than 3.5%. This one is more sustainable over the long term. The Pension can invest in different securities. If the rate of return is greater than the amount having to be paid for the contribution and the interest adjustment the company has to put $0 into the account.

Defined benefit plans there is a calculation based on the last 5 years of service and that is the amount they pay out. There are too many variables to this equation that can kill a plan.

Edited to make paragraphs.

83

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

That is pure speculation about the pension dollars leaving. Detroit hasn’t shrunk much in recent years, the flight has happened gradually over decades.

I agree that is a big part of the burden, and pensions are going away. However, do you believe it is fair to tell someone “if you work for such and such amount, you will make this much to live on after retirement” then renege on that promise?

As far as this investment you are talking about do you mean military bases? That is just another form of entitlement. How is Texas handling their money better just because they can keep bases open and Michigan can’t?[/quote]

How is it Speculation? The population has decreased from 2 million to 600,000 citizens in the city. Probability shows a lot of it is moving away.

I agree if you make a promise you need to pay it, but HOW is it going to get paid if the money is not there?

Military Bases are not an investment. I am talking about investments into corporations. Giving them tax breaks or incentives to move their manufacturing plants to Texas. Texas and Conservatives know that if you give a corporation a tax break they will spend more money in a given location. They will expand a plant and hire more people. When you hire more people more income is taxed. Texas does not have an income tax but a sales tax. When there is more money in the hands of the people that earned it they have a choice whether to spend the money or save the money. I am all for saving money, but I still spend on big ticket items with cash. If there is more money to spend then more goods are purchased (sales tax receipts goes up) and now more jobs can be created because there is more money coming back to the company. This is Econ 101, and when you place the Government in the place of Companies it screws up the whole machine. Capitalism increases the PIE for everyone. Government keeps the PIE the same size and over a period of time starts to decrease the PIE because productivity goes down.
[/quote]

It went from 1.8 mil to 700K over FIFTY years. The recent flight has slowed waaaaay down. It has been a 700K for the last decade.

Do you really think Detroit hasn’t done the same thing with tax breaks for corporations?
[/quote]

The people with money have already left the city, or have a reason to stay.

No I do not think Detroit has done anything to encourage business growth. If they have it was too late. It is not only tax breaks, it is regulations, and unions also.
[/quote]

ALL those auto plants that were built were given tax breaks. It is funny you talk about the high taxes on corporations and it is true statutory taxes are high but in most cases effective rates are quite low when compared to the rest of the industrialized world.

Ah yes I forgot you mentioned right to work. States with right to work have low cost of living but they have also been shown to have low standards of living and low wages. Michigan is a right to work state now and it hasn’t created any jobs.

84

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

That is pure speculation about the pension dollars leaving. Detroit hasn’t shrunk much in recent years, the flight has happened gradually over decades.

I agree that is a big part of the burden, and pensions are going away. However, do you believe it is fair to tell someone “if you work for such and such amount, you will make this much to live on after retirement” then renege on that promise?

As far as this investment you are talking about do you mean military bases? That is just another form of entitlement. How is Texas handling their money better just because they can keep bases open and Michigan can’t?[/quote]

How is it Speculation? The population has decreased from 2 million to 600,000 citizens in the city. Probability shows a lot of it is moving away.

I agree if you make a promise you need to pay it, but HOW is it going to get paid if the money is not there?

Military Bases are not an investment. I am talking about investments into corporations. Giving them tax breaks or incentives to move their manufacturing plants to Texas. Texas and Conservatives know that if you give a corporation a tax break they will spend more money in a given location. They will expand a plant and hire more people. When you hire more people more income is taxed. Texas does not have an income tax but a sales tax. When there is more money in the hands of the people that earned it they have a choice whether to spend the money or save the money. I am all for saving money, but I still spend on big ticket items with cash. If there is more money to spend then more goods are purchased (sales tax receipts goes up) and now more jobs can be created because there is more money coming back to the company. This is Econ 101, and when you place the Government in the place of Companies it screws up the whole machine. Capitalism increases the PIE for everyone. Government keeps the PIE the same size and over a period of time starts to decrease the PIE because productivity goes down.
[/quote]

It went from 1.8 mil to 700K over FIFTY years. The recent flight has slowed waaaaay down. It has been a 700K for the last decade.

Do you really think Detroit hasn’t done the same thing with tax breaks for corporations?
[/quote]

The people with money have already left the city, or have a reason to stay.

No I do not think Detroit has done anything to encourage business growth. If they have it was too late. It is not only tax breaks, it is regulations, and unions also.
[/quote]

ALL those auto plants that were built were given tax breaks. It is funny you talk about the high taxes on corporations and it is true statutory taxes are high but in most cases effective rates are quite low when compared to the rest of the industrialized world.

Ah yes I forgot you mentioned right to work. States with right to work have low cost of living but they have also been shown to have low standards of living and low wages. Michigan is a right to work state now and it hasn’t created any jobs.
[/quote]

You think changing to a right to work state makes the jobs fly in over night? The Auto jobs are still Unionized and each employee now can opt out of the Union, but still have to pay the Union Dues.

Also as we are learning about sustainability from our tree hugger friends which is more sustainable. High Wages and high cost of living or low wages and low cost of living? I have a low cost of living and relatively low wages ( I have never made over $55k in my life from my W-2 jobs). I have made investments (Passive Real Estate) to get my income up, but still have a low cost of living. Which is more sustainable?

85

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

That is pure speculation about the pension dollars leaving. Detroit hasn’t shrunk much in recent years, the flight has happened gradually over decades.

I agree that is a big part of the burden, and pensions are going away. However, do you believe it is fair to tell someone “if you work for such and such amount, you will make this much to live on after retirement” then renege on that promise?

As far as this investment you are talking about do you mean military bases? That is just another form of entitlement. How is Texas handling their money better just because they can keep bases open and Michigan can’t?[/quote]

How is it Speculation? The population has decreased from 2 million to 600,000 citizens in the city. Probability shows a lot of it is moving away.

I agree if you make a promise you need to pay it, but HOW is it going to get paid if the money is not there?

Military Bases are not an investment. I am talking about investments into corporations. Giving them tax breaks or incentives to move their manufacturing plants to Texas. Texas and Conservatives know that if you give a corporation a tax break they will spend more money in a given location. They will expand a plant and hire more people. When you hire more people more income is taxed. Texas does not have an income tax but a sales tax. When there is more money in the hands of the people that earned it they have a choice whether to spend the money or save the money. I am all for saving money, but I still spend on big ticket items with cash. If there is more money to spend then more goods are purchased (sales tax receipts goes up) and now more jobs can be created because there is more money coming back to the company. This is Econ 101, and when you place the Government in the place of Companies it screws up the whole machine. Capitalism increases the PIE for everyone. Government keeps the PIE the same size and over a period of time starts to decrease the PIE because productivity goes down.
[/quote]

It went from 1.8 mil to 700K over FIFTY years. The recent flight has slowed waaaaay down. It has been a 700K for the last decade.

Do you really think Detroit hasn’t done the same thing with tax breaks for corporations?
[/quote]

The people with money have already left the city, or have a reason to stay.

No I do not think Detroit has done anything to encourage business growth. If they have it was too late. It is not only tax breaks, it is regulations, and unions also.
[/quote]

ALL those auto plants that were built were given tax breaks. It is funny you talk about the high taxes on corporations and it is true statutory taxes are high but in most cases effective rates are quite low when compared to the rest of the industrialized world.

Ah yes I forgot you mentioned right to work. States with right to work have low cost of living but they have also been shown to have low standards of living and low wages. Michigan is a right to work state now and it hasn’t created any jobs.
[/quote]

You think changing to a right to work state makes the jobs fly in over night? The Auto jobs are still Unionized and each employee now can opt out of the Union, but still have to pay the Union Dues.

Also as we are learning about sustainability from our tree hugger friends which is more sustainable. High Wages and high cost of living or low wages and low cost of living? I have a low cost of living and relatively low wages ( I have never made over $55k in my life from my W-2 jobs). I have made investments (Passive Real Estate) to get my income up, but still have a low cost of living. Which is more sustainable?
[/quote]

I’m having a hard time believing auto workers in Detroit are living better than ones in Mississippi.

And it’s important to note that “right to work” doesn’t in any way disband unions. It just means that union corporations don’t get special privileges that enable them to strong arm workers into joining and form labor monopolies. You can still form all the unions you want under right to work, you just can’t use coercion to do it.

86

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
I guess what I’m trying to get across, is the government can have lots of great ideas, but it doesn’t mean jack if they can’t pay for it.[/quote]

Exactly, the city of Detroit thought it would be a great idea to take over part of the payments for autoworkers, the companies could pay the government a high tax and the city would provide the paycheck/pension. Sounds great…but, it didn’t work and now they have no money to pay.

I can owe you money, but if my credit cards are maxed out and I don’t make any money in my checking account…well you can beat me up, but at the end of the day I just can’t pay you no matter what I tell you.

87

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

I’m having a hard time believing auto workers in Detroit are living better than ones in Mississippi.

And it’s important to note that “right to work” doesn’t in any way disband unions. It just means that union corporations don’t get special privileges that enable them to strong arm workers into joining and form labor monopolies. You can still form all the unions you want under right to work, you just can’t use coercion to do it.[/quote]

You are probably right, considering that new hires are barely making a living wage since the bailout. However it used to be a very good job to have. I know they are not all high skill jobs but there have to be some tradeoffs if you expect someone to do the same oftentimes crippling job for thirty years.

Right, you get all the benefits of a union, you just don’t have to pay for it. How is it coercion to pay for a service? Are you really going to tell me workers were better off before the unions?

Truthfully it is greed and mismanagement on both sides that caused this mess.

88

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

I’m having a hard time believing auto workers in Detroit are living better than ones in Mississippi.

And it’s important to note that “right to work” doesn’t in any way disband unions. It just means that union corporations don’t get special privileges that enable them to strong arm workers into joining and form labor monopolies. You can still form all the unions you want under right to work, you just can’t use coercion to do it.[/quote]

You are probably right, considering that new hires are barely making a living wage since the bailout. However it used to be a very good job to have. I know they are not all high skill jobs but there have to be some tradeoffs if you expect someone to do the same oftentimes crippling job for thirty years.

Right, you get all the benefits of a union, you just don’t have to pay for it. How is it coercion to pay for a service? Are you really going to tell me workers were better off before the unions?

Truthfully it is greed and mismanagement on both sides that caused this mess.[/quote]

No, you don’t just get union benefits (of which include bankrupting your employer). It means that you can actually negotiate your own terms of employment. In many pro union states, that is illegal in many professions. You literally, by law, can’t get certain jobs without paying money to a specific private corporation and agreeing to their terms of employment, like them or not. Yes, that is coercion.

And yes, I think Auto workers in Mississippi and the rest of the southeast are better off than in the north. Not even including the fact that they just plan have employment.

89

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:
I agree that is a big part of the burden, and pensions are going away. However, do you believe it is fair to tell someone “if you work for such and such amount, you will make this much to live on after retirement” then renege on that promise?[/quote]

Give me 15% of your check and I’ll pay your full salary forever until you die, plus benefits. You agree, I should follow through, but that doesn’t mean I should have made the promise in the first place or that the arrangement will work.

Pensions are for suckers, just give me my check and I’ll take care of my retirement.[/quote]

The problem is there are guys that put in 30+ years (use the firefighter example), been retired an pushing 80. Now your going to say too bad go find a job? Promises were made, these guys didn’t pay into SSI, have failing health.

Many departments have made changes, my pension more closely resembles a 401k.[/quote]

Yeah, it sucks. But you can’t give someone money when there is no money. [/quote]

So what’s a real solution?

90

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
Detroit made one thing for 60+ years and did it well. The trickle-down employment kept everyone working even in unskilled jobs. Decimate the car industry and what do they have left? Not much.

For it to happen elsewhere is pretty remote unless something global hits the fan in the meantime.

Rob[/quote]

Same thing happened in Pittsburgh with steel when I was a kid.

Not sure of the political wrangling or whether or not the city declared bankruptcy though.
[/quote]

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/business/news/in-desperate-1983-there-was-nowhere-for-pittsburghs-economy-to-go-but-up-667537/
[/quote]

That was a good read. Thanks. I remember watching it on the news as thousands of layoffs were announced, closings, strikes, and fights were breaking out like crazy.

It was hard to comprehend at the time.
[/quote]

That happened in every steel town in America Thousands of mills through out America effected a half million steel workers , That is why I lay it at the feet of Ronald Reagan . I lived it

91

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:
I agree that is a big part of the burden, and pensions are going away. However, do you believe it is fair to tell someone “if you work for such and such amount, you will make this much to live on after retirement” then renege on that promise?[/quote]

Give me 15% of your check and I’ll pay your full salary forever until you die, plus benefits. You agree, I should follow through, but that doesn’t mean I should have made the promise in the first place or that the arrangement will work.

Pensions are for suckers, just give me my check and I’ll take care of my retirement.[/quote]

The problem is there are guys that put in 30+ years (use the firefighter example), been retired an pushing 80. Now your going to say too bad go find a job? Promises were made, these guys didn’t pay into SSI, have failing health.

Many departments have made changes, my pension more closely resembles a 401k.[/quote]

Yeah, it sucks. But you can’t give someone money when there is no money. [/quote]

So what’s a real solution?[/quote]

Take it from the rich. /sarcasm

92

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:
I agree that is a big part of the burden, and pensions are going away. However, do you believe it is fair to tell someone “if you work for such and such amount, you will make this much to live on after retirement” then renege on that promise?[/quote]

Give me 15% of your check and I’ll pay your full salary forever until you die, plus benefits. You agree, I should follow through, but that doesn’t mean I should have made the promise in the first place or that the arrangement will work.

Pensions are for suckers, just give me my check and I’ll take care of my retirement.[/quote]

The problem is there are guys that put in 30+ years (use the firefighter example), been retired an pushing 80. Now your going to say too bad go find a job? Promises were made, these guys didn’t pay into SSI, have failing health.

Many departments have made changes, my pension more closely resembles a 401k.[/quote]

Yeah, it sucks. But you can’t give someone money when there is no money. [/quote]

So what’s a real solution?[/quote]

Take it from the rich. /sarcasm
[/quote]

People are looking in my office because of how hard i just lol’ed.

93

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:
I agree that is a big part of the burden, and pensions are going away. However, do you believe it is fair to tell someone “if you work for such and such amount, you will make this much to live on after retirement” then renege on that promise?[/quote]

Give me 15% of your check and I’ll pay your full salary forever until you die, plus benefits. You agree, I should follow through, but that doesn’t mean I should have made the promise in the first place or that the arrangement will work.

Pensions are for suckers, just give me my check and I’ll take care of my retirement.[/quote]

The problem is there are guys that put in 30+ years (use the firefighter example), been retired an pushing 80. Now your going to say too bad go find a job? Promises were made, these guys didn’t pay into SSI, have failing health.

Many departments have made changes, my pension more closely resembles a 401k.[/quote]

Yeah, it sucks. But you can’t give someone money when there is no money. [/quote]

So what’s a real solution?[/quote]

Take it from the rich. /sarcasm
[/quote]

People are looking in my office because of how hard i just lol’ed. [/quote]

lol

94

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
Detroit made one thing for 60+ years and did it well. The trickle-down employment kept everyone working even in unskilled jobs. Decimate the car industry and what do they have left? Not much.

For it to happen elsewhere is pretty remote unless something global hits the fan in the meantime.

Rob[/quote]

Same thing happened in Pittsburgh with steel when I was a kid.

Not sure of the political wrangling or whether or not the city declared bankruptcy though.
[/quote]

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/business/news/in-desperate-1983-there-was-nowhere-for-pittsburghs-economy-to-go-but-up-667537/
[/quote]

That was a good read. Thanks. I remember watching it on the news as thousands of layoffs were announced, closings, strikes, and fights were breaking out like crazy.

It was hard to comprehend at the time.
[/quote]

That happened in every steel town in America Thousands of mills through out America effected a half million steel workers , That is why I lay it at the feet of Ronald Reagan . I lived it
[/quote]

Not to derail, but [quote]This life would not last. By 1982, Mr. Bambino had seen the writing on the wall many times over, in the form of transfers and layoff notices. A job at Bethlehem Steel’s Franklin works, near Johnstown, disappeared after five years. A job at the company’s rail car plant ended, too, as did his next mill job, in Steelton, near Harrisburg, where he was making $1,400 every two weeks.[/quote]

Reagan was there when it hit the ground. Doesn’t mean he made it fall. It’s nice to be able to hang your hat on one single thing and say “Thats it! That is what did it.” but it is also intellectually lazy and historically inaccurate.

95

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:
I agree that is a big part of the burden, and pensions are going away. However, do you believe it is fair to tell someone “if you work for such and such amount, you will make this much to live on after retirement” then renege on that promise?[/quote]

Give me 15% of your check and I’ll pay your full salary forever until you die, plus benefits. You agree, I should follow through, but that doesn’t mean I should have made the promise in the first place or that the arrangement will work.

Pensions are for suckers, just give me my check and I’ll take care of my retirement.[/quote]

The problem is there are guys that put in 30+ years (use the firefighter example), been retired an pushing 80. Now your going to say too bad go find a job? Promises were made, these guys didn’t pay into SSI, have failing health.

Many departments have made changes, my pension more closely resembles a 401k.[/quote]

Yeah, it sucks. But you can’t give someone money when there is no money. [/quote]

So what’s a real solution?[/quote]

Bankruptcy. You can get blood from a stone.

96

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
Detroit made one thing for 60+ years and did it well. The trickle-down employment kept everyone working even in unskilled jobs. Decimate the car industry and what do they have left? Not much.

For it to happen elsewhere is pretty remote unless something global hits the fan in the meantime.

Rob[/quote]

Same thing happened in Pittsburgh with steel when I was a kid.

Not sure of the political wrangling or whether or not the city declared bankruptcy though.
[/quote]

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/business/news/in-desperate-1983-there-was-nowhere-for-pittsburghs-economy-to-go-but-up-667537/
[/quote]

That was a good read. Thanks. I remember watching it on the news as thousands of layoffs were announced, closings, strikes, and fights were breaking out like crazy.

It was hard to comprehend at the time.
[/quote]

That happened in every steel town in America Thousands of mills through out America effected a half million steel workers , That is why I lay it at the feet of Ronald Reagan . I lived it
[/quote]

Not to derail, but [quote]This life would not last. By 1982, Mr. Bambino had seen the writing on the wall many times over, in the form of transfers and layoff notices. A job at Bethlehem Steel’s Franklin works, near Johnstown, disappeared after five years. A job at the company’s rail car plant ended, too, as did his next mill job, in Steelton, near Harrisburg, where he was making $1,400 every two weeks.[/quote]

Reagan was there when it hit the ground. Doesn’t mean he made it fall. It’s nice to be able to hang your hat on one single thing and say “Thats it! That is what did it.” but it is also intellectually lazy and historically inaccurate.
[/quote]

Reagan was a fanatic about busting anything Union , Reagan went after the Steel Industry . Call it what you like I was there and I remember the way it unfolded

97

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
Detroit made one thing for 60+ years and did it well. The trickle-down employment kept everyone working even in unskilled jobs. Decimate the car industry and what do they have left? Not much.

For it to happen elsewhere is pretty remote unless something global hits the fan in the meantime.

Rob[/quote]

Same thing happened in Pittsburgh with steel when I was a kid.

Not sure of the political wrangling or whether or not the city declared bankruptcy though.
[/quote]

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/business/news/in-desperate-1983-there-was-nowhere-for-pittsburghs-economy-to-go-but-up-667537/
[/quote]

That was a good read. Thanks. I remember watching it on the news as thousands of layoffs were announced, closings, strikes, and fights were breaking out like crazy.

It was hard to comprehend at the time.
[/quote]

That happened in every steel town in America Thousands of mills through out America effected a half million steel workers , That is why I lay it at the feet of Ronald Reagan . I lived it
[/quote]

Not to derail, but [quote]This life would not last. By 1982, Mr. Bambino had seen the writing on the wall many times over, in the form of transfers and layoff notices. A job at Bethlehem Steel’s Franklin works, near Johnstown, disappeared after five years. A job at the company’s rail car plant ended, too, as did his next mill job, in Steelton, near Harrisburg, where he was making $1,400 every two weeks.[/quote]

Reagan was there when it hit the ground. Doesn’t mean he made it fall. It’s nice to be able to hang your hat on one single thing and say “Thats it! That is what did it.” but it is also intellectually lazy and historically inaccurate.
[/quote]

Reagan was a fanatic about busting anything Union , Reagan went after the Steel Industry . Call it what you like I was there and I remember the way it unfolded [/quote]

Well then, by the same reasoning, we should say that Obama is the next great union buster because he is here now, when Detroit is hitting the floor.

Never mind that there has been a strategic decentralization of the automotive industry for well over a decade now.

98

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
Detroit made one thing for 60+ years and did it well. The trickle-down employment kept everyone working even in unskilled jobs. Decimate the car industry and what do they have left? Not much.

For it to happen elsewhere is pretty remote unless something global hits the fan in the meantime.

Rob[/quote]

Same thing happened in Pittsburgh with steel when I was a kid.

Not sure of the political wrangling or whether or not the city declared bankruptcy though.
[/quote]

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/business/news/in-desperate-1983-there-was-nowhere-for-pittsburghs-economy-to-go-but-up-667537/
[/quote]

That was a good read. Thanks. I remember watching it on the news as thousands of layoffs were announced, closings, strikes, and fights were breaking out like crazy.

It was hard to comprehend at the time.
[/quote]

That happened in every steel town in America Thousands of mills through out America effected a half million steel workers , That is why I lay it at the feet of Ronald Reagan . I lived it
[/quote]

Not to derail, but [quote]This life would not last. By 1982, Mr. Bambino had seen the writing on the wall many times over, in the form of transfers and layoff notices. A job at Bethlehem Steel’s Franklin works, near Johnstown, disappeared after five years. A job at the company’s rail car plant ended, too, as did his next mill job, in Steelton, near Harrisburg, where he was making $1,400 every two weeks.[/quote]

Reagan was there when it hit the ground. Doesn’t mean he made it fall. It’s nice to be able to hang your hat on one single thing and say “Thats it! That is what did it.” but it is also intellectually lazy and historically inaccurate.
[/quote]

Reagan was a fanatic about busting anything Union , Reagan went after the Steel Industry . Call it what you like I was there and I remember the way it unfolded [/quote]

Well then, by the same reasoning, we should say that Obama is the next great union buster because he is here now, when Detroit is hitting the floor.

Never mind that there has been a strategic decentralization of the automotive industry for well over a decade now.
[/quote]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,954409,00.html

99

http://articles.mcall.com/1984-09-20/news/2426739_1_steel-industry-domestic-steel-import

These articles I post are from that time period , they explain how Reagan’s policies resulted in what we have in every Old Steel Town today. Chicago ,Flint, Youngstown the list cover hundreds of towns and cities.

It is revisionist history, articles written several decades after Reagan’s implementation of FAILED POLICY on the Steel Industry trying to convince a younger generation that it was not bad policy that ruined an industry and left towns and cities in ruin .

Regan would have had to change his political philosophies . It would have probably taken an approach like Carter or Obama to bail out the industry .

We may never recover from Reagan’s legacy

100

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
http://articles.mcall.com/1984-09-20/news/2426739_1_steel-industry-domestic-steel-import

These articles I post are from that time period , they explain how Reagan’s policies resulted in what we have in every Old Steel Town today. Chicago ,Flint, Youngstown the list cover hundreds of towns and cities.

It is revisionist history, articles written several decades after Reagan’s implementation of FAILED POLICY on the Steel Industry trying to convince a younger generation that it was not bad policy that ruined an industry and left towns and cities in ruin .

Regan would have had to change his political philosophies . It would have probably taken an approach like Carter or Obama to bail out the industry .

We may never recover from Reagan’s legacy

[/quote]

My wife’s cousin lived outside of Pittsburgh at that time and her husband was a crane operator for one of the biggest steel mills. In 1985, the mills put everyone’s job up for bid. Anyone working there (that wanted to keep working…) could bid on anybody’s job. Some long established mills closed down, the whole industry was in a shambles. The cousin’s husband wound up out of a job after working there 30 years.

Bob