I think Detroit is a pathological example of a city that was too dependent on a single industry and that industry was artificially subsidized both by the public ("buy American") and the govt (direct support and regulation that benefited us makers, truck tax laws for example). Like many mening towns turned ghost towns. It's also ironic that part of the reason the crisis hit US car makers extra hard is exactly this: when people don't have job security they don't buy cars in bad times. In other countries better job security and better welfare evens out the ups and downs when people dare buy cars, employ, and build houses even in a recession. Detroit was just the perfect storm of all things. Despite stronger labour laws and higher wages, German car makers aren't in the same situation.
It's very strange if both political parties try to uphold the image that it is in peoples' best interest to be anti labour and anti-union, or even that pro-business implies anti-union.
Detroit is an extreme example, but the same phenomenon can be seen in cities across the country. In the last few years I've seen the results first-hand in places like Wilmington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Buffalo. To the extent that businesses haven't automated-away jobs or off-shored them, they've moved them to anti-union states like Tennessee and Georgia: http://www.edmunds.com/autoobserver-archive/2011/08/tennesse....
It's very strange if both political parties try to uphold the image that it is in peoples' best interest to be anti labour and anti-union, or even that pro-business implies anti-union.