No economic "civil war"
By Dr. Jack McMillan
Salon.com editorial writer Michael Lind recently published a piece of garbage entitled “The economic Civil War”. Here is my reply:
In his latest act of buffoonery, Micheal Lind blames Detroit’s inefficient auto industry’s woes on “Neo-Confederates”. According to Lind’s version of reality, when the “Big Three” executives flew into Washington in their private jets to ask for a bailout, it was Jefferson Davis' fault! Such delusional nonsense is humorous to say the least. Perhaps Mr. Lind has fantasies about charging over the cornfields at Gettysburg with the boys in blue to “preserve the union”. Perhaps he should become a Civil War re-enactor. What Lind certainly is not is an economic realist.
The only “union” Lind really wishes to preserve is the UAW. Fine, if he wants to defend an early 20th century system in a 21st century world, that his business. What is not his right however is to lie and distort. He is guilty of the very thing of which he accuses others - economic regionalism. When Linds writes that a Third Reconstruction may be needed to allow “blue states to preserve their way of life” his obvious regionalism is made manifest.
Ford, Chrysler, and GM could have built factories in Alabama and Mississippi, but they chose not to. That wasn’t the fault of “Southern elites”, that was a decision made in Detroit. The Big Three could have built cars people actually wanted to buy, but they chose not to. Again, this was not the product of some simmering, lingering Southern revenge, but rather the result of inept decision-making in Detroit boardrooms. Lind wants to blame the South for Detroit’s incompetence, but it just doesn’t fly.
What Southern states have managed to do is to attract businesses, including auto manufacturers. So, of course, Lind sees that as some plot probably cooked up by General Beauregard to destroy Detroit’s (and the North’s) industrial base. Rather than applauding American entrepreneurship and business acumen, Lind denounces it as divisive, and therein lies the problem. Lind simply fails to understand the world has changed and America is no longer automatically guaranteed success- America has to compete in a global marketplace. The Southern auto industry demonstrates that America can compete, but old business models of the sort Lind desperately clings to must be altered. One of the reasons for Detroit’s failures can be tied directly to labor unions – legacy costs. Nearly one-third the price of a Detroit car is payment for workers’ medical and retirement benefits. That might have been fine when the auto industry was purely domestic, but the world has changed, Mr. Lind. Yes, the South has welcomed foreign auto companies to build factories and give people good-paying jobs – that isn’t a “neo-confederate” plot Mr. Lind; it’s just good business sense. There is no Southern plot to kill Detroit's auto industry - if Detroit fails then it's their own fault. Taking responsibility for one's own actions and not blaming others is a sign of maturity, and it's time for Detroit to grow up.
Interestingly, non-union auto workers in the South are paid well above minimum wage and in some cases above unionized wages. Of course, Lind fails to mention this since it wouldn’t help his sectionalist argument. His “solution” to the imagined problem is equally absurd – rather than adopt the successful (southern) business model, the federal government must impose the unsuccessful model nationally. Well, in that case, at least the whole country will fail economically together rather than having some parts actually thriving. Is that really your vision of national unity, Mr. Lind?
Salon.com editorial writer Michael Lind recently published a piece of garbage entitled “The economic Civil War”. Here is my reply:
In his latest act of buffoonery, Micheal Lind blames Detroit’s inefficient auto industry’s woes on “Neo-Confederates”. According to Lind’s version of reality, when the “Big Three” executives flew into Washington in their private jets to ask for a bailout, it was Jefferson Davis' fault! Such delusional nonsense is humorous to say the least. Perhaps Mr. Lind has fantasies about charging over the cornfields at Gettysburg with the boys in blue to “preserve the union”. Perhaps he should become a Civil War re-enactor. What Lind certainly is not is an economic realist.
The only “union” Lind really wishes to preserve is the UAW. Fine, if he wants to defend an early 20th century system in a 21st century world, that his business. What is not his right however is to lie and distort. He is guilty of the very thing of which he accuses others - economic regionalism. When Linds writes that a Third Reconstruction may be needed to allow “blue states to preserve their way of life” his obvious regionalism is made manifest.
Ford, Chrysler, and GM could have built factories in Alabama and Mississippi, but they chose not to. That wasn’t the fault of “Southern elites”, that was a decision made in Detroit. The Big Three could have built cars people actually wanted to buy, but they chose not to. Again, this was not the product of some simmering, lingering Southern revenge, but rather the result of inept decision-making in Detroit boardrooms. Lind wants to blame the South for Detroit’s incompetence, but it just doesn’t fly.
What Southern states have managed to do is to attract businesses, including auto manufacturers. So, of course, Lind sees that as some plot probably cooked up by General Beauregard to destroy Detroit’s (and the North’s) industrial base. Rather than applauding American entrepreneurship and business acumen, Lind denounces it as divisive, and therein lies the problem. Lind simply fails to understand the world has changed and America is no longer automatically guaranteed success- America has to compete in a global marketplace. The Southern auto industry demonstrates that America can compete, but old business models of the sort Lind desperately clings to must be altered. One of the reasons for Detroit’s failures can be tied directly to labor unions – legacy costs. Nearly one-third the price of a Detroit car is payment for workers’ medical and retirement benefits. That might have been fine when the auto industry was purely domestic, but the world has changed, Mr. Lind. Yes, the South has welcomed foreign auto companies to build factories and give people good-paying jobs – that isn’t a “neo-confederate” plot Mr. Lind; it’s just good business sense. There is no Southern plot to kill Detroit's auto industry - if Detroit fails then it's their own fault. Taking responsibility for one's own actions and not blaming others is a sign of maturity, and it's time for Detroit to grow up.
Interestingly, non-union auto workers in the South are paid well above minimum wage and in some cases above unionized wages. Of course, Lind fails to mention this since it wouldn’t help his sectionalist argument. His “solution” to the imagined problem is equally absurd – rather than adopt the successful (southern) business model, the federal government must impose the unsuccessful model nationally. Well, in that case, at least the whole country will fail economically together rather than having some parts actually thriving. Is that really your vision of national unity, Mr. Lind?
posted by Chuck Demastus at
1:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home