In which your author, seeking a remedy for good cheer, ingests a lethal dose of the Wall Street Journal
I was feeling unreasonably serene this New Year's morning. To balance my humors, I decided to take a trip to the Wall Street Journal editorial page. As expected, I was richly rewarded.
Holman Jenkins' free-market screed on the U.S. auto industry was just what I needed to turn my mellow into venomous bile. Predictably, Jenkins lays blame for the Big Three's profit swoon on CAFE standards, the UAW, and the Wagner Act. While his proposed way out is buried under a gimmicky blanket of irony, it apparently (and predictably) involves the dismantling of unions and a commitment to let Detroit do what it does best: make three ton gas pigs.
This is stupid on so many levels. To maintain what's left of my holiday spirit, I'll focus on just a couple.
First off, placing yet another bet on an endless tide of cheap oil is disingenuous at best, ignorant at worst. Just a few months ago, gas was at $4 a gallon. While Jenkins points out that half of U.S. vehicle sales at that time were light trucks, anyone who tried to trade in an Expedition, Suburban or Escalade for a Civic Hybrid could tell you that people weren't exactly storming car lots in search of Detroit iron. If it takes five years to get a new model to market, would you retool for Navigators or Priuses?
Jenkins argues that CAFE is a global laughingstock, and the foreigns simply pay their fines and keep the X-6s, Cayennes and Mercedes staff cars coming 'cause that's what Americans want. Of course they also build what those over-regulated Europeans want, which is fuel-efficient vehicles using clean diesel technology. CAFE is a laughingstock because the standards were never given real teeth. As a result, big Three "leadership" has never been able to view oil as a finite and dirty resource and plan accordingly. A $80 price floor on oil might stimulate discussion around the boardroom table.
Then there's the union thing. Blah, blah, blah.
No question, UAW members retire too early and will have to share the pain of other Big Three stakeholders if Detroit is to survive. Yet as I pointed out in my previous post, non-legacy compensation accounts for about $800 of the price of a Detroit-made vehicle. And American brands are already cheaper than Hondas, Toyotas, Benzes and Bimmers.
Come on, Holman, at least spread the blame around. Detroit's ridiculously overcompensated leadership is guilty of gutting American brands and profits, and they should be held to account.
Back in the (really) bad old days, when shoddy quality and hideous styling had Americans fleeing Big Four Three showrooms and the Japanese were tooling up on U.S. soil, Detroit executives decided to counter their corroding brand equity by cooking up a potent and addictive blend of financial incentives. Rebates, zero percent financing and leases became crack cocaine to American consumers. Cash back became table stakes in showroom negotiations. Sweet lease deals put folks of modest means into immodest vehicles. Profitability vanished.
Since then, quality is vastly improved, but reputation trails reality and it will take time before Americans fully embrace U.S. brands. And it will take serious rehab to walk into a dealership and sign papers without a $5,000 rebate and employee pricing sweetening the deal. The response by our fearless leaders, naturally, is to incorporate GMAC as a bank so it can hit the TARP trough and offer no-interest loans to folks who really can't afford to borrow money.
The last car I bought was a used Honda. Why Honda? It was to be our family car, and would you buy a seven-year-old Chevy for your family car?





Let us work to build American cars again with American Labor. Figure out health care and take another look at how pensions are funded.
I am hoping the New Team of the Best and the Brightest come through. But power recognizes constituents who are LOUD.
January 1, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, of course. The louder the voice, the better. Which is exactly why we still need unions.
January 1, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is nothing to replace the union. Sleepin spends a lot of time on this and I agree.
For almost thirty years the Reps have won.
Maybe we can turn it back.
January 2, 2009 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unions may not be the best voice to get the needed changes since unions are fragmented by industry and have yet, after more than 100 years, to show any propensity for working together.
An involved and active electorate, however, can force Congress to act on the things Dick mentions below in addition to a living wage and a more ambitious national education effort. The problem with putting national needs in the hands of special interests is not any less on the left than it has been on the right.
I prefer to let smart people design sustainable and permanent solutions that are great for everyone involved and not just union members. Case in point - they are going for union-specific legislation as their biggest lobbying push instead of health care or living wage legislation. A democrat in the White House and a democratic Congress and the unions decide this is the cause they want to tackle?
This implies a
lack of strategic leadership at the national unions that more than explains their lack of accomplishment in the last 30 plus years.
January 2, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Recommended for the title alone. A well written beef otherwise.
January 1, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is more biased, the WSJ or NYT? At least the WSJ had another article that bashed on free market capitalism.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123069094735544743.html?mod=todays_us_opinion
January 1, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The article you reference, uses an article by a NYT columnist in the second paragraph as an example extolling the halcyon days when all the world was a free market, and our retirement funds seemed so secure. So what's your point? If you want to go down that road, I can probably trade you countermanding articles within NYT to match every one you can find in the WSJ and thensome.
January 1, 2009 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
But does the UAW worker really retire too early? Possibly it is easier to write WSJ columns while sitting in your jammies with a WIFI connection than it is to build cars on an assembly line with a bad back and an arthritic hip?
January 1, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given the choice, I'd opt for the jammies.
I don't think it's a question of whether an autoworker deserves to retire at 52. It's a question of whether you can carry the pension obligation when that worker may live to 85 or more.
January 1, 2009 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unions get what they negotiate. Solitary workers get what management deigns to leave for them. It's getting less and less, and we think organized labor is to blame. Think again.
January 2, 2009 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
You got that right Gregor. Keep on keepin on.
I have thought again and you are right.
January 2, 2009 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've nailed it, Gregor.
You need only look to see the way things were before collective bargaining. Read "The Jungle," for example, and imagine any one of the workers in the meatpacking plants confronting their boss - with hat in hand - asking to "please allow me to retire with pension at 65 with over 40 years working for the same company." Such an ingrate would immediately most certainly be shown the door with a boot up his ass.
In fact, it is doubtful anyone would survive forty years at any of these jobs. They would long ago have been crippled by workplace injuries and would then have been replaced by the next worker to be likewise victimized in time.
It was only when workers began organizing and standing tall together that the owners began understanding that work wasn't going to get done unless these workers gained some compensation and security.
January 2, 2009 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush has spent two terms dismantling what was left of workplace safety regulation -- that knucklehead Foulke who literally ran OSHA with his eyes closed is a living metaphor. Then there's the fact that wage increases have lagged inflation despite continuing increases in productivity. As long as workers outnumber jobs in our manufacturing sector, wages will stagnate and more and more employees will drop into the ranks of the working poor. When all these things change unions can go away.
January 2, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is correct, but only for so long as we continue treating working people as no more than a "human resource" for use by the ownership class in our society. We can no longer allow ourselves to simply be purchased at the lowest price on the open market, to then be consumed, discarded, and replaced by more of the same workers-as-commodity that is nearly inexhaustible in this global economy.
It's time, instead, for workers to gain some perspective and some backbone - and to then join together in an insistence that we, too, own this economy. It's time we emphatically serve notice in a unified front that we are entitled to enjoy the fruits of our labors every bit as much as do the bosses and the owners and the Wall Street capitalists who would otherwise deny us our rights to Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Class War has been visited upon us, at least since the time of Reagan and his trashing of the Air Traffic Controllers. It's now time at last to get up off the mat and fight back in solidarity with all of those who perform the labor in this economy.
January 2, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I hear another crack about auto workers retiring too early I'm going to scream. Let the pundits spend the golden years of their lives standing up working assembly lines instead of lounging around in front of desks and computers, yapping on the phone. You know, working at a "real" job.
Ever wake up and realize that you're too old to clean the gutters? Oh wait, the WSJ editors pay someone else to do that. Don't supposed they noticed that there's nothing sadder than a 70 year old climbing up on your roof to shingle.
January 2, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink