Detroit's Social Register, yesterday and today

[rid0617]

Mikeg thank you so much for posting that link. I didn't know there was anything like that. Amazing to read the old issues and look through classifieds seeing how much everything has gone up

[O-Dawg]

Good post, Omaha.

Capital is mobile, but land is not. I suspect that in traditional societies where land is the basis of wealth, the wealthy are more closely tied to their home communities than are those whose wealth is generated by industry or commerce. That doesn't mean that they are inherently any more enlightened than the industrialist who has the option of moving his manufacturing operation to Indonesia, but it does mean that they will be more immediately exposed to the consequences of their actions for their communities since they can't so easly just pick up and leave.

In traditional societies where land was the basis of wealth, landowners were both revered for their generosity and reviled for their meanness in direct ways that industrialists and captains of commerce rarely experienced. Henry Ford's public image was certainly tarnished by his greedy labor practices culminating in the Battle of the Overpass, but a mob of peasants didn't kill all his cattle and burn down his house as a direct result.

During the gilded age, some of America's robber barons emulated the landowner's [[partly self-serving) tradition of noblesse oblige by establishig philanthropic foundations, but aside from Ford and Kresge, who among Michigan's commercial and industrial elite followed suit? [[George Booth established Cranbrook, but that was an adaptation of his own estate). In the east the Rockefellers and Kennedys [[as well as the older-money Roosevelts) chose public service through public office as an outlet after they became rich, but again, who among Michigan's new money families did likewise? Soapy Williams comes to mind, but who else?

Maybe I just don't yet know enough about Michigan's social history, but it appears to me that the new rich here, whose wealth was built on industry and commerce, tended to take the money and run, rather than reinvest it in the communities they sprang from.


[quote=Omaha;28009]When looked at historically there was "old money, " money that came from owning land, and "new money," money that was created by starting and owning a business. Then there was old money that came from starting and owning a business and new money that came from being a high priced employee or a self-employed professional. The elite are always making distinctions so that they can differentiate among themselves. Kind of like what others do with the "deserving" and the "undeserving" poor.

[Johnlodge]

During the gilded age, some of America's robber barons emulated the landowner's [[partly self-serving) tradition of noblesse oblige by establishig philanthropic foundations, but aside from Ford and Kresge, who among Michigan's commercial and industrial elite followed suit?

How about Alex Manoogian? Granted he had a bias towards all things Armenian. From Wiki:

Manoogian contributed generously to charitable organizations and educational institutions, especially to the Armenian General Benevolent Union [[AGBU), of which organization he was voted Honorary Life President in 1989. Manoogian was also active in the Knights of Vartan and in 1940 he was elected its Avak Sparapet [[National Commander). In 1966 Manoogian donated his mansion to the city of Detroit. It is today the mayoral residence for Detroit.

In 1968 he was responsible for the establishment of the AGBU Alex and Marie Manoogian Cultural Fund. The fund, seeded with a $1 million is devoted to the publication and translation of Armenian scholarly and literary works, and Armenian cultural worldwide.

The Manoogians have also funded [[through the AGBU) schools for Armenians in the Diaspora bearing the Manoogian name in Southfield, Michigan; Los Angeles, California; Buenos Aires, Argentina; Beirut, Lebanon; Zahle, Lebanon; Egypt; Tehran, Iran; Montreal, Quebec; Toronto, Ontario; and Montevideo, Uruguay. Manoogian also funded numerous churches, cultural centers, university chairs for Armenian studies and museums worldwide. He also donated to Wayne State University in Detroit quite generously, and Manoogian Hall, Wayne State's center for international language and linguistics, is named after him.

[Retroit]

...who among Michigan's new money families did likewise?

http://www.artvan.com/Furniture/Stor...C-philanthropy

[Retroit]

http://www.karmanos.org/view_news.asp?id=23

[Retroit]

http://www.ilitchcharitiesforchildren.com/

[O-Dawg]

Thanks for the links, Retroit.

I'm aware that there are some present-day philanthropists stepping up to the plate locally....my post was more focused on the individuals who amassed vast fortunes in the late 19th through the mid 20th century.

Roger Penske is another wealthy individual who has been active in civic afairs locally.

[Retroit]

....my post was more focused on the individuals who amassed vast fortunes in the late 19th through the mid 20th century.

http://www.mott.org

[Retroit]

http://www.wkkf.org/

[Retroit]

http://www.hhdowfdn.org/

[Retroit]

The daughter of the Dows started her own foundation:

http://learningtogive.org/materials/foundations/towsley.asp

[Omaha]

The cause of the philanthropist is important. Alleviating suffering, mitigating misery, and the like has to be done and is best done in a private/public partnership. What’s rarer is for either sector to address the root causes of the problems that create the need for philanthropy. It happens, Mott comes to mind with some of the causes it funds, but it is the exception to the rule. I hope that will change and soon.


“Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary.� Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., "Strength to Love�

[Retroit]

Omaha, philanthropy doesn't exist because it is "necessary". It exists because wealthy people have made the conscientious decision to share their wealth. Being poor is not an "economic injustice" [[unless it is due to someone stealing your money). The only way you can eliminate "economic injustice" is to make everyone equally poor.

[Omaha]

Retroit, I couldn’t agree more with your unassailable logic. Absolutely. Amen!

I hope that you did NOT misinterpret Dr. King’s comments. I interpret his comments to say that what is needed to address the causes of “economic injustice� is to educate more of the poor and minorities and women for that matter about the glories of the unregulated free market. That is what all Colbert Conservatives, like myself, see as the root of all good, truth, and justice in this highly regulated economy.

We believe that, from the beginning of this the greatest nation on the face of the earth, our Founding Fathers [[white male property-owners) worked hard to insure that others like themselves got a good return on their investments of time, energy, intelligence and money.

I mean what was the point of having money during the Civil War if you couldn’t plunk down $300 to by a replacement during the draft. Replacements eagerly accepted that huge amount of money and what it would do for their families. And the wealthy were then free to earn a living without maximizing their chances of dying. A fair bargain if you ask me.

Take for instance these quotes about labor/management relations early in the last century.

“Any man who pays more for labor than the lowest sum he can get men for is robbing the stockholders. If he can secure men for $6 and pays more, he is stealing from the company.� Stockholder of American Woolen, [[Lawrence, Massachusetts) told to the Rev. Harry Emerson Fosdick, 1911

“The low wages at which women will work form the chief reason for employing them at all...A woman's cheapness is, so to speak, her greatest economic asset. She can be used to keep down the cost of production where she is regularly employed. Where she has not been previously employed she can be introduced as a strike breaker to take the place of men seeking higher wages, or the threat of introducing her may be used to avert a strike. But the moment she organizes a union and seeks by organization to secure better wages she diminishes or destroys what is to the employer her chief value.� US Bureau of Labor, Report on Conditions of Women and Child Wage-Earners in the United States, vol. 10, 1911

Clearly, every dollar that went to increase wages was stealing from stockholders, the wealthiest of whom, may choose to share some of their deserved and earned wealth with those who hadn’t attained the skills or discipline needed to earn a living wage.

Once EVERY person clearly understands that, in an unregulated free market economy, they are on their own to sink or swim...they will be properly motivated to give the 110% needed to compete in the marketplace for meaningful and gainful employment. I am sure that is what Dr. King meant by his comment as well. He, no doubt, knew that the only way to real economic justice is by finding ever greater tax breaks for the truly wealthy of our great nation.

“The prosperity of the lower and middle classes depends upon the good fortune and light taxes of the rich.� Andrew Mellon, treasury secretary under Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover; referred to as the “Greatest Secretary of the Treasury since Hamilton,� and who at his appointment, was the third richest man in America

I hope that we all agree that when individuals of significant wealth, no matter “new� or “old� money, choose out of the "goodness of their hearts" to share some of that hard earned wealth with the great unwashed it is a Blessing made possible only by their good wishes and light taxes. The one worry is that charity or philanthropy, no matter how well intended, may make those in need less desirous of attaining the discipline, knowledge and skills needed to really succeed in this dog-eat-dog economy of ours.

[crawford]

I disagree. There are higher annual income levels in the wealthier Oakland County suburbs but not a ton of liquid wealth. Just because one doctor makes 250 K a year doesnt mean he banks any of it. You'd be surprised at how much liquid and trust wealth remains in GP. More than Bloomfield and B-ham combined.

I think this is a crazy statement. There are not too many people in this world with millions secretly buried in their back yard, and there's no way to verify it anyways.

If you are just talking plain verifiable liquid wealth, then Bloomfield/Bham is MUCH wealthier than the Pointes. I'm amazed anyone would even question this.

Look at which zip codes have the highest tax returns and home values, which communities have the most expensive schools, stores, restaurants, services, etc.

There's a reason that Somseret isn't on the East Side. Same goes for Downtown Bham, the Townsend Hotel, almost all the fancy schools, all the private wealth management firms, nice restaurants, fancy hair salons, personal trainers, chefs etc.

Actually, the wealth managers are probably the best source for locating high-net worth individuals. They locate where there clients live and work. The biggest intersection for wealth management in the entire state is Woodward & Long Lake, which not concidentally is the geographic center of Bloomfield Hills. Almost all the office buildings at that intersection are occupied by wealth management firms.

[Retroit]

Omaha, I don't think we agree with each other. If a person has accumulated wealth by shirking their duty to serve their country, or treating employees as less valuable than stockholders, or treating women as less valuable then men, or is unwilling to pay more taxes to ensure the security that America provides to those who are wealthy, then I don't believe there would be any redeeming value in them becoming a philanthropist.

But I still stand by my previous statement. We will always have the poor and we will always have the rich. If you impose "economic justice" by preventing people from acquiring wealth in an honorable way, then we will only have the poor [[& wealthy crooks).

[Omaha]

Retroit, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I hear what you’re saying. But I’m basing my analysis on my understanding of how the real world works. And all of us Colbert Conservatives are grounded in reality. Take this quote for instance.

“So the question is, do corporate executives, provided they stay within the law, have responsibilities in their business activities other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible? And my answer to that is: no they do not.� Economist and Nobel Prize recipient Milton Friedman, ChemTech, 1974

Each of the strategies that I mentioned earlier were LEGAL at the time. And upon reflection, I believe that every example of an extension of workplace rights, environmental rights and the like that increase the cost of doing business have been fought by the major corporations, their associations, and their political allies.

The key to understanding what Friedman is saying is to have employers resist “harmful� legislation that, in their mind, unfairly limits their freedom to accumulate and dispose of their wealth as they wish.

So, over time the practice becomes fight it, weaken it, and then if it passes, starve the agencies set up to enforce it.

[Retroit]

Omaha, I think we share a pro-business, pro-Capitalism, and pro-conservatism [[although I don't know much about Colbert) and differ on only a few key points.

• Regarding Friedman's comments: An executive's responsibility is to run a successful company. The share price is merely incidental. Yes, a person who invests in a company by buying initial shares in a company should be rewarded for their investment, but this is done not by the company paying a high dividend or focusing on raising the share price. It is done by making sure that the company is serving their customers and thus being profitable so when the time comes for the invester to sell their shares, they can earn a profit from them.
• Regarding the historical references: I don't think it is fair to impose our standards on the actions of those who preceded us, but it would also be unjust for us to adopt the standards of the past when those standards are inferior to our current beliefs.
• Regarding the limitation of wealth: I believe that the laws should encourage us to accumulate wealth because by doing so, we lessen the possibility that we may one day need to depend on others [[i.e. the government) to provide for ourselves. However, the wealthy must also realize that the privilege of accumulating wealth is not shared by people around the world. It is a duty of all Americans to ensure that our freedoms are preserved. And since we have chosen to have an income tax [[a bad decision in my view), then those who have most benefited from being American should also be doing the most to preserve it by paying more progressive taxes in higher income brackets. The highest tax bracket was once 95% and was 70% up until Reagan's presidency.

[Sludgedaddy]

According to Detroit's renowned MC5, brothers and sisters, we are the High Society!

...and as I walk through my Dukedom, a Paradise we will share...and nothing can hurt you, 'cause I'm the Duke of Earl.....Duke...Duke ...Duke...Duke of Earl....Duke...Duke [[with apologies to Gene Chandler).

[Pam]

[[although I don't know much about Colbert)

Hint: He's a comedian.

[Retroit]

Hint: He's a comedian.

That's all I know about him! I don't have cable/satellite TV!

[Omaha]

Retroit you have a noble version of how capitalism should work, I see it more like the inner-workings of the savage jungle were only the strong survive…hence my belief in Social Darwinism. I agree that those damn liberals got too much press and power following the era of the Robber Barons and the national income tax was just one of many bleeding heart responses of what became known as the Progressive Era.

But more on Friedman. Of course Friedman is not the only economist out there. He is thought of as the leader of the [[University of) Chicago school of economic thought. Combine that with the Nobel Prize in Economics and he is pretty influential. Let me help you better understand Friedman with another of his insightful quotes:

“Few trends could so thoroughly undermine the very foundations of our free society as the acceptance by corporate officials of a social responsibility other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible.� Economist Milton Friedman in his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom

All things being equal, it is return on investment that makes one stock more attractive than another. So, in essence, every CEO of a publicly traded company doesn’t just want to make a profit…he [[and sometimes she) wants to find ways to maximize profit. In fact, the head of every publicly traded company is competing with every other CEO to keep the stockholders they have and to attract new investors.

Because they report profits quarterly, that means they are focusing on maximizing profits 24/7. Does the pressure cause mistakes? Do some think that taking short cuts are a good idea? Sure, but that gets me back to Social Darwinism.

Close to two-thirds of GDP is consumer spending. That means having lots of consumers with disposable income is a good idea if GDP is to grow. Over 90% of the workforce are employees who sell their intelligence, experience and strength to employers to earn a living. That means a lot of U.S. consumers are employees.

You may be old enough to remember when there were lots of families with just one “bread winner.� Now there are very few families with just one person in the workforce. More than one breadwinner is good for keeping consumerism going especially when wages are declining when adjusted for inflation. Combine that with decreasing family saving and increasing indebtedness and you can still keep up with spending. But eventually that strategy will fail and the wheels will fall off the economy. Alas just an unfortunate side effect of economic growth.

One possible reason for two working spouses and increasing indebtedness is how the economy works. Employers [[especially publicly traded companies and those privately held companies with which they do business) have a vested interests in keeping costs of production as low as possible.

For those employers who can relocate overseas, they will do it in order to lower labor costs [[and other costs associated with government regulation, like pollution control, that they suffer with in the U.S.). Both lower the cost of production and helps increase profits.

“Until we get wage levels down much closer to those of the Brazils and Koreas, we cannot pass along productivity gains to workers’ wages and still be competitive.� Stanley Mihelick, Executive VP, Goodyear. No raises for employees here until their wages seriously fall to the rate of employees in other countries.

“Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging more migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [[lesser developed countries)? I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.... I've always thought that under populated countries in Africa are vastly under polluted; their air quality is vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City.� Lawrence Summers World Bank economist and Deputy Secretary of Treasury, in a 1991 internal memorandum. Find ways to stop pollution is expensive and drives up the cost of bringing goods to market. Summers suggests an alternative solution.

Apple personnel executive, when asked what the company was planning to do about the widespread problem of employee overwork and burnout: “We’re not doing anything about it. We work people as hard as we can and if they burn out they leave, and we get new people.� At Work magazine, January/February 1994. Employees are costs of production not human resources despite what it says on that door to the Human Resource Department.

“If the world operates as one big market, every employee will compete with every person anywhere in the world who is capable of doing the same job. There are lots of them and many of them are hungry.� Andrew Grove, president of Intel Corp., in his book "High Output Management" 1995. Lots of competition out there with the jobs going to the lowest paid folks who can do the work.

“Ideally employers should put every plant they own on a barge so that it could move around the world to take advantage of lower wages.� Jack Welch, former CEO, General Electric Corporation. As CEO he relocated GE factories in the U.S. to Mexico and then to South Korea always looking for places to lower the cost of production like wages.

And while we’re at it let’s be real. If the major export of Iraq had been olive oil we wouldn’t have gone there.

“Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil.� Ann Coulter, conservative commentator, on at least one reason the U.S. invaded Iraq at the annual gathering of the Conservative Political Action Committee 2003

So these business and foreign policy practices are put together to create a useful strategy for maximizing profits. But they are not very family or environmentally friendly. But if you follow the advice of Friedman, those are just social costs of doing business that should NOT figure in the decisions to maximize return for owners.

So I hope this long winded rant is helpful in explaining why as a Colbert Conservative and Social Darwinist, I am very big on Friedman, Grove, Welch, and Batson [[perhaps Detroityes’ most prolific dropper of pearls of economic wisdom).

[Retroit]

As a resident of a metropolitan region [[Detroit) that is experiencing first-hand the devastating effects of international "competition", I beg to differ from those you quoted. I think it is quite unfair and downright shameful that we [[read: our representative government) have allowed the importation of products from countries that do not abide by the standards which we have mandated upon American businesses [[minimum wage, union rights, OSHA laws, EPA laws, etc.). If these laws are so essential to the dignity of human beings living in the US, then why are we allowing people from other nations to be taken advantage of [[and in some cases, to be harmed)? I hear a lot about us "preserving our way of life", but if our way of life is so great, why are we not ensuring that others can share in it?

[Omaha]

Wow, I guess you don't like free market capitalism as much as I do. But if you feel that strongly there are two options. Get rid of U.S. laws that force corporations to treat people and the environment in the U.S. better than they do when they go overseas. You know level the playing field. Or find ways to discourage such profit-maximizing greed-driven behavior on the part of corporations.

Either option requires getting together with others who feel the same way and letting elected officials know that they'd better shape up. I know which one I'd do.

[Pam]

That's all I know about him! I don't have cable/satellite TV!

I guess you need another hint. Colbert pretends to be something he is not.