Michigan's Brain Drain Persists

[poobert]

Don't you find it telling that 2/3 of them come back to Michigan?

If Chicago is all that great, one would expect more of them to stay there. And if Michigan is all that bad... they wouldn't be coming back...

I wonder if folks out of college go to Chicago to party... and then when they get it out of their system they come back to raise a family...

The numbers don't lie, and they're plain as day. Yes, 2/3 of people come back. That means a full 1/3 do not, and has amounted to a consistent net loss for all of recent memory. Do you think they're coming back for the quality of life, the breathtaking vistas, the amenities, or because their aging parents [[Michigan's population is rapidly greying) are having health issues, family deaths and the issues that follow, etc? We don't know for sure, I'm inclined to say the latter plays a huge part. Either way, it's still a loss.

What's all this about raising a family, anyway? Is that all the ammunition we've got? Chicago has suburbs too. Our city and inner ring suburban schools are generally total crap, so outside of the exburbs and their school districts, I'm not sure what is so enthralling about raising a family here that isn't available elsewhere.

[Bham1982]

I am amazed that these silly nonsensical threads continue to be recycled.

Chicago's economy sucks. It has the same issues as around here.

Chicago has the second worst population loss in the nation, after Detroit. The unemployment rate in Chicago and Detroit is virtually the same.

And Illinois is an absolute mess relative to Michigan. The fact is that Michigan has higher population growth than Illinois. Illinois is in even worse fiscal condition than Michigan.

The metro areas and states that are kicking our asses are places like Texas, North Carolina, and Florida. But no one wants to talk about these places, because they're sprawly and suburban. They prefer to cling to the notion that the only way you fix an economy is with hipsters and choo-choo trains, facts be damned.

The people who move to Chicago after graduation are 90% in the suburbs, in the Sunbelt or back in Michigan by the time they reach 30. That's why you barely see anyone over the postcollegiate age in the popular Chicago neighborhoods, and why Chicago Public Schools are 90% families from poverty.

[Hermod]

I am amazed that these silly nonsensical threads continue to be recycled.

Chicago's economy sucks. It has the same issues as around here.

Chicago has the second worst population loss in the nation, after Detroit. The unemployment rate in Chicago and Detroit is virtually the same.

And Illinois is an absolute mess relative to Michigan. The fact is that Michigan has higher population growth than Illinois. Illinois is in even worse fiscal condition than Michigan.

The metro areas and states that are kicking our asses are places like Texas, North Carolina, and Florida. But no one wants to talk about these places, because they're sprawly and suburban. They prefer to cling to the notion that the only way you fix an economy is with hipsters and choo-choo trains, facts be damned.

The people who move to Chicago after graduation are 90% in the suburbs, in the Sunbelt or back in Michigan by the time they reach 30. That's why you barely see anyone over the postcollegiate age in the popular Chicago neighborhoods, and why Chicago Public Schools are 90% families from poverty.

Yopu just don't understand. What Detroit needs to be competitive is a thriving arts, music, and culture scene. The artists go to the clubs at night and listen to the music and spend money. The musicians take the money they earned from their nightly gigs and go to galleries in the daytime and buy the artist's works. The money just keeps recycling. Instant prosperity! The best part is that the "very special" people like Poobert don't have to associate with all of those crass STEM types.

[illwill]

Originally Posted by Bham1982
I am amazed that these silly nonsensical threads continue to be recycled.

Chicago's economy sucks. It has the same issues as around here.

Chicago has the second worst population loss in the nation, after Detroit. The unemployment rate in Chicago and Detroit is virtually the same.

And Illinois is an absolute mess relative to Michigan. The fact is that Michigan has higher population growth than Illinois. Illinois is in even worse fiscal condition than Michigan.

The metro areas and states that are kicking our asses are places like Texas, North Carolina, and Florida. But no one wants to talk about these places, because they're sprawly and suburban. They prefer to cling to the notion that the only way you fix an economy is with hipsters and choo-choo trains, facts be damned.

The people who move to Chicago after graduation are 90% in the suburbs, in the Sunbelt or back in Michigan by the time they reach 30. That's why you barely see anyone over the postcollegiate age in the popular Chicago neighborhoods, and why Chicago Public Schools are 90% families from poverty.

Yopu just don't understand. What Detroit needs to be competitive is a thriving arts, music, and culture scene. The artists go to the clubs at night and listen to the music and spend money. The musicians take the money they earned from their nightly gigs and go to galleries in the daytime and buy the artist's works. The money just keeps recycling. Instant prosperity! The best part is that the "very special" people like Poobert don't have to associate with all of those crass STEM types.

I agree with Bham about Illinois' horrible financial crisis. There's no doubt that Illinois' financial situation is far worse-off than Michigan's. Chicago's situation isn't all that bad and CAN and WILL be corrected if the state can survive. I don't think it can. The reason Chicago is suffering at the rate they are is because of the States fiscal crisis and former mayor richard daley's horrific mismanagement and over spending.

But at the end of the day, people who are moving to Chicago aren't concerned about the states fiscal issues. Like most others have said, people want to live in a LARGE thriving and functional urban environment with a sizable population.

And believe me, most of the young families that are living on the Northside are from Michigan...along with the other Great Lake States. I do business with them all the time and it blows my mind at the number of people I meet who are from MI.

One more thing...Chicagoland has already crossed OVER INTO the Michigan border. I was watching a show last night and a New Buffalo, MI. resident was quoted as referring to N.B. as Chicagoland. I was shocked.

Anyhow, big deal!

[poobert]

I am amazed that these silly nonsensical threads continue to be recycled.

The people who move to Chicago after graduation are 90% in the suburbs, in the Sunbelt or back in Michigan by the time they reach 30.

Citations, please.

And this isn't recycled. These are statistics from last Sunday's paper which you, predictably, obfuscate with non-sequiters about the South.

I get that you're happy renting a trailer in Birmingham, but get over your damn self.

[Bham1982]

Citations, please..

No you provide citations, please. You are the one making the outlandish claims. Census data is easily accessible to anyone with an internet connection.

And this isn't recycled. These are statistics from last Sunday's paper which you, predictably, obfuscate with non-sequiters about the South. ..

No, you're making up stuff. The Free Press said that people are moving to the South, Midwest, and West. It did not say that people are moving to cities, which was your false claim.

If your point is that Chicagoland has the largest amount of incoming and outgoing Michiganders, I suggest you consult a map. Chicagoland begins about 10 minutes from the Michigan border, and is the third largest metro area in the nation.

Obviously Chicagoland will have the most former Michiganders. This has been true since there was a Michigan, and will be true forever, because if you have a 10 million metro next to your state, and no other metro even half the size within a days drive, obviously that metro will be a huge source of incoming/outgoing residents.

The only larger metro areas are NYC and LA, and they are obviously extremely far from Michigan. The next largest metro areas, SF, DC, Dallas, Houston, Philly, Boston, Seattle, Atlanta, and Miami, are all nowhere near Michigan, and smaller than Chicago.

[ghettopalmetto]

The metro areas and states that are kicking our asses are places like Texas, North Carolina, and Florida. But no one wants to talk about these places, because they're sprawly and suburban. They prefer to cling to the notion that the only way you fix an economy is with hipsters and choo-choo trains, facts be damned.

Well, unless Michigan gets oil and a seat right next to Mexico, it's not going to see the same level of growth in employment or immigration.

And if you really think Michigan is competing with right-to-work, low-wages, poorly-paid teachers, manufacturing-disappearing and lowest-union-membership-in-the-nation North Carolina, you're out of your skull.

Southeast Michigan is 4-1/2 million people, making it one of the largest regions in the nation. Larger than Austin. Larger than Raleigh and Charlotte. I know it doesn't fit the popular narrative of "dirty old Rust Belt" and "clean and brand spanking new Sun Belt", but please spare us the crap that Southeast Michigan is somehow inferior to prairie boom towns.

Florida is great, I suppose, if you enjoy an economy based on theme parks, retirement villas, and strip clubs.

[Bham1982]

Southeast Michigan is 4-1/2 million people, making it one of the largest regions in the nation. Larger than Austin. Larger than Raleigh and Charlotte. I know it doesn't fit the popular narrative of "dirty old Rust Belt" and "clean and brand spanking new Sun Belt", but please spare us the crap that Southeast Michigan is somehow inferior to prairie boom towns.

I never claimed any of these things. You are the one applying value judgements to the facts. I don't even like these states.

All I'm saying [[and we've had ten billion of the same thread) is that there's no evidence that population and growth rates are linked to urbanity, density, and transit orientation.

If there were such evidence, then why is Texas the fastest growing major state, and Illinois the slowest growing major state?

[ghettopalmetto]

I never claimed any of these things. You are the one applying value judgements to the facts. I don't even like these states.

All I'm saying [[and we've had ten billion of the same thread) is that there's no evidence that population and growth rates are linked to urbanity, density, and transit orientation.

Okay, so why are you so worried about Texas, North Carolina, and Florida, then?

If there were such evidence, then why is Texas the fastest growing major state, and Illinois the slowest growing major state?

Texas has oil and shares a border with Mexico. End of story. Worrying about Texas isn't going to do a damned thing to help Michigan.

Will you soon be panicking that North Dakota is kicking Michigan's ass in "economic growth"?

[Bham1982]

Texas has oil and shares a border with Mexico. End of story. "?

Yes, to some extent, but it's more complicated than that. Lousiana has oil but a relatively crap economy. New Mexico shares a border with Mexico but relatively slow growth for the Sunbelt. Dallas doesn't have oil and Houston does and Houston is much closer to the border but Dallas is growing faster than Houston.

Will you soon be panicking that North Dakota is kicking Michigan's ass in "economic growth"?

I'm not panicking at all. Michigan is doing semi-ok right now. I just don't understand this constant meme of "Michigan will start booming once we get a trolley and Cheesecake Factory on Woodward". These land-use issues, while worthy of discussion, are not directly linked to the health of the local economy.

[ghettopalmetto]

I'm not panicking at all. Michigan is doing semi-ok right now. I just don't understand this constant meme of "Michigan will start booming once we get a trolley and Cheesecake Factory on Woodward". These land-use issues, while worthy of discussion, are not directly linked to the health of the local economy.

Investment in transportation of any kind is a widely-recognized stimulator of economic development. And right now, Southeastern Michigan has an incredible problem getting workers in the City of Detroit to locations of employment, which are largely in the suburbs. Because of this glaring inefficiency, the regional GDP is not what it could be.

But it's also about creating places that educated, entrepreneurial people find attractive and conducive to conducting business. And yes, a good many of these people want to be able to walk to a neighborhood coffee shop, rather than get in the car to drive across the 8-lane divided highway to the strip-mall Starbucks. Should everything be centered around this demographic component? No. But ignoring it completely leaves a lot of economic potential on the table, not unlike the lost productivity due to transportation inefficiencies.

Let's be honest, though. Survey after survey shows that most people in their 20s and 30s--the Millenial generation--do not aspire for the large suburban house with a fleet of vehicles. And well, the Baby Boomers are starting to exit the workforce. So predicating the future of the region on the desires of the retiring generation , and ignoring the desires of the generation that will be working for 30 or 40 more years, is completely insane.

Frankly, the past driver of economic growth--development of suburban homes--is unsustainable. So until this gets addressed, it's going to be a long, hard slog.

[Patrick]

Okay, so why are you so worried about Texas, North Carolina, and Florida, then?

Texas has oil and shares a border with Mexico. End of story. Worrying about Texas isn't going to do a damned thing to help Michigan.

Will you soon be panicking that North Dakota is kicking Michigan's ass in "economic growth"?

I disagree to an extent. Michigan sure as hell needs to be mindful of those Rick Perry types seeking to poach corporations from the state.

[masterblaster]

I am amazed that these silly nonsensical threads continue to be recycled.

Chicago's economy sucks. It has the same issues as around here.

Chicago has the second worst population loss in the nation, after Detroit. The unemployment rate in Chicago and Detroit is virtually the same.

And Illinois is an absolute mess relative to Michigan. The fact is that Michigan has higher population growth than Illinois. Illinois is in even worse fiscal condition than Michigan.

The metro areas and states that are kicking our asses are places like Texas, North Carolina, and Florida. But no one wants to talk about these places, because they're sprawly and suburban. They prefer to cling to the notion that the only way you fix an economy is with hipsters and choo-choo trains, facts be damned.

The people who move to Chicago after graduation are 90% in the suburbs, in the Sunbelt or back in Michigan by the time they reach 30. That's why you barely see anyone over the postcollegiate age in the popular Chicago neighborhoods, and why Chicago Public Schools are 90% families from poverty.

The Chicago metropolition area population grew by 1.8 million from 1970 to 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_metropolitan_area

The Detroit metro area has dropped slightly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Detroit

If the core of Detroit [[let's say within the Grand Boulevard Loop) provided what the north and near west sides of Chicago, then I contend the metro area population would not have been stagnant. Do you think that Chicago's metro area would have increased by two milion if it didn't have such a strong downtown and urbane inner city neighborhoods?

You stated that Chicago lost the second most amount of people according to the last census, however, as a % of the total population, chicago's loss 8% of its population, while Detroit's was 25%. The city after Detroit was Cleveland, with 17%.

Also, a lot of those sunbelt cities have something going for them that keeps them growing, and that is warm weather year-round. We [[and Chicago) don't have that. But if we can provide a strong core, good parks, good rapid and regional transit, then maybe we can attract more people to the city and region. The city being a relative dump hasn't helped anybody around here.

[Bham1982]

The Chicago metropolition area population grew by 1.8 million from 1970 to 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_metropolitan_area

The Detroit metro area has dropped slightly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Detroit

We're in 2014, not 1970. Michigan is growing faster than Illinois in the current day.

And you forgot to mention that 100% of Chicagoland growth was in the sprawliest suburbs. Chicago [[city proper) and surrounding Cook County [[inner suburbs) are both much smaller now, than in 1970.

In fact, Cook County has the second worst county population loss in the U.S. since 1970, and Chicago has the second worst city population loss in the U.S. since 1970.

Excepting downtown and enviros, the urban core of Chicagoland has mostly been rotting away, for 60 years now, like every other Rust Belt city. The only population growth has been in the "Novi" and "Macomb Twp" type exurbs.