New post from CityLab that does not paint a very bright picture of Detroit's recent resurgence.
Read it here.
Thoughts?
Printable View
New post from CityLab that does not paint a very bright picture of Detroit's recent resurgence.
Read it here.
Thoughts?
I detect no lies.Quote:
Originally Posted by EGrant
It's nice to finally step back into reality for a change.
Can't stand these types of stories. They typically come from two sources.
1. SJW journalists with little to no skin in the game
2. Those who have conceded missing out.
It is further misleading by skewing the data. For instance, midtown prices. Why 2008? Detroit ran on a completely different course from the rest of the nation for the past 50+ years, including before and after the GFC, so why compare it to other cities? Put your peg around 2011/12. Now tell me how many other areas in the US saw 30%+ pa appreciation.
I don't think the article says anything that everyone didn't already know. The greater downtown and select neighborhoods are improving, and everywhere else has continued to decline.
But I genuinely think that a functioning downtown also benefits the city as a whole, and I don't think downtown vs the other parts is a zero sum game. The city could always hypothetically do more, but would anyone disagree that city services have been improving? And even in the best scenario could city hall reverse structural poverty of hundreds of thousands at the same pace that building owners can provide competently managed office and residential space downtown?
SJW?
GFC?
pa? per annum?
No amount of hipsters are going to bring back Detroit. Former mayor Bloomberg had the best idea so far. Detroit needs to be flooded with at least 500,000 immigrants preferably from Latin America.
Social Justice WarriorQuote:
Originally Posted by ParisianLesion
Global Financial Crisis
Yes, per annum
How are 500,000 unskilled [[assuming you mean that) immigrants going to helpQuote:
Originally Posted by Colombian Dan
One thing I don't like is how they classify jobs.
I assume for most purposes one is interested in where the jobs are located, are they increasing or declining over time, etc. not if the employee lives in the city or a suburb.
That measures something very different than the employment/unemployment rates for residents of the city.
To me, I would be interested in employment levels within the city, income taxes collected, revenue, etc.
I suspected anyone who can interpret a graph could look at those data for say the last 10 years and they are either headed upward or downward.
YES, now tell everyone about it.
The part that is being overlooked is that over the last few years, the city government has finally become functional. And while it is know, I think that story is often very much understated, for many various reasons.
But a more functional city government goes beyond fixing street lights an better police presence. It is the little things like getting a building permit approved, or not having to pay off the right person to purchase a property that finally give redevelopment a legitimate chance.
20 years ago, many [[not all) city government workers were on the payroll simply because it was a "public service" to have people employed, even if their job was pointless. Another positive from the bankruptcy is that the public [[and quasi-public) agencies have work forces where most people do things now. Basically, a leaner government where 90% are working hard is much more productive than a bloated city government, where only 20% were working hard. It makes a difference.
It will still be a long time before the outer neighborhoods turnaround, but with a functional, competent, and working city government, there are possibilities for change now that never existed before.
I haven't and won't read the article. If you have eyes, ears & a brain, you are aware of how improved the city is. Yes, it hasn't reached every part of the city yet, but Detroit didn't fall apart over night, either.
Why in the world would you make the blanket assumption that a) immigrants are 'unskilled' and b) that is what CD meant?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffy
Maybe this article is a useful corrective if there are actually any people who think that Detroit has somehow already reversed the effects of 60 years of decline. But a lot of what is says isn't really right. There are no population statistics accurate and precise enough to let us know if the overall population decline has stopped. Even if the population loss has stopped as of now, it may not show up in only population statistics I trust [[the decennial census figures) for another 15 years. There probably isn't good enough income data to say whether incomes are rising or falling either.
As far as the other stuff, is there anyone who isn't aware that the schools are bad? They probably aren't getting worse, as they were already pretty much useless, and at least there are fewer students in them not being educated. And while there is certainly a growing gap between the core and many neighborhoods, that isn't true of all the neighborhoods--there are also many neighborhoods that seem to be on a significant upswing. And, like the schools, there are ever-fewer people living in the declining neighborhoods.
The uneven progress is a real problem that deserve real attention, and it is a serious limitation in the story of Detroit's recovery, but it was also a feature of most of the other city revivals in the US, and to take them to mean that there hasn't been a significant improvement in the city over the past several years is not a reasonable interpretation of the facts.
All men are created equal...however all cultures are not equal. The culture in Detroit for the past 60 years has been one of violence, negative beliefs and entitlement based on perceived historical biases. 500,000 unskilled positive thinking hard working people is exactly what Detroit needs to break the current cultural negativity.
^^^ I really don't see how anyone [[of any nationality or background) UNSKILLED is going to be able to help the city of Detroit or themselves upon arrival. What support system will they need during the interim 'training period'? Resources are scarce now. Please detail how, and where will they be trained, and what specific training?
Further, what will the existing Detroiter's [[skilled and unskilled, professional and not, and our 'positive' thinking types) be doing while this is occurring?
I agree the problem with data to prove [[or disprove) a point is that a lot of them aren't reliable.Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
The 2020 decennial census [[data available early 2021) should give us our first real clues if the pop. decline has been reversed. By April 1, 2020, if the 'reversal' is real we should see that the 2020 pop > 2010 pop. Otherwise, it is not good to say pop. in say downtown, midtown, Brush Park went up 50K in 10 years, BUT the balance of the city saw a loss of 100K.
I am really, really fascinated if there are reliable longitudinal data on employment within the city of Detroit.
Maybe data on the number of establishments?
Wonder how much of these data the city has? Census bureau?
The article is correct, insofar as some of the press has gotten a bit breathless about the comeback. It's still very limited in scale, even within downtown and midtown.Quote:
Originally Posted by EGrant
The article is deeply stupid, insofar as it says that Detroit needs to create hundreds of thousands of [[minimally) $10/hour jobs for its residents and then complains about people moving into the CBD and creating some of those jobs because they're from the "wrong" social background.
Lot of times writers, fans, etc. get WAY ahead of the story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Junjie
There IS a story in CBD, downtown, Midtown, etc. but it is starting and has not yet reached its maturation, culmination or where it needs to be.
One will not be able to claim success in Brush Park, for example, until say 2K housing units are built.
Until then it is most 'green shoots' phenomena where we get all excited about the first signs but they are the beginning not the culmination.
We hear about 1.2B to be spent within District Detroit yet the story won't be complete until that number totals 2 - 3B.
The 1.2B is the first half of the grand hope not the culmination.
Ditto with the fail jail site, 1B will be the fail jail site but still billions can be spent on development in that general area in addition to what Gilbert plans to spend.
So we've gotten through the opening chapter or chapters of the book, but there are many more chapters to be written as to what the downtown core areas of Detroit will be in the next 10 or 20 years.
You owe me an apology. I was right. See above. For those playing at home, most legal immigrants are unskilled. My parents are a prime example.Quote:
Originally Posted by ParisianLesion
From the Migration Policy Institute:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffy
"In 2014, 29 percent [[10.5 million) of the 36.7 million immigrants ages 25 and older had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 30 percent of native-born adults. Notably, the share of college-educated immigrants is much higher.—44 percent—among those who entered the country since 2010. On the other end of the educational spectrum, 30 percent of immigrants lacked a high school diploma or General Educational Development [[GED) certificate versus 10 percent of their native-born counterparts."
In addition, for those that are not college educated, there are numerous articles and research on the fact that immigrants are more likely to be entrepreneurs and take advantage of the "American Dream."
You owe yourself a wider perspective.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.blo...nancial-advice
And, no, you were wrong. Don't try to pull a Bham and change you're original statement so that you still have an argument. You said 500,000 unskilled immigrants, clearly stating that ALL would be 'unskilled'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffy
Clearly, one does not need a college education to be considered 'skilled.' And since 44% of immigrants are currently entering the country with a college education, I think it a safe assumption that MOST immigrants are skilled, or even highly skilled.
The balance seem to be starting businesses or doing work the rest of don't want to do.
The only resource 500,000 immigrants will need to survive in Detroit is legal status. They will find ways to support themselves without the need of government aid. Its amazing to see the resourcefulness of the Colombians here in Bogota. People with literally scraps of material are able to build useful things and make a living. Unfortunately for the current batch of Detroiters waiting for the next government bailout.. those souls will be pushed aside. Is there some pressing need or concern to perserve the status quo of Detroits unproductive violent culture? Its time to move on and let the legal immigrants show how its done.
Before this thread gets off on the Immigrants Riding In On Unicorns to save Detroit tangent, I highly recommend everyone go to the DFT and see the 2017 Academy Awards Nominated Documentaries. There are several dealing with Syrian immigrants and life in Syria. Though the documentaries themselves are heart-wrenching, I don't foresee Syrian refugees being the salvation of Detroit anytime soon. There's going to have to be a tremendous influx of capital to prop the Syrian's up before that will happen, if it does @ all. My guess is once they become self-sufficient, they'll head for greener pastures like others have done.
500,000 Colombians would love to come to Detroit legally.....
Not sure what the hell this means, as I never commented in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by ParisianLesion
Detroit needs immigrants, period. I don't care if they're skilled or unskilled, legal or illegal. ANY immigrants would be wonderful for Detroit, but not gonna happen under the current idiotic, anti-immigrant, fact-averse Russian puppet administration.
Even ultra-poor, uneducated, heavily undocumented immigrant populations are highly beneficial to cities. The only non-core neighborhood in Detroit with functional neighborhood retail and private enterprise is SW Detroit, which, not coincidentally, is the only immigrant neighborhood in Detroit. Immigrants would be a Godsend.
My reaction to this article can be summed up as follows:
Attachment 32768
Chicago's median home value is nearly 10 times that of Detroit?
St. Louis' is 4 times?
Has the author been to St. Louis?
Do authors of pieces like this understand that when they have a story line and seek out data to match the story [[instead of seeking out data and writing a story about what the data shows), they lose credibility?
I found the Zillow data that the author used. Zillow estimates are, and I'll use a technical statistical term here, garbage.
I am aware of the fascination with income inequality, but to use it as a measure of the health of a city is absurd. If you have one wealthy person and 9 working class, you will have income inequality. If the wealthy person leaves [[see Detroit, 1960's), you will have less income inequality and an unquestionably less healthy city.
If population stopped declining in 2016, there is still no reason 2020 pop would need to be higher than 2010 pop.Quote:
Originally Posted by emu steve
The statistic I really want to see going up is median income of city residents relative to the median income of the metro area. You might be able to see that clearly by 2020.
I don't know what "comeback" even means for Detroit. If the population decline stops, does that count as a comeback? Without a dramatic reversal of fortune that I think we all can agree is not happening right now, I don't think it will ever reach its mid-20th century glory. Detroit would need to add 5,000 residents per month to reach its peak population again in the next two decades. That's roughly the same amount of people that New York City is adding per month right now.
Detroit within its current boundaries will never be the 4th largest city in the US again. Maybe there is some version of the world where it could reach its previous peak population, but that seems super unlikely unless the population of the US grows wildly above what I would expect. Neither of those things would be required for me to think there was a comeback, because I don't define a comeback as requiring you to get all the way back to your peak, but rather recovering a decent way from your nadir. A stable, increasingly affluent population, reduction in the percentage of the population in poverty, more employment within the city, reduced physical decrepitude, all would be nice indicators of a comeback in my book.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
Detroit is on par to have lost over 1.4 million residents since 1950 when the 2020 census comes out. This is an astronomical number that no other city in history has ever experienced. To put this loss in context, Mosul Iraq had a population of about 2 million before ISIS took over. During the ISIS occupation Mosul had about 1.5 million people.
Exactly. We've moved from obvious decline on all dimensions to a situation where we can debate whether the city is generally doing better or worse, which is progress.Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
Getting through the bankruptcy, relighting the city [[even though I know there have been complaints), making progress at DDOT with new routes and more reliable service [[so I understand), and seeing an influx of business and residents to downtown/midtown are unquestionable signs of progress. And yet I'm expecting that 2020 will show a continued population decline, the schools seem no closer to health, and crime remains way too prevalent.
As many have said the city is never coming back to 1.9 million densely situated souls. But, and again I know these plans have their critics and problems, I think there is hope for a Detroit Future City type of approach where the city builds up specific corridors and neighborhoods over time, buoyed by increasing employment opportunities in the CBD. Stabilizing population loss and creating safe, viable urban neighborhoods linked to job opportunities around the region by transit would be success in the context of what Detroit has suffered.
And if that doesn't work, just take in as many climate refugees as we can once Florida goes underwater and the southwest runs out of it.
I'll be shocked if Detroit still has over 500,000 people by 2030 [[it may barely stay above that number for 2020).Quote:
Originally Posted by Colombian Dan
You really think that 500,000 people from "Central America" are going to be skilled. We'd be lucky if 5% were skilled. Food stamps galore.Quote:
Originally Posted by ParisianLesion
That path was through Canada first and asylum but now that FARC has maybe laid down arms it will be interesting to see how the migration numbersQuote:
Originally Posted by Colombian Dan
change in the coming years.
There are lots of highly skilled immigrants cleaning time shares in Orlando,a doctor degree from another country means nothing here.
Reading through the article the author seems to have one big misconception; that Midtown, Eastern Market, Corktown, and New Center never really fell on hard times. That they have always been the stable, busy, trendy places they are today. He implies the vitality of these areas doesn't count because he apparently can't remember a time they weren't stable...
However there was a time, and it wasn't very long ago that these areas were as bad as the neighborhoods outside of them. A time when the Shiola store and Third Man Records were just abandoned buildings tagged with graffiti. When to walk around Brush Park was as scary as any outlying neighborhood. When Michigan Ave. in Corktown had just as many blighted storefronts as anywhere else.
Discounting the progress that has been made so far is to deny the truth that many of these areas were once just as rough as the outlying neighborhoods still awaiting investment.
Without reading the article.
I would say yes based on comparisons of other cities,granted Detroit carries its own uniqueness,the metrics are still the same everywhere.
I also think that whatever happens there it will be in a much stronger position faster then most other cites were able to achieve.
If one looks at what has been achieved in the space in time already one really needs to give the residents credit for pulling together and getting it done,it really shows that they do care about their city and that is the battle.
From bankruptcy you guys put an effective city government in place,it was not just the city government that deserves the attention it is also the residents that go above and beyond to make their city a better place to live,there are and will be hiccups,but most of the groundwork that has been put in place far surpasses what happened in other cities without the mistakes and wasting time having to come back and fix them that takes years.
On the average it has taken other cities in excess of 20 years to go from a position of not even close to the condition Detroit was in,to where it now looks like Detroit will be close in 10 years.That is a lot to achieve in that short amount of time.
It has not reached the outer rings yet and there will be some parts like in every other city,that it probably will never reach.But each step is one more that makes the city as a whole more desirable to want to move there,I would never limit the population expectations at 500,000,that is for places like Ann Arbor etc.
Detroit is and will always be a city that helped shape,build and defend this country,and that means something more then its destiny being a quaint little city on the river.
It should be pointed out, when Midtown / Downtown were "rough," NE and NW Detroit were still relatively prosperous area [[enough so that we had places like Kroger and Bel-Air Centre) and some of the safest in the city.Quote:
Originally Posted by K-slice
1. There's nothing in itself wrong with a population in the 400,000 - 700,000 ball park. Several cities we consider "major" [[I.E. metro populations of 5+ million) have plateaud roughly around that range [[Boston, Washington D.C., Atlanta, San Francisco, etc.). The main difference is that none of those other cities proper ever achieved the scale that Detroit did only to decline and then plateau at such low numbers. On top of that, the economic / political landscape in Detroit is considerably far worse in comparison to these other places, which makes it harder to duplicate the success they've had.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
The task will be getting Detroiters to understand that while the city can very well be a functional place to live and work again [[if that's how one defines a "come back"), its best days are ultimately behind it if we're talking in terms of size. prosperity and influence.
2. HA! at Ann Arbor ever reaching 500,000. Zero chance of that. It's has remained stagnant at just above 100,000 for several decades now and that's only because it's home to one of the largest public universities in the country [[besides Google, it's not home to any other major employers).
That's a bit of an exaggeration. Downtown Detroit was plenty vibrant through the early 90's or so; it was just a different crowd. It was still a traditional shopping district, with women's clothing stores, shoe stores and the like. There was far more shopping downtown in 1987 than in 2017. Granted a different type of shopping, but definitely more. And if you want to go back to the early 80's downtown had a roster of Somerset-style luxury stores in the RenCen. Imagine Louis Vuitton-type stores downtown.Quote:
Originally Posted by K-slice
Restaurants were far less numerous, but this would be true anywhere. The U.S. has become much more of an eating-out society in recent years. And there was a decent amount of high-end dining- Caucus Club, London Chop House, 1940 Chop House, Opus One and the like.
I don't remember Brush Park as particularly scary. It was more active than now, with the Brewster Houses still occupied. I remember the solid, stately midrise buildings torn down for Comerica Park and surrounding parking moats. Eastern Market was always busy. And I don't think Corktown was ever vacant.
I would bet even the Cass Corridor was more intact and active 30 years ago. It was much poorer and scarier, but there were more people on the street, and fewer vacant lots.
You paint a very rosy, yet inaccurate picture. Any worthwhile retail in Downtown died with Hudsons. Unless you were shopping for drugs or alchahol. There were of course a few exceptions like Sermans and The Broadway. The Ren Cen was a city onto itself and to say any shops inside it contributed to downtown is a very big streach.
Brush Park was scary until it was totally abandoned after the Brewster Douglas Projects were closed, but that was before most people remember now. As for Corktown, just take a look at the Google Street view maps from 2007 and 2016, it's amazing how many more blighted and abandoned store fronts there were.
This is total bull. I remember walking Woodward and the side streets with my dad as a kid [[he worked downtown) and there was a lot of remaining retail and street-level vibrancy well into the early 90's.Quote:
Originally Posted by K-slice
The entire Woodward corridor up to the Fox was solid retail. Everything between Woodward and Washington Blvd. was active and full of retail. A lot of it was low end, but it was legit retail. We had lunch together countless times, and I remember the tacky shop windows, music blasting from stores and fairly heavy pedestrian traffic.
But it was a different crowd. Mostly black Detroiters taking the bus downtown to shop. Lots of shoe stores, wig stores, women's clothing stores. Stuff like Winkelmans, Tall Eez, Gantos, sneaker stores and the like. There were a lot more Detroiters back then, and many still shopped downtown. Those days are gone.
Corktown was never abandoned. Michigan Ave. always had retail, and the housing was always occupied and well kept. Brush Park was undoubtedly more dangerous back then, but it was also more active. It had people and buildings.Quote:
Originally Posted by K-slice
To clarify, Boston's population is now roughly equal to Detroit, while occupying 1/3 of the land mass of Detroit. Furthermore, SF's population is now well-over 850k, while also occupying only 1/3 of Detroit's land mass. Those two cities [[along with DC and others) have not plateaued, rather they are continuing to grow.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
Boston is not close to its peak population, so in some sense it has been on a plateau for a century. It is certainly growing now, and it is possible it will get back to it, but probably not for at least a couple of decades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParisianLesion
We all need to keep in mind,.. that this is "Immigrants" and not illegal immigrants or refugees.
My wife was an immigrant. She graduated college the top of her class and was a college lecturer. Later she was brought here to the States by the government to teach.
The people sneaking into the country at night and refugees from places like Syria will not have similar resumes.
The USA has always let in a large number of immigrants,.. and it is why we are what we are. But for much of that time we did not have a large welfare system. With free health-care, Bridge Cards, etc.
Now that we do,.. we need to be even more selective about who we let in.
That's literally not true. It's well reported that many of these refugees were students, teachers, doctors, dentists, lawyers, businessmen etc. One reason why they ran is because they a) members of Syrian's middle and working classes and therefore b) not soldiers and did not want to fight because they though never in a million years there would have been such a war. Yes, they don't have the same level of credentials as American counterparts but many of these people aren't Syrian hicks from the back country. They are/were cosmopolitan men, women, and families from Aleppo, Raqqah, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdd
Dare I say that these refugees are much more educated than any Irish refugee from the 19th century.
Well,.. we have no idea really when they come from Syria because ISIS seized control of a couple of the main passport offices and are printing their own passports.Quote:
Originally Posted by dtowncitylover
But the data indicated that 9.4% have some type of higher education [[technical, college, graduate school, etc). Much of that however has to do with a large percentage of them being quite young. So perhaps 2% were doctors, dentists, or lawyers?
And I totally agree on the Irish. But at that time there wasn't free housing, free health-care, free food etc,.. so they came here knowing they were going to have to work extremely hard or starve to death. And then there weren't worker's rights, overtime, or minimum wage laws.
Our current refugee / illegal immigrant situation is costing us upwards of $90 BILLION a year in social services. Money that we could be using for Veterans, our poor, vocational training, etc.
Putting aside the cartoonish, false description [[undocumented immigrants don't "sneak into the country at night"; they come by plane via tourist visas), why do you assume that such folks don't have similar resumes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdd
Steve Jobs is the son of Syrian refugees. Google was founded by a refugee. And lots of famous Americans who came as undocumented immigrants, everyone from Salma Hayek to the First Lady.
Also not true. The U.S. had, for decades, racist, exclusionary immigration policies that weren't somewhat loosened until the late 1960's. This is why there are comparatively few immigrants, excepting war refugees, from the interwar period until Vietnam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdd
Immigrants, both legal and illegal, use public services much less than native-born Americans, and are net contributors to the public purse. If you're making immigration policy based on economic concerns you would want more immigrants, not fewer. The U.S. receives far fewer immigrants proportionally than our competitor nations.
No, we need to be far less bureaucratic and somewhat less selective. The current system is ridiculously stringent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdd
If the U.S. is to thrive, we need to welcome immigrants as Canada and Western Europe have. The U.S. once received the best and brightest; now we lose tons of talent to competitor nations.
I have personally lost recruits to Canada because of our arcane and cumbersome immigration process, which is only becoming worse under the new administration. I have high salary positions going unmet, but the Americans who whine about immigrants don't have the skill set to get these jobs. Then they wonder why the U.S. economy underperforms, why they can't get a job, and blame immigrants and brown people, rather than blaming themselves.
Exactly. Syria was a middle class country, with a large professional class.Quote:
Originally Posted by dtowncitylover
Syria has tons of engineers and skilled professionals who are powering the German and Canadian economies. Yes, there are some challenges with integrating newcomers, but the migrants have been huge net positives for the recipient nations [[as well as saving lives and fighting radicalization).
I laugh when people [[who have never been to Europe) claim there are "no go zones" in European cities and claim countries are supposedly on the verge of Sharia law. In reality, Germany has almost full employment, has solved its demographic crisis, and overall crime has actually dropped [[and is like 1/10 that of the U.S.). Syrians have been a Godsend for Germany.
Unfortunately, the U.S. has decided to be the global idiot, and now immigrants are considered a threat to, rather than the key to, prosperity. Sad!
Wow! With that type of credentialing, Vetting should take say 5 mins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
They certainly won't need any food stamps or relocation assistance since their job skills will immediately be marketable in the U.S.
They just need to be trained to spend money on sporting events and how to properly BBQ and they will fit right in with the rest of the U.S.
Detroit better get that soccer stadium ready fast!
Current U.S. vetting is 2 years, requires unanimous approval from nine separate agencies, requires thousands in fees from an approved sponsor, and the vast majority of applicants are denied. Of course, certain fact-averse deplorables believe we have "open borders".Quote:
Originally Posted by GMan
I think, if the country weren't so caught up in anti-immigrant hysteria, we would seek to somewhat loosen the requirements, while still keeping the country safe. Do you really need nine separate agencies signing off? Does it really take 2 years to reasonably ensure that a middle class professional family isn't going to be a threat?
I don't know what this means. Sponsors [[churches, nonprofits, etc.) cover most of the relocation fees. No one claimed that all migrants are going to be earning professional salaries the second they step off the plane. Overall they will be a net economic positive, though; putting aside the moral imperative of saving lives, and taking responsibility for a region we destroyed, economists on the right and left agree on the broad economic benefits of immigration.Quote:
Originally Posted by GMan
Not what anyone is saying at all. Obviously they are going to be vetted, but these people aren't stupid and yes can actually help the economy if they learn English and work hard, like immigrants have done for 200 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by GMan
Church agencies that are getting paid for their services by???? the federal government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
I've been through a couple of vetting processes as both a witness and as a sponsor. What is happening here is not the same.
Unless of course they claim to be oppressed somehow,.. then they get a green card immediately. A distant relative of my wife falsely claimed to be oppressed by Communism. She wasn't in any way,.. she just wanted to have children she couldn't afford. She was allowed in with no wait. She got on social services in California and popped out a child 7 months later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
It pisses my wife off who did it the right way.
I think you mean "Anti ILLEGAL immigrant rational". The forever lying leftist media keeps trying to claim it's anti-immigrant,.. but nothing could be further from the truth. I see you often repeating their propaganda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
And no,.. it shouldn't take 2 years if they are valuable employees. However that too has a consequence. And we actually have programs to expedite those very people. Firms here are laying off highly-skilled American engineers by the hundreds, and replacing them with engineers from India and other places under the expedited H-1B program.
So which do we do? Lay off highly-skilled Americans and bring in highly skilled foreigners to take their place,.. so that American companies can save lots of money? Then pay unemployment etc to the laid off workers?
Tough to figure out which direction is best. Both have an upside and a downside.
Except these people didn't actually leave Detroit, they went to the suburbs, the metro has had a stable population with a steady increase since 1950. Metro Regions are the true bodies of cities these days, not city limits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colombian Dan
Detroit is no special case, every city in the US dramatically declined because of suburban sprawl, St. Louis actually lost a larger percentage of it's population than Detroit.
NYCQuote:
Originally Posted by Calltoaction
NYC has grown since the 1950s, and so have the vast majority of other top 20 US major cities.
Even Chicago and Philadelphia have only declined by roughly 25% of their peak population [[versus Detroit's 2/3rds and growing).
As far as St. Louis, then losing maybe a couple more percentage points of their share of population than us at most is nothing to brag about.
I never said it was? That's a really bizarre statement for you to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
The point is Detroit is not a unique case at all, New York would have went bankrupt too if the feds hadn't of granted them billions of dollars. Detroit is a little late to revitalize, that's about it. Detroit's Metro has grown in the same way and continues to be a prosperous region.
Suburbanization and urban decline happened to every single city in the US, fixing it is a choice.
Detroit is unique in that it's the only city of its scale to not only decline as much as it has, but also continue to steadily decline.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calltoaction
And since you shifted the goal posts from the city proper's population to the metro area's poulation, *Metro* Detroit has also been stagnant in its population since the 1970s while the vast majority of other Metro areas have continued to grow [[including Chicago and Philadelphia). In fact, Metro Detroit has fallen from a top 5 metro to [[last I checked) the #14 largest metro.
I'm going to call some fouls on this research the 7.2 sq mile report was published in February of 2015 most of the data cited in it is from 2012-2014. Anyone with slightest bit of local real estate knowledge knows Midtown property values are up more than 5 percent since 2008.Quote:
The Hudson-Webber Foundation’s 7.2 Square Miles report highlights the concentration of positive activities in the Downtown and Midtown areas of the city. Although home values in Midtown have increased by 5 percent since 2008
The second foul is on the Detroit employment data from 2007-2014 again using data that couple years old hardly give the most accurate picture of the city.
http://detroit.curbed.com/maps/detro...ws-development
This map answers the ridiculously unnecessary question asked in this thread.
I agree with your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
We need to be VERY careful about discussing big urban cities.
I can grab say SOME of the 25 largest cities [[not-metro areas) and make what ever point I want about population declines [[or gains) in large cities. My guess is that the key is where is the city located: Rust belt? Either coast? Sun belt?
Someone with an interest in demography might write a paper: "Changing employment and population change in large U.S. cities." One could correlate income levels and population growth or decline. Population follows the good paying jobs. If they come, people come; if they leave, people leave.
I'm old enough to remember the migration from the South for good paying automobile jobs in Michigan say 50 years ago.
Here is a Wikipedia table composed of Census bureau 2015 est and 2010 census data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_population
One can go from the most populous city, NYC, and work down to say #75 and find all of the cities which lost population and guess them.
#21 - Detroit,
#51 - Cleveland,
#60 - St. Louis,
#63 - Pittsburgh,
#71 - Toledo,
#78 - Buffalo
Quite frankly, anyone with a good knowledge of American current events should not be surprised.
Each of those cities suffered job losses and when jobs go, people go... People don't normally migrate to cities which are losing jobs.
Also what is surprising is how ROBUST population growth is in many, many large cities and I'm not talking just sunbelt. NYC, BOS, D.C. Columbus, Denver, Seattle, etc. are doing very nicely.
To say American large cities are in decline is not true. Some are, for known reasons, but most are not.
BTW, this WaPo article on NAFTA and the border economy Texas/Mexico doesn't pertain to Detroit and automobiles, but it is really a good article on the 'economic ecosystem' in the textile industry around Juarez/El Paso.
It would be nice if someone wrote a similar article on automobiles... [[I was window shopping at a car dealer this week while getting mine serviced. One of the automobiles on the lot listed three foreign countries for engine manufacture [[Thailand), assembly [[think in Asia), etc. I think the only thing made in the U.S. was the window sticker I was reading... Ugh.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.7cf8c6f587b8
I would hazard a guess that the cities in decline are historically based in manufacturing and failed to adjust as factories and the high paying, low knowledge based jobs left. The cities mentioned as thriving have high costs of living and a job market that can demand the talent and pay the wages that it takes to live in those cities. Along with the money comes the arts and entertainment industry which requires more than a ball game or movie theater. There is also the character factor of a city. Maintaining its sense of history which is a draw. Detroit has always been a working mans city built on the back of industry. That's not a glamorous selling point for many.Quote:
Originally Posted by emu steve
Absolutely, folks moved to Detroit 50 or 60 year ago for automobile employment. Probably not for the weather. Lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by GMan
Folks moving to N. Dakota and other places such as Alaska in search of good paying jobs in the extraction industries, despite the weather. Who wants to live in say Florida but not have a good paying job?
Silicon Valley for IT. NYC for financial. D.C. as many have commented as federal employment grew. Say Miami/Miami Beach for leisure and hospitality and retirement [[someone had to build and staff Mar a Largo or all of these gated communities in say Boca Raton.).
As new industries [[e.g., IT) have grown over the last 3 or 4 decades so have they shaped employment.
As many know, IT can be done anywhere. So it most likely to end up where the weather is nice, a lot of great universities, great culture, etc. Hello, Silicon Valley.
In the D.C. there is a small, growing biotech industry. Why D.C. similar to Silicon Valley and close to the Federal government.
Detroit has NO new industries I can think. Everything they seem to have, e.g., manufacturing, medical, etc. etc. are industries which they have had for decades.
I think two mid-Michigan cities are also good case studies:
Midland is a company, headquarters town [[Dow) and it has thrived.
Bay City was built on automobile factories in the Bay City/Saginaw area and has declined badly.
I think those two cities are about 25 miles apart.
Yes, "comeback" is subjective. But "comeback" is not the noun I would use to speak about Detroit's present day status. I think a more appropriate question is has Detroit stabilized yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
I agree with the bottom line [[the Detroit area is not attracting new blood) but disagree with the cause. If you go back 40 years and look at industry in New York, San Francisco, Boston, etc., they all had different predominant industries than they do today. Go back 40 years ago and look at Detroit and it's the same industry. Go back a few decades further and those cities had different economies than they did 40 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by emu steve
I think that the ability of a city to transition its economy is central to whether it remains a major population center. Detroit, for whatever reason, has been unable to do this. Detroit is going through what the South went through in the 19th century after the cotton gin made cotton farming dramatically more efficient... except without all the organized domestic terrorism... so far.
My eyes rolled so hard it almost took DYes offline.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdd
Come on. This is absurd. Pay some attention to the world and the rhetoric. You don't exist in a vacuum. And you don't need the "forever lying leftist media" to confirm what people like you are actually saying.
This entire statement is bizarre, right-wing nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdd
Trump and his Deplorables are against immigration, period. They don't like "foreigners" and want to build walls, both physical and metaphorical, around our borders.
Trump wants to drastically cut LEGAL immigration. He wants to drastically cut LEGAL refugees. He even sought to block LEGAL Green Card holders and U.S. residents from entering the country. He called LEGAL Mexicans "rapists and murderers". He called LEGAL Latinas "Miss Housekeeping". He's a bigot, and so are his deplorable followers.
If Trump truly only cared about illegal immigration, then he would start by deporting his wife [[who worked illegally under a tourist visa), he would stop employing illegals in his businesses, and he would go after U.S. employers, who are the only reason there are any undocumented Americans. But he isn't doing any of this, and never will.
He hates foreigners [[unless they're hot Eastern European models) and brown people, and was elected on a platform of demonizing such people.
That response means you do not have an answer,.. and believe yourself to be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by noise
IF you thought you were right,.. you would state why.
BHam is totally wrong,.. but at least he believes what he is saying.
It wasn't a statement,... it was a question,. for which I have yet to hear a coherent answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
There you go with the name calling again. The sure sign of someone that knows they're wrong. Of course you build walls,.. so you can control who comes in. That's not racists,.. that means you wish to have a country,.. and then protect it. Letting in only those that are legal,..and keeping out those who are illegal,. and hopefully a good chunk of the drugs too. You really can't understand that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
I think one time he failed to qualify his statement on the rapists thing,.. and ever since he has made sure to carefully qualify what he meant. But you persist. Yet I don't hear you banging on and on about how Hillary once said she wanted to have big tax increases on the middle class. Hmmm. I smell the familiar stench of liberal hypocrisy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
The number of immigrants let in varies over time. Having a lot of refugees and tens of millions of illegals means the system is overloaded. So reducing all types of people coming in for a while makes sense. [[Especially from the 7 failed states where vetting is not possible) Once the illegal and refugee problem is sorted out,.. the number of legal immigrants let in per year can be adjusted to a proper level.
Hillary referred to the Latina vote as the "taco bowl". Why aren't you railing against the Democrats? I smell the familiar stench of liberal hypocrisy.
Soooo,.. you have evidence no one else does? What illegals does he employ? And no,.. employers AREN'T the only reason there are illegals. You PRESUME that 100% of illegals are here to work hard, and none are here to free-load or import dope. But that's not the case,.. and the crimes they commit and the social services they consume cost us $90+ BILLION a year. Enough to build more than 4 walls every year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
What makes you think that? Any evidence? I've not heard him say anything of the sort. You're just making that up aren't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtowncitylover
Depends on where you live,try Miami or Orlando,if you do not speak Spanish,do not expect to find a job.
I didn't read that City Lab report but I would say that a lot of the neighborhoods are looking noticeably better. These are the parts of town that held up the best during the decades long downturn though. People do seem to me to be taking more pride in their houses. However, a lot of the neighborhoods look noticeably worse, I would say that 50 to 60 percent of the city is still very much FU'ed. That might be a optimistic number. The neighborhood business districts are almost totally gone. What is shocking to me is that the number of apartment building throughout the city that remain are perhaps 25% of what were viable 30 years ago, again, that might be an optimistic number.
Another thing that's weird to me is how big the differences can be block to block. An example would be East State Fair off Gratiot. The neighborhood is beautiful, almost every house is a gem. One block over on Tacoma the street looks like some city in Iraq after a heavy duty bombing.
This is absurd. Even second-generation U.S. Hispanics barely speak Spanish. The kids of Spanish-speaking immigrants all speak English in school and with their friends, obviously. I'm in Miami for work frequently and have never encountered a language problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
If anything the problem in the U.S. is too much English and not enough foreign language proficiency. Fluent Spanish, German, Japanese, or Mandarin-speaking engineers in Metro Detroit have a HUGE employment advantage.
Do Deplorables really believe all their crazy claims? They think our ultra-militarized border is "open"? They think there are "no go zones" in Sweden and "Sharia law" in Germany? They think refugee children being massacred are "threats" while gun-toting nutcase Americans are "patriots". Now they apparently think Florida is a defacto Spanish-speaking state. Every day the claims get crazier.