The Reality of Detroit's Bankruptcy

Following yesterday's declaration of bankruptcy by Detroit, the jingoistic groups like the Tea Party have put their propaganda machine into high gear. Naturally they blame liberals, unions, Democrats, blacks, public employees, even Muslims, for the bankruptcy. As you would expect, the reality is quite different.

Detroit's bankruptcy, just like the bankruptcy of several other U.S. cities, was brought to you buy the economic meltdown, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, and job losses. In other words, the bankruptcy was brought to you, lock, stock, and barrel, by Republicans.

Two major events drove Detroit into bankruptcy, just as they drove other U.S. cities into bankruptcy.

The financial collapse, caused by Republicans, resulted in very low interest rates on variable rate municipal bonds, but after cities, including Detroit, swapped their variable interest rate bonds for fixed rate bonds. Hence Detroit ended up paying very high rates on their municipal bonds, and owes billions of dollars in interest.

The housing collapse, caused by Republicans, resulted in a great many empty properties. Normally a bank forecloses on the property and sells it, and property tax payments resume after the foreclosure. But what banks have done in Detroit is to simply walk away and not foreclose. The evicted owners are still responsible for property taxes but of course they are not able to pay. Detroit is losing hundreds of millions of dollars per year in uncollected property taxes.

It's true that other events aggravated the situation. U.S. automakers continue to move manufacturing to both Mexico and lower wage southern states where there are no unions to contend with. Of course this has affected other cities besides those in Michigan. Toyota and GM closed their factory in Fremont California with Toyota moving Corolla production to Canada where their health care costs are much lower thanks to Canada's national health care.

It's also true that if these cities had spent nothing on infrastructure during the good times, and had provided bare bones city services, even when they were collecting property taxes on occupied properties, they could have survived without a bankruptcy.

Pension contributions that seemed reasonable during economic good times suddenly became unsustainable as revenue dried up due to the economic crisis and job losses. When private employment and salaries were high, and employers were matching 401K contributions, no one begrudged the fact that relatively low paid public employees received a pension. Now, that's all changed and the public employee salaries appear high, the jobs are secure, and they come with what was once common, but now is rare, in the private sector, pensions.

The question now is what to do next? Just getting out of pension obligations is not going to be enough to save the city. The federal government is going to have to provide some sort of assistance. The Obama administration is going to have to help clean up another mess caused by Republicans. The Tea Party will go crazy, as usual.

Reply to
sms
Loading thread data ...

How times have changed, when I worked for the gov't the standard joke (with a hint of seriousness) was go get a real job. Now it's get a gov't job if you really want a pension when you retire. Our countries economic policy is based on an ever expanding economy, that's OK but we need to bring money into the country instead of exporting it. Sending the jobs overseas worked for a while, so did laying off Americans and paying them welfare and unemployment while hiring cheaper illegals, but now we have a shit load of illegals and thus far the jobs aren't coming back. We'll see how it all turns out, Ben's 85 billion shot in the arm every month isn't sustainable, the piper will be paid. Did I read somewhere the Toyota Camry is now the most American car in the USA?

Reply to
Fat-Dumb and Happy

Yes. . Five of the top ten domestic vehicles are Japanese brands.

The root cause of the problems in Detroit are the loss of market share of the (former) big 3 automakers. To blame Toyota or Honda for the loss of market share is ridiculous of course, the real reason is that GM, Ford, and Chrysler were unwilling to build fuel-efficient, high-reliability vehicles. To blame unions is also ridiculous since unionized plants are able to build vehicles as good or as bad as non-union plants and the labor cost per vehicle is minimal. The labor hours per vehicle is about 30. "Veterans at UAW plants still earn an average of $28 an hour, and long-serving workers at Toyota Georgetown make upwards of $26." That's a $60 difference per vehicle.

You have to be really careful with vehicles since so many "American cars" are not made in the United States. Ideally you could buy an American nameplate that is built in the U.S. with a large percentage of domestic content (and where that domestic content actually comes from the U.S. which is not always the case due to the convoluted domestic content regulations). Practically speaking, buying a vehicle built in the U.S. is probably sufficient. For a while, Toyota was building Corollas for the U.S. in Canada (after NUMMI closed) but now has a new factory in Mississippi building Corollas. That was essentially an effort to get out of a union factory into a non-union factory, and move to a lower wage part of the country.

Reply to
sms

GM CEO Dan Akerson: "It's simply a matter of macro-economics. The (auto) industry generally wasn't doing well. Many jobs were lost as the result of the restructuring, including our own, and the tax base in large measure evaporated."

Reply to
sms

the damn union forced the automakers into pyramid-scheme financial planning

THATs the real problem GW

Reply to
Geoff Welsh

I believe it is purely a mismanagement of the city government. There are many cities that have large companies come and go. City governments need to adjust, but Detroit didn't. It is failure of local government sadly to say. The taxpayers of Detroit now have to bear the burden and face facts, that is if there are any left to do the hard work.

Reply to
dbu`

GS, doing God's work,

formatting link

Reply to
Fat-Dumb and Happy

Except it's not. The GM CEO explained why the U.S. automakers lost so much market share. It was the poor design of the vehicles that they produced, not the actual production.

Reply to
sms

GM got out marketed, out designed, out pricepointed, out depenadabiltied, out laborcosted, out everything'd. They should have been allow to go way of WCOM and ENRON .... The gov't bail out was very unfair to Ford.

Reply to
Fat-Dumb and Happy

That's one guys opinion. Here's another:

Microsoft makes the worst products in history and they didn't go bankrupt

GW

Reply to
Geoff Welsh

I've had my fling with US automakers. I've been screwed too many times with their junk. I bought Toyota and it has been a reliable vehicle in the ten years I've owned it. Only back to the garage for oil changes. When I buy another vehicle it will be a Toyota. Buyer loyalty, something big three lost years ago.

Reply to
dbu`

Ford is the exception to US automakers. They seem to have their act together.

Reply to
dbu`

Not sure who said that since you didn't give a source for that statement, but someone actually did say that then he or she is extremely clueless.

Reply to
sms

I have bought 4 new US cars, 2 Dodges, Ford, GM. None of them were very good and I did not get much over 50,000 on the best one before I bought another. Then I bought a Datsun, put 100,000 on it and wanted a new one. Bought a Toyota, put 200,000 on it, then bought a Toyota for my wife and a Tachoma for myself.

I will not buy another 'big 3' unless the Toyotas let me down, then I will try a Honda first.

Reply to
Ralph Mowery

They did figuer out how to put the other companies out of business. They sold their first system for $ 49 while the other company wanted $ 150 for theirs.

The Americans will buy cheaper ..even if it is not very good.

Reply to
Ralph Mowery

I believe Honda to be equally as good. I have a Honda generator and we had a power outage for over 4 days here this summer, it worked for 24 hours only stopped to be re-fueled and it powered more than it was rated for. The Honda vehicles have excellent track records. I would not be afraid to buy a Honda, but I stick with what I know works for me now, Toyota.

Reply to
dbu`

I think most cars are fairly decent these days. There may be a few duds here and there, but most will last a while. I had a 1989 Accord before the 2005 Corolla I have now. Believe it or not, the 89 Accord probably felt smaller than the 05 Corolla. Sat a lot lower in the seat, I know that. It was a good car, but a real pain in the rear to work on. It had a feedback carb, and about

172 vacuum lines.. And very little room to do anything. I hated working on it. The Corolla should be a lot easier. But I haven't had to work on it yet, so will have to see. The Corolla has been totally flawless since I've had it. Not a single problem. Bang on wood real hard.. I think I'm up to about 73K miles or sumtin like that.. It's on it's second set of tires, and the only other thing I've done is to change the oil. And I did a drain and fill on the tranny last time I changed the oil. I'm going to do it again on the next one, which is soon. My oil change light is counting down to it's final miles before constant yellow on.. :/

BTW, I looked at Civics when I bought mine, but at that time, I actually preferred the Corolla. Mainly for the interior. I didn't like the dark "goth" looking interiors on the 04-05 Civics. The Corolla was kind of like a baby Impala on the inside. Lots brighter, and mo better I thought at the time.. But Honda makes a good unit.

formatting link

Reply to
nm5k

My next vehicle may well be a RAV4 when we decide to downsize to one vehicle. I have a friend that has a new RAV4 and likes it a lot, it's his second. He says the the 4 banger is all you need. He's driven it across to the coast a few times.

Reply to
dbu`

I have another friend who has a Subaru and it's his second or third, he says it is one fine vehicle. I should visit the Subaru dealer some day, but I like the higher standing RAV4. I expect they are equally top notch.

That Ford Ranger was probably built only about 7 miles from my home. What year is it? They are now tearing down the massive Ford mfg complex in St. Paul Mn. Historic and damn shame it has come to that. The plant even had it's own hydro electric plant located below the bluff on the Mississippi.

Reply to
dbu`

Here's the sad demise of the StPaul Ford plant.

It is huge so it will take a while. Lots of material to haul away. I suspect much of it will be recycled on site and used for new development. They bring in the equipment to do that sort of work rather than endless lines of dump trucks beating the local streets to death.

Reply to
dbu`

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.