| Page 2 of 2 < |
Pundits Peddle Revisionism in Attacking U.S. Automakers
|
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
Go ahead and look at it, preferably in Japan, where the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) has done a marvelous job of coordinating industrial and energy policy into a vehicle development and consumption strategy that makes sense. We have no such government-industry cooperation in the United States. We have no industrial policy, no energy policy, which largely is why we now have a core segment of our natively owned manufacturing infrastructure teetering on the brink of collapse.
Neither the Japanese, nor the Germans, nor the Chinese, nor the Koreans have been as stupid as we've been in this country in the management of the automobile industry.
European and Asian countries tax horsepower. They heavily tax the least-efficient motor fuels, such as gasoline, while giving more favorable treatment to more efficient fuels, such as diesel. In short, they make automobile manufacturers and consumers share the real costs of auto-mobility.
That cost-sharing creates a kind of honesty. Car companies aren't inclined to design, develop and produce gas-guzzlers because European and Asian consumers are not inclined to buy them. It creates market predictability, contrary to what we have in the United States, where vehicle markets can flower or wither in an instant, depending on the price of fuel. It creates a more realistic sense of value. Smaller and more efficient are seen as high values in European and Asian car markets, where consumers are willing to pay handsomely for those attributes.
Compare that with consumer attitudes in the United States, where bigger and more powerful usually command bigger bucks and more respect, and where small and efficient get short shrift.
As for the unions:
It is the rankest hypocrisy for well-paid journalists to decry the "high" pay of UAW-represented employees. I doubt that there is one UAW critic in the media, or on Capitol Hill, who would be willing to settle for a UAW paycheck. I'm almost certain there isn't one who would be willing to trade his or her relatively cushy employment for a year on an auto plant assembly line.
Criticism of "improvident labor contracts" thus smacks of class bias. It reeks of the notion that some work, such as that involving manual labor, inherently deserves less compensation than others, such as expressing one's opinion. It's more baloney.
None of this is to excuse the American car companies for mistakes they have made. They've made many. But they've also done many things right, contributing to the defense of this country; helping to create a viable middle class, especially in America's minority communities; and contributing to technological advancements in the global automobile industry, as any historical evaluation of automobile technology would demonstrate.
Many adjustments will have to be made to insure the continued survival of domestic car companies. The UAW will have to organize those unorganized foreign manufacturers producing cars and trucks in the United States; or the union must agree to less-expensive wage and benefit packages commensurate with what those competitors are paying their employees. Consumer demand dictates compromise in a market where product value -- quality plus price -- trumps affection for the union label.
But the most important adjustment will have to come in our national mind-set. We must decide if, like Germany, Japan, China and Korea, we value the development and reasonable protection of core, native-owned manufacturing.
"Protection" here refers to protection from external events, such as the collapse of credit markets, which largely have caused the recent severe slump in U.S. auto sales. It does not mean protection from fair competition -- allowing foreign carmakers to sell here as long as we have equal, reciprocal rights to sell in their countries.
The potential failure confronting GM, Ford and Chrysler is not Detroit's alone. It belongs to all of us. We've failed to step up with a workable industrial policy, a meaningful energy policy and an educational system that prepares Americans for global competition. It's way past time that we do so.


