Originally Posted by
nain rouge
See, I disagree. Yes, deindustrialization hurt Detroit, just like it hurt almost every major city at the time.
But the truth is, many local companies disinvested in Detroit way before globalization really took off. By the early 1960s, it was already recognized that Detroit had been neglected by corporate investors for a long time - magazines like Time had even written stories about it. One of the main ideas behind the urban renewal efforts in Detroit was to inspire a sense of hope in its citizens again by building new skyscrapers and "better" housing.
Fact is, corporations knew just as well as the average Joe did that the writing was on the wall for Midwestern cities like Detroit, Cleveland, and St. Louis - these cities had major social and institutional problems [[yes, such as taxes) and were no longer technically necessary thanks to the automobile. People with the means could simply move and not have their quality of life affected in any serious way. In fact, they actually benefited majorly from the move if safety, low taxes, and good schools where their primary concerns, since the suburbs allowed for people to create fenced off middle and upper class bubbles, which the a huge city couldn't compete with on such terms.
If deindustrialization was the true reason for Detroit's fall, you would've seen the suburbs fall as well. But Metro Detroit's economic base wasn't destroyed. The wealth just moved to new locations outside the city limits.
Well, yes, because at this point we're knee deep in a negative feedback loop that has moved us far away from the initial causes from Detroit's downfall.