Wouldn't it have been just as easy, or relevant, for Time to post a photo essay of one of GM's (or Ford's or Chrysler's) present-day manufacturing plants as it was to post this series.

Now, I'm a little bit off message here, because I think these photos are interesting. I'm also an admirer of architectural styles from the 19th and early 20th centuries, so the series holds that interest for me, too.

But, am I just crazy to conclude that images like this one, particularly in the current atmosphere, are trying to evoke something other than appreciation for the photographer's skill, or dismay at urban decay, or admiration for past industrial achievements?

Who's responsible for this pitiable scene? The greedy company, of course. Not the city that allowed this blight to spread. Not the union that failed to cooperate in such a way that might preserve their members' jobs. Not the governments that use private employers to promote social policies they want, regardless of their viability.

The truth is that lots of old industrial sites in lots of cities could offer views like the ones seen here from Detroit. No doubt there are old textile mills in the Carolinas, or garment factories in the Northeast, that could make great exhibits. I could take an interested photographer to vacant steel mills in Cleveland or Youngstown that would be "artistic," too.

Furthermore, I don't believe these photos reveal much that's new. Abandoned factories? Who knew?

My point — which I think Time ought to put into perspective in their selection of photos — is that manufacturing has changed a lot in the past 40 years, and that as a consequence manufacturing companies must change, too. If cities, or states, or unions, don't adapt themselvs to these changes, the manufacturers will find the next alternative that will allow them to continue doing what they're intended to do. It may not be pretty, but it's a fact.