A recent Salon article about the decline in unionized auto workers (and decline in auto workers in general) at the “Big 3″ automakers here in the US. The article points out that the right and left’s arguments are not quite correct:

The right would have us believe the denouement is labor’s fault — that the glorious victories of organized labor in the past paved the way for the uncompetitiveness of American carmakers in the future. But if labor was such a millstone around the Big Three’s necks, then how was it, exactly, that Ford and GM were raking in record profits a little more than half a decade ago? The high cost of American labor didn’t seem to make that much of a difference when Chevy Tahoes and Ford Expeditions were selling like hot cakes.

The left blames free trade: cheap foreign labor undercutting the American worker. But if that’s the only thing going on here, then why are hybrid sales rising so rapidly — by 49 percent in the first seven months of 2007 as compared to last year? Hybrids are not cheap cars.

The calculus is simple: If your costs are higher than your competitors’, and you make a product that customers don’t want to buy, you’re doomed.

That’s the problem. And how did we get here?

Government refused, at the direct request of Detroit, to pass laws that would require American carmakers to increase fuel efficiency. Government refused to come up with a national healthcare system that would have made it easier for American companies to compete globally.

Meanwhile management focused on short-term profits and shareholder “value” at the expense of long-term strategies for increasing market share. Instead of being smart, the Big Three played it stupid. Now, they can’t compete at the low end or the high end.

Sounds like what we’re doing at the county level– focusing on “one shot” deals to close budget gaps, selling off our county’s assets, and making decisions based on what will keep Minarik & crew in power, vs. a long-term, innovative vision of what’s best for the county.