Quote Originally Posted by mwilbert View Post
This is not clear thinking. People have to live away from their relatives because of their jobs all the time. It isn't obvious why a city has a higher obligation in this area. And cities tread non-residents differently in all kinds of ways already--what do you think a municipal school district does?
Certainly, cities do treat non-residents differently. That's not the issue. The question is whether it is wise for a city to discriminate in hiring. Discrimination on anything except job-related qualifications reduces the pool of candidates for a position.

OK, so you may suggest its good to limit the pool for to give preferences to city residents, and keep the money local. Well, for absolute generic jobs that would work. Very few jobs are truly generic, low-skill jobs. So instead of hiring the best, you hire local. You could then say you need training. Because that's what's best for the locals. Before you know it, you've increased the training budget too.

The question you should answer is whether hiring in a city should a 'jobs program' at higher taxpayer cost, or is it a 'civic function' that's best done as efficiently and with the lowest property and income tax possible.

I think the later is what will serve Detroit best. Hire the best, from the largest possible pool. Don't setup a residency enforcement office to chase someone who moved to Ferndale to care for their elderly mother in a home she has modified to her disabilities. Save that cost. Leave training and poverty eradication programs to others. Just do a good job and focus on nothing else.