Population Stagnation in Michigan

**Novine** · January-04-14, 04:57 PM

Friends who live in NYC have been there for 15 years and never have owned a car. Is the cost of housing more expensive? Yes. But they make up by that for the thousands of dollars a year they don't spend on car ownership. Try doing that in Detroit or the suburbs.

**mwilbert** · January-04-14, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by Novine

Friends who live in NYC have been there for 15 years and never have owned a car. Is the cost of housing more expensive? Yes. But they make up by that for the thousands of dollars a year they don't spend on car ownership. Try doing that in Detroit or the suburbs.

I've lived in NYC without a car. It's great. But it isn't cheaper than living in Detroit with a car.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-04-14, 06:31 PM

Going back to the original post:

Is Population Growth really a proper metric for a mature, industrialized state like Michigan?

**Dan Wesson** · January-04-14, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Going back to the original post:

Is Population Growth really a proper metric for a mature, industrialized state like Michigan?

No..............

**Hermod** · January-04-14, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Going back to the original post:

Is Population Growth really a proper metric for a mature, industrialized state like Michigan?

What are you trying to measure?

How industrialized is Michigan outside of the area of Detroit-
Flint-Saginaw?

**ghettopalmetto** · January-04-14, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by Hermod

What are you trying to measure?

How industrialized is Michigan outside of the area of Detroit-
Flint-Saginaw?

By industrialized, I mean that well over half the state of Michigan resides in urbanized areas. It's far from being a rural backwater.

I just don't think that "growth" is any measure of success. I look at a place like Loudoun County, Virginia, which for years sold itself as "the fastest growing county in the United States". Well, no kidding. It was all horse farms, so it didn't take much for "fastest growing" to happen once the suburbs encroached. Now they're stuck figuring out how to fund schools and roads, and struggling to keep up with the growth, despite having extraordinarily high incomes.

Extrapolating this to the state level, what would Michigan do if it had immigration rates on par with Texas? You'd have to build more roads, more schools, more utilities, more police and fire protection, more social services. I mean, the State of Michigan already spends so much money on duplicating infrastructure for a stagnant population...depending on the demographics of would-be "immigrants", you could find yourself up a creek real fast.

You can read all the Census reports and demographic articles you want. A lot of those will read something like, "Oh, New York and Illinois and Michigan and Pennsylvania and Ohio are dying manufacturing states, but golly gee, look at Nevada!" Look where the people still live. Look where the incomes are. Last I checked, the Rust Belt still had 5 of the 9 largest states--the others being California, Texas, Florida, and Georgia. That must be because everyone is fleeing, right?

**DetroitPlanner** · January-04-14, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Extrapolating this to the state level, what would Michigan do if it had immigration rates on par with Texas? You'd have to build more roads, more schools, more utilities, more police and fire protection, more social services. I mean, the State of Michigan already spends so much money on duplicating infrastructure for a stagnant population...depending on the demographics of would-be "immigrants", you could find yourself up a creek real fast.

Michigan has quite a bit of unused infrastructure. Granted a lot of it is not in the best of condition, but it is in place. What we need to do is to figure out how to put immigrants into the existing infrastructure. This happens to a certain extent right now as many arriving foreigners are keeping places like SW Detroit and E Dearborn alive. Many of the young techies moving in from other States are helping to prop up places like Midtown, Royal Oak, and Ferndale.

What we do need however is more immigration. As our core industry is coming back and we are diversifying our economy with other distinct yet complementary industries/services we are on a good start but it won't happen overnight.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-04-14, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Michigan has quite a bit of unused infrastructure. Granted a lot of it is not in the best of condition, but it is in place. What we need to do is to figure out how to put immigrants into the existing infrastructure. This happens to a certain extent right now as many arriving foreigners are keeping places like SW Detroit and E Dearborn alive. Many of the young techies moving in from other States are helping to prop up places like Midtown, Royal Oak, and Ferndale.

What we do need however is more immigration. As our core industry is coming back and we are diversifying our economy with other distinct yet complementary industries/services we are on a good start but it won't happen overnight.

Agreed--to an extent. If the sprawl machine starts up again as the regional economy improves, all you end up doing is creating more "holes" that one expects immigrants to fill.

Michigan will never see the levels of Hispanic immigration and retirees that the Southern states [[TX, GA, NC) are seeing. It behooves Michigan to learn how to utilize its existing infrastructure so that it doesn't keep digging holes.

**Novine** · January-04-14, 09:34 PM

"I've lived in NYC without a car. It's great. But it isn't cheaper than living in Detroit with a car."

That wasn't the point. It's in response to the comment about what do other cities offer that Detroit doesn't - options for living that don't rely on owning car.

**mwilbert** · January-05-14, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by Novine

"I've lived in NYC without a car. It's great. But it isn't cheaper than living in Detroit with a car."

That wasn't the point. It's in response to the comment about what do other cities offer that Detroit doesn't - options for living that don't rely on owning car.

OK, but since you said

But they make up by that for the thousands of dollars a year they don't spend on car ownership.

your point was not clear to me.

**DetroiterOnTheWestCoast** · January-05-14, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Going back to the original post:

Is Population Growth really a proper metric for a mature, industrialized state like Michigan?

I think it is a proper metric. Certainly to the extent that a declining population is indicative of serious problems and a lack of opportunity. Wouldn't a stabilization of Detroit's population or [[in a dream world) an increase indicate some huge strides had been taken?

**DetroiterOnTheWestCoast** · January-05-14, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Michigan has quite a bit of unused infrastructure. Granted a lot of it is not in the best of condition, but it is in place. What we need to do is to figure out how to put immigrants into the existing infrastructure. This happens to a certain extent right now as many arriving foreigners are keeping places like SW Detroit and E Dearborn alive. Many of the young techies moving in from other States are helping to prop up places like Midtown, Royal Oak, and Ferndale.

What we do need however is more immigration. As our core industry is coming back and we are diversifying our economy with other distinct yet complementary industries/services we are on a good start but it won't happen overnight.

Detroit itself could certainly benefit from a sizable increase in immigration. After all, the city is half empty. Does anyone with knowledge in this area know what policies can effectively encourage immigration? How did the Bangladeshi community come to settle in Hamtramck?

**ddaydetroit** · January-05-14, 03:46 PM

lets start by making Detroit the place to live and have immigration from the burbs instead of another country.

**Gistok** · January-05-14, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by ddaydetroit

lets start by making Detroit the place to live and have immigration from the burbs instead of another country.

That sounds rather condescending... you'll often find that both groups are often one and the same... or perhaps a generation or two removed....

After all it was the strong influx of immigrants that made Detroit [[and this country) great...

**DetroitPlanner** · January-05-14, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast

Detroit itself could certainly benefit from a sizable increase in immigration. After all, the city is half empty. Does anyone with knowledge in this area know what policies can effectively encourage immigration? How did the Bangladeshi community come to settle in Hamtramck?

Chain migration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_migration

**ddaydetroit** · January-05-14, 05:05 PM

My grand parent on one side were from Hungary in lived and Delray the other side were I Irish and lived in Corktown I get the influx of immigrants thing but at the same time I also see the burbs have moved out 60 miles from Detroit while Detroit is half empty I would like to see that trend start reversing. The largest population of immigrants are now from Asia and most are moving to the burbs not Detroit except for a small part in Hamtramck

**Dan Wesson** · January-05-14, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

That sounds rather condescending... you'll often find that both groups are often one and the same... or perhaps a generation or two removed....

After all it was the strong influx of immigrants that made Detroit [[and this country) great...

The way everyone seems to be throwing around the immigration word is scary. Watch what you wish for...

It's a double edge sword. Look to Europe for guidance.

**Dan Wesson** · January-05-14, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by ddaydetroit

My grand parent on one side were from Hungary and lived and Delray the other side were I Irish and lived in Corktown I get the influx of immigrants thing but at the same time I also see the burbs have moved out 60 miles from Detroit while Detroit is have empty I would like to see that trend start reversing. The largest population of immigrants are now from Asia and most are moving to the burbs not Detroit except for a small part in Hamtramck

Good point The immigrants of the last thirty years may have landed in Detroit proper but they too have joined the exodus outward.

**mwilbert** · January-05-14, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by Dan Wesson

The way everyone seems to be throwing around the immigration word is scary. Watch what you wish for...

It's a double edge sword. Look to Europe for guidance.

When looking at immigration, it probably makes more sense to look at the US for guidance. Obviously there are both costs and benefits to immigration, but for an area that is losing population one would expect the costs to be lower and the benefits greater than elsewhere.

**BankruptcyGuy** · January-05-14, 05:35 PM

Between 2010 and July 2012, Chicago added 9,600 residents through native growth [[i.e. subtracting foreign immigrants), or 0.1%. Philadelphia added 16,000. NYC lost 2,600 residents. Boston gained 39,000. Detroit lost 26,000. St. Louis and Pittsburgh also lost residents. Attracting first-generation immigrants is VERY important if Detroit and the metro area are to gain population.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/in...ates-data.html

**DetroiterOnTheWestCoast** · January-05-14, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by Dan Wesson

The way everyone seems to be throwing around the immigration word is scary. Watch what you wish for...

It's a double edge sword. Look to Europe for guidance.

Yes, immigration has been scary for many ever since that first wave of Irish Catholics frightened the dominant Protestant establishment. And now it includes more of those brown and yellow folk!

**DetroitPlanner** · January-05-14, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast

Yes, immigration has been scary for many ever since that first wave of Irish Catholics frightened the dominant Protestant establishment. And now it includes more of those brown and yellow folk!

Europe's ethnic identity makes it a poor role model. They cling to the past much more than Americans do. Americans are more accepting of change and other cultures. Yes you do get your occasional redneck or nationalist but they are not running the culture. Here you don't have to hide your religion or creed. Being different is not as accepted in Europe or other parts of the world. Melting pots like the US, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, or Australia are a whole different breed.

**Gistok** · January-05-14, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Europe's ethnic identity makes it a poor role model. They cling to the past much more than Americans do. Americans are more accepting of change and other cultures. Yes you do get your occasional redneck or nationalist but they are not running the culture. Here you don't have to hide your religion or creed. Being different is not as accepted in Europe or other parts of the world. Melting pots like the US, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, or Australia are a whole different breed.

Part of Europe's problem was colonialism. Many of people from former European colonies are granted immigration status in their former colonial European states. Many Algerians and Tunisians in France... many Indonesians in the Netherlands, many Pakistanis and Indians in Britain. Many of these immigrants are resented by the majority population... and are still not well received.

**Dan Wesson** · January-05-14, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast

Yes, immigration has been scary for many ever since that first wave of Irish Catholics frightened the dominant Protestant establishment. And now it includes more of those brown and yellow folk!

I like how you mix religion as opposed to ethnicity as descriptions.

So which is it? Christians first and now brown and yellow people?
Or the Sunday people and now the Shinto and Hindu people?
Or maybe the Sunday people and now the Friday people.

**Dan Wesson** · January-05-14, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

Part of Europe's problem was colonialism. Many of people from former European colonies are granted immigration status in their former colonial European states. Many Algerians and Tunisians in France... many Indonesians in the Netherlands, many Pakistanis and Indians in Britain. Many of these immigrants are resented by the majority population... and are still not well received.

What do you call what the USA is doing over in the middle east and elsewhere now.

Despite what we are being fed through MSM I got a gut feeling things ain't going swimmingly over there. If we are so benevolent why did Saudi nationals take down the WTC. Why are Americanized Chechen youths involved with the Boston Bombings. Why is the NSA using the Boogyman terrorist as an excuse to spy and record activities of American citizens disregarding the Constitution of the US.

Our foreign policy sucks and it's coming home to roost.