Originally Posted by
nain rouge
Is what you say true, though? Let me quote an article written by respected historian Thomas Sugrue:
"Between 1947 and 1963, a period of unprecedented national economic prosperity, Detroit lost 134,000 manufacturing jobs. This is not the '70s. This is not when there is any competition from Germany and Japan and Korea for automobiles. These are jobs that were picking up and moving to other parts of the country, or these were jobs that were being replaced by machines.
Workers who had come to Detroit during World War II, seeking opportunities, found their choices seriously constrained. The workers who suffered the worst were African Americans, and they suffered because of seniority. African Americans, because they didn't get their foot into the door until the 1940s, were the first to be fired. So, when companies began moving out of Detroit, the burden was borne disproportionately by black Detroiters.
So, in the midst of the 1950s, 15.9 percent of blacks were unemployed, but only 6 percent of whites were unemployed, so we're talking about black unemployment two and a half times the rate of white unemployment."
Somehow, the city lost 134,000 in a 16 year period, and yet no space was opened up for new, modern factories, nor were there any opportunities to retrofit existing factories instead of relocating? Is that what you're saying? If so, I want proof, because I've never heard "Detroit had no room for modern factories" used seriously as an argument for why the city lost its industrial base.