Michigan's Brain Drain Persists

[poobert]

This was printed on Sunday, but L. Brooks Patterson's recent antics inspired me to post this. For all his bravado about not being Detroit, the state continues to lose its best and brightest - for well over a decade, and certainly beyond.

It is extremely telling when Chicago - the favorite punching bag here - is the favorite locale of young professionals. Yes, a gritty, violent, albeit functioning, rust-belt city. I wonder what they could possibly be looking for there that Auburn Hills doesn't have to offer.

Keep doing what you're doing, you bunch of fucks, and we'll all leave, and leave your old dying asses to clean up this dump of a state from the nursing home.

http://www.freep.com/article/2014011...ince-recession

[jt1]

http://www.freep.com/article/2014011...ince-recession

This was printed on Sunday, but L. Brooks Patterson's recent antics inspired me to post this. For all his bravado about not being Detroit, the state continues to lose its best and brightest - for well over a decade, and certainly beyond.

It is extremely telling when Chicago - the favorite punching bag here - is the favorite locale of young professionals. Yes, a gritty, violent, albeit functioning, rust-belt city. I wonder what they could possibly be looking for there that Auburn Hills doesn't have to offer.

Keep doing what you're doing, you bunch of fucks, and we'll all leave, and leave your old dying asses to clean up this dump of a state from the nursing home.

Patterson and Hackel have created a joint statement to rebut your post: "Hey, things suck all around, but at least we aren't Detroit so we must be doing really well"

Granted, an enormous number of the dumb fucks in this region actually believe this is the case. I do take solace in the fact that even the educated in this region can be so ignorant and shortsighted. It makes me feel like I am the one eyed man in the land of the blind.

[Dexlin]

With the context that it's improving, and this is far from only being a problem for Michigan:

How to slow Chicago's tech brain drain

Lettuce B Reael for a moment, por favor. Michigan still has many real troubles, but it's actually growing faster in the past few years [[economically and population-wise) than some of its neighbors. We can do way better, but w'ere not doing horribly. Chicago is a great American city, but by no means is it an economic paradise, not even close.

There is this conventional wisdom by those that try to motivate that Michigan is still sending a disproportionate population of our kids to Chicago. That may have been true through much the previous decade, but these days, it's more fiction than fact. And, the fact is that by its sheer size, Chicago's always going to be a destination for kids in the region. What we need to do better is find our niche, and we're doing that.

[Gistok]

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...

[313WX]

Patterson and Hackel have created a joint statement to rebut your post: "Hey, things suck all around, but at least we aren't Detroit so we must be doing really well"

Funny thing is, I REALLY believe they gave that exact response to this article. In fact, I know they did...

[Gistok]

Patterson and Hackel have created a joint statement to rebut your post: "Hey, things suck all around, but at least we aren't Detroit so we must be doing really well.

For those folks who take what Jt1 says too seriously... here's Mark Hackels exact words about Patterson....

Hackel said he wouldn’t comment on Patterson’s remarks, saying he’s focused on lifting up the region. “I’ll let the people judge that and judge him,” Hackel said.

[nain rouge]

Chicago's advantage over Detroit is that it has a much larger functioning urban area. That said, living in Midtown, I feel like I get a similar experience as I would in Chicago, except I'm confined to a much smaller area. But if you're living in an urban area because you want to spend more time on your feet than in your car, the advantages of Chicago's raw space aren't always worth the extra hassles. By staying in Detroit you get to spend a lot less money on rent and stay closer to your friends and family.

Now, if you absolutely need tons of places to blow over $100 on dinner and are a frequent patron of high-class theater and opera, then Chicago wins hands down. But we have our own cultural advantages, too. Detroit has a great underground arts scene that isn't only experimental, but extremely, unbelievably accessible. It's all relative. Sure, you make more in Chicago, but you spend less here. Which do you prefer?

[Dan Wesson]

It's the grass is always greener on the other side phenomenon. Ever been to Chicago? Iff'n your a city rat I guess it's ok. But the smart don't follow the herd. Head the opposite way.

Green Acre's is the place for me....

[jt1]

For those folks who take what Jt1 says too seriously... here's Mark Hackels exact words about Patterson....

Hackel said he wouldn’t comment on Patterson’s remarks, saying he’s focused on lifting up the region. “I’ll let the people judge that and judge him,” Hackel said.

First, I would hope that people would have picked up that my 'quote' was a joke. It was laid on pretty thick.

Second, do you think Hackel's comments really show leadership? By sidestepping it, he is essentially either supporting the statements or a coward that doesn't want to upset Patterson. He could have crafted a response that stated the comments were inappropriate, he does not agree with them and continued to also point out how Brooks is a regional team player. That would have keep him from drawing ire from his buddy while still stating the comments were out of line. He chose the cowardly way to address it.

[Gistok]

First, I would hope that people would have picked up that my 'quote' was a joke. It was laid on pretty thick.

Second, do you think Hackel's comments really show leadership? By sidestepping it, he is essentially either supporting the statements or a coward that doesn't want to upset Patterson. He could have crafted a response that stated the comments were inappropriate, he does not agree with them and continued to also point out how Brooks is a regional team player. That would have keep him from drawing ire from his buddy while still stating the comments were out of line. He chose the cowardly way to address it.

I don' know... is it really cowardess? He has to worlk with the other 3 executives and deal with regional issues. Do you really want to piss of other members of that team? And besides Hackel is a Democrat... so his feelings towards Patterson would probably be of a partisan nature anyway. I wonder what he felt about Ficano with the millions wasted on the jail fiasco? Sometimes it's smarter for a politician to give a pass, and let the public be the judge, rather than get involved in the uproar. It may not be cowardess so much as political reality...

[Honky Tonk]

I don' know... is it really cowardess? He has to worlk with the other 3 executives and deal with regional issues. Do you really want to piss of other members of that team? And besides Hackel is a Democrat... so his feelings towards Patterson would probably be of a partisan nature anyway. I wonder what he felt about Ficano with the millions wasted on the jail fiasco? Sometimes it's smarter for a politician to give a pass, and let the public be the judge, rather than get involved in the uproar. It may not be cowardess so much as political reality...

Good post. I thoght the same thing. "Give a fool enough rope....'

[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.

[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.

[poobert]

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.

Bham1982: But North Carolina.

[Novine]

"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."

As is most of Metro Detroit. But the region has proven that "sprawly and suburban" doesn't guarantee economic or population growth.

[casscorridor]

Have you been outside today? Who wants to live in that kind of cold and snow?

People stay because they are familiar, have family ties or decent jobs... or they are stuck here and will leave when given the chance.

Chicago is only a draw because it's a bigger, better functioning city within a 5 hour drive. And it's familiar-- a Midwestern, middle-america vibe.

The warmer South and West are much more the places where people are moving, as a national trend. Those places are experiencing growth while Chicago lost close to as many people as Detroit in the last census. Michigan to Chicago movement is a more regional phenomenon. Sometimes it seems like everyone in Chicago is from Michigan, yet they are still loosing people. I bet if it wasn't for Michigan, Chicago would have even more severe population loss.

[Cliffy]

I don't get why people are worried about economic development in North Dakota. Worry about yourself and your bottom line. Don't worry about others. They don't worry about you.