"Dan Gilbert is an irritation as far as our economic development" -L Brooks Patterson

[Eber Brock Ward]

LOL. Illinois has the worst population loss in the U.S., and the worst economy in the U.S. Chicago and Cook County are shrinking, not growing. Both city and state are near bankruptcy.

Seriously, folks. Don't let BTroll1982 get away with this.

Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois all grew from 2010 to 2013, based on census estimates: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1714000.html. I would also guess that median and mean income rose as people decamped from tougher neighborhoods on the south and west sides and more young professionals and other upwardly mobile types piled into the north and near west sides.

[[That said, Chicago is a ticking municipal finance time bomb, many measures worse than Detroit pre-BK)

[313WX]

Seriously, folks. Don't let BTroll1982 get away with this.

Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois all grew from 2010 to 2013, based on census estimates: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1714000.html. I would also guess that median and mean income rose as people decamped from tougher neighborhoods on the south and west sides and more young professionals and other upwardly mobile types piled into the north and near west sides.

[[That said, Chicago is a ticking municipal finance time bomb, many measures worse than Detroit pre-BK)

Chicago may technically be balance sheet insolvent [[so is Ford, in fact, as a comparison), but what matters when determining the likilihood of them defaulting on loans and going bankrupt is whether of not they have the liquidity to meet their obligations, which they do since most of Illinois' major employers are based IN Chicago and most of the city's middle class hasn't abandoned it like Detroit. As long as Chicago doesn't experience a massive flight in capital, things should be ok and the bankruptcy fears are probably overblown.

[Hypestyles]

more office buildings need to be occupied, and newly built downtown as well as other parts of the city, east and west.

[Bham1982]

You may be right about population decline, but you wouldn't know it by all the shtload of high-rise luxury apartments being built all around Chicago. In fact it's downright scary for those of us who live here because we want to stay living in the City, but with rents like $1950 for a studio apartment staring at us, we won't be able to afford this city.

Chicago has relatively cheap rents, and relatively little housing construction, at least compared to the NYC, LA, SF, Bos, DC type cities. There was lots of housing construction in the 90's and early 00's, boom but not as much lately.

I don't know where the hell you live where your only option is a $1950 studio. Even in the Gold Coast, the richest neighborhood in Chicago, there are studio apartments for many hundreds less, and these are even in luxury highrise doorman buildings. Heck there are one bedrooms in luxury buildings in the Gold Coast for less than $1950.

In a typical Chicago neighborhood, there is probably no one paying $1950 for a freakin studio. That would be more than even the average mortgage payment, given the median sales price of a home in Chicago is somewhere in the low 200's.

Even somewhere like NYC or London there are tons and tons of studio apartments for far less than $1950. You can live in a nice neighborhood in Brooklyn and snag a $1,300 studio in a good building, even today.

[Bham1982]

The US Census Bureau estimates that the city of Chicago has gained population every year since the 2010 census. Click "2013" on the left side.

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/t...2011_PEPANNRES

The annual estimates for the city did show very slight gains in 2011, -12 and -13, but the official estimates from the last Census showed massive population losses for Chicago, second only to Detroit.

And this year's estimates will almost certainty show losses for the city proper, as Cook County's results are out, and show population losses, and most of Cook is Chicago. In previous years estimates, the city population trends always mirrored the county population trends.

Illinois, overall, had the worst population loss in the nation last year, and Chicagoland had slower proportional growth than even Metro Detroit. The region has much to offer, but is struggling somewhat relative to the other major metros.

The biggest boomtown in the U.S. is Houston, which has horrible urban form and is sprawlier than even Detroit. The issue of urbanity is separate from the issue of regional economic vibrancy.

[Bham1982]

Seriously, folks. Don't let BTroll1982 get away with this.

LOL. Chicago extreme homer alert. The B10 Chads and Trixies from Shelby Twp. are getting worked up.

You conveniently "forgot" to show the most recent Census estimates, which is exactly what I'm referring to. The latest results show worse results than even Metro Detroit, or Michigan.

If you prefer estimates over the official decennial numbers, fine. If you prefer the decennial numbers, also fine. Pick either, and Chicago is losing population, and Chicagoland [[and Illinois) are basically at the bottom of the pack nationally.

And your excuse "yeah Chicago might be losing people but it's those poor black people, while white rich kids are streaming in" doesn't seem to hold water.

If a metro area were experiencing some unusual trend where the poor were mass-vacating in favor of the rich, there would be significant increases in median earnings and gross regional product relative to other metros.

But Chicago has one of the slowest growing economies in the U.S., and in fact has fallen from 3rd to 5th largest economy in the U.S. in the last five years. Both the Bay Area and DC now have significantly larger economies than Chicago.

[Junjie]

The annual estimates for the city did show very slight gains in 2011, -12 and -13, but the official estimates from the last Census showed massive population losses for Chicago, second only to Detroit.

And this year's estimates will almost certainty show losses for the city proper, as Cook County's results are out, and show population losses, and most of Cook is Chicago. In previous years estimates, the city population trends always mirrored the county population trends.

...

You claimed Chicago has the worst population trend in the country when in fact the Census Bureau thinks it was growing 2010-2013 with the data for 2014 not out yet. [[And wait, aren't we on a forum about a city that's estimated to be down 50,000 over the past four years?? ) Now you're claiming that there will be substantial losses this year to make up for that growth because of available county data, and yet the only 2014 estimate for Cook County on the Census Bureau's site shows a loss of a whopping 179 people in a county of 5.25 million.

You can follow the link in my original post to see this. Note by the way that the county population is double that of the city of Chicago, so it's probably worth waiting for the actual city data to make any judgments on 2014.

But Chicago has one of the slowest growing economies in the U.S., and in fact has fallen from 3rd to 5th largest economy in the U.S. in the last five years. Both the Bay Area and DC now have significantly larger economies than Chicago.

Brookings Institution says Chicago's metro GDP [[since you mentioned the Bay Area I'm assuming we're now talking metro areas) is significantly larger than either DC's or San Francisco's + San Jose's combined. $563bn for Chicago versus $442bn in DC or $491bn for SF + SJ.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/re...-metro-monitor

So, do you have any evidence for what you're saying that you can link? It's true that Chicago lost a lot of population 2000-2010 and has grown its economy only slowly [[though with a massive base), but you're making a lot of other specific claims here and anyway we're now five years on from 2010. Given that you've been wrong on some pretty basic stuff, I don't see why anyone should believe you unless you can show some actual data.

[Bham1982]

You claimed Chicago has the worst population trend in the country when in fact the Census Bureau thinks it was growing 2010-2013 with the data for 2014 not out yet. [[And wait, aren't we on a forum about a city that's estimated to be down 50,000 over the past four years?? )

In your homerist haste you didn't bother reading my post; I never wrote any of this. You don't seem to understand numbers, as you don't seem to get that an area could be growing and be "worst" or shrinking and be "best". This is a comparative ranking, so the absolute change is irrelevant; the key is the population change relative to that of other cities.

What major city has worse population trends than Chicago? Name one. The answer is none. Even using your cherrypicked years, and even ignoring the years prior and post, Chicago had the worst population trends during those years.

Even Philly, which is probably the next-worst off major U.S. city [[and note I'm talking the major urban cities with young people; so basically the dozen or so largest U.S. cities) has stronger population numbers than Chicago, and Philly is really a significant laggard compared to the other Northeast Corridor cities.

And you are seriously arguing I'm a Detroit homer? You're obviously new to DYes.

Now you're claiming that there will be substantial losses this year to make up for that growth because of available county data, and yet the only 2014 estimate for Cook County on the Census Bureau's site shows a loss of a whopping 179 people in a county of 5.25 million.

Again, you don't understand the difference between absolute or relative, and no, I never claimed "substantial losses". Cook County could be growing, and Chicago could still have the worst population trends. But Cook is shrinking, and Chicago is also likely shrinking.

You can follow the link in my original post to see this. Note by the way that the county population is double that of the city of Chicago, so it's probably worth waiting for the actual city data to make any judgments on 2014.

Not really. In every single past Census estimate year the county matches the city trends, so if the county is declining, the city is almost certainly declining. And Chicago comprises the strong majority of the county, not 50%.

Brookings Institution says Chicago's metro GDP [[since you mentioned the Bay Area I'm assuming we're now talking metro areas) is significantly larger than either DC's or San Francisco's + San Jose's combined. $563bn for Chicago versus $442bn in DC or $491bn for SF + SJ.

Nope. Per the BEA, Chicago has the fifth largest economy in the U.S., and was surpassed by both SF and DC around five years ago, and the gap has grown in every year since.

In fact, Houston is likely closer in size to the Chicago economy than that of the Bay Area. I don't see 2014 figures listed online, but the 2013 figures are as follows-

2013 Combined Statistical Area[[CSA) Gross Product
New York-Newark $1.683 Trillion
Los Angeles-Long Beach $999.661 Billion
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland $664.687 Billion
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington $657.039 Billion
Chicago-Naperville $597.805 Billion
Houston-The Woodlands $517.367 Billion
Boston-Worcester-Providence $514.586 Billion
Dallas-Ft Worth $451.436 Billion
Philadelphia-Reading-Camden $429.838 Billion
Atlanta-Athens-Clarke County-Sandy Springs $314.759 Billion
Seattle-Tacoma $309.577 Billion
Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Port St Lucie $297.071 Billion
Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor $262.166 Billion
Minneapolis-St Paul $236.389 Billion
Denver-Aurora $209.648 Billion

So, do you have any evidence for what you're saying that you can link?Given that you've been wrong on some pretty basic stuff, I don't see why anyone should believe you unless you can show some actual data.

Given that 1. You misread all of my previous posts 2. You have yet to contradict anything in my previous posts and 3. You don't seem to understand the difference between relative and absolute numbers, I'll take your criticisms in the proper context.

[iheartthed]

In your homerist haste you didn't bother reading my post; I never wrote any of this. You don't seem to understand numbers, as you don't seem to get that an area could be growing and be "worst" or shrinking and be "best". This is a comparative ranking, so the absolute change is irrelevant; the key is the population change relative to that of other cities.

What major city has worse population trends than Chicago? Name one. The answer is none. Even using your cherrypicked years, and even ignoring the years prior and post, Chicago had the worst population trends during those years.

Even Philly, which is probably the next-worst off major U.S. city [[and note I'm talking the major urban cities with young people; so basically the dozen or so largest U.S. cities) has stronger population numbers than Chicago, and Philly is really a significant laggard compared to the other Northeast Corridor cities.

And you are seriously arguing I'm a Detroit homer? You're obviously new to DYes.


Again, you don't understand the difference between absolute or relative, and no, I never claimed "substantial losses". Cook County could be growing, and Chicago could still have the worst population trends. But Cook is shrinking, and Chicago is also likely shrinking.


Not really. In every single past Census estimate year the county matches the city trends, so if the county is declining, the city is almost certainly declining. And Chicago comprises the strong majority of the county, not 50%.


Nope. Per the BEA, Chicago has the fifth largest economy in the U.S., and was surpassed by both SF and DC around five years ago, and the gap has grown in every year since.

In fact, Houston is likely closer in size to the Chicago economy than that of the Bay Area. I don't see 2014 figures listed online, but the 2013 figures are as follows-

2013 Combined Statistical Area[[CSA) Gross Product
New York-Newark $1.683 Trillion
Los Angeles-Long Beach $999.661 Billion
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland $664.687 Billion
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington $657.039 Billion
Chicago-Naperville $597.805 Billion
Houston-The Woodlands $517.367 Billion
Boston-Worcester-Providence $514.586 Billion
Dallas-Ft Worth $451.436 Billion
Philadelphia-Reading-Camden $429.838 Billion
Atlanta-Athens-Clarke County-Sandy Springs $314.759 Billion
Seattle-Tacoma $309.577 Billion
Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Port St Lucie $297.071 Billion
Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor $262.166 Billion
Minneapolis-St Paul $236.389 Billion
Denver-Aurora $209.648 Billion



Given that 1. You misread all of my previous posts 2. You have yet to contradict anything in my previous posts and 3. You don't seem to understand the difference between relative and absolute numbers, I'll take your criticisms in the proper context.

Regarding your gross product list, there probably has not been much dramatic change in order for the top 5 over time if you extrapolate the way they are currently measured under CSAs to previous decades [[since most lists previously were using MSA numbers). Under MSAs Balt-Wash and the Bay Area are split into different MSAs so they would show up in much lower positions on previous lists. I haven't looked but I would guess if you looked at a measure of gross product by MSA Chicago would still be third.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Bham1982 is the "smartest guy in the room" and resident "know-it-all", so anyone's efforts to dispute his knowledge about any and everything, especially demographics is all for naught.

[Towne Cluber]

Trends are a bigger irritation for Oakland County. Metro Detroiters need to ask,“why did my kid move to Chicago”? Did they do so for Schaumberg, Bolingbrook or Hoffman Estates? No, the odds are they work in the Loop and live in Bucktown,Lincoln Park or River North. Crain’s March 29th article hints at this, and it’s the issue that Michiganders ignore while brain-drain continues; millennials want to work/live in walk-able, transit oriented, sustainable communities that do not require a car for every movement.

Fortunately for Brooks, many corporate boards still think in the present; their members, who live in far flung suburbia,want a drive-able office, while their idea of a “great work environment” is a self-contained, isolated structure surrounded by ample parking. Moreover, they look strictly at the financials today, and resist the appeal of tomorrow. This,however, is not attractive to the potential next generation of leaders.

Most of the "kids" that I know that moved away to other cities [[for jobs and a 'nightlife') are now starting a family...and have moved to the suburbs of those cities. The ones that remain in their adopted city are childless and/or from wealthy families [[able to afford a large place in the city, private school, car in the city, etc). Some have moved back to the suburbs of Metro Detroit.

To answer the question of why they moved, it was for better job opportunities [[both in the city and suburbs) than what the entire state of MI could provide, a vibrant city life in their 20s/early 30s, and a better opportunity to meet a wife/husband.

[mwilbert]

Most of the "kids" that I know that moved away to other cities [[for jobs and a 'nightlife') are now starting a family...and have moved to the suburbs of those cities. The ones that remain in their adopted city are childless and/or from wealthy families [[able to afford a large place in the city, private school, car in the city, etc). Some have moved back to the suburbs of Metro Detroit.

To answer the question of why they moved, it was for better job opportunities [[both in the city and suburbs) than what the entire state of MI could provide, a vibrant city life in their 20s/early 30s, and a better opportunity to meet a wife/husband.

There is no doubt that the suburbs are prime territory for families with children, but I think this misses most of the point. When young people move away to other core cities in their 20s, and get married and have kids, they probably mostly aren't going to come back to Oakland County. Whereas if they moved to Detroit in their 20's, that would be much more likely. Also, that proportion of people who are childless, either for a long time or permanently, keeps going up. A lot of those people are likely to remain in urban cores for a pretty big chunk of their lives.

[Bham1982]

There is no doubt that the suburbs are prime territory for families with children, but I think this misses most of the point. When young people move away to other core cities in their 20s, and get married and have kids, they probably mostly aren't going to come back to Oakland County.

I think this probably isn't true. When people move to the suburbs, as most are apt to do, they are likely to consider things like family, caregiving and the like. If you're moving to some random suburb in Illinois or Ohio, you might as well do it in Michigan, because suburbs are more or less the same, but the advantage in Michigan [[provided you're from Michigan) is proximity to family and caregivers.

Certainly some stay in their out-of-state metros, and move to their local suburbs. My anecdotal sense is that lots of 20-somethings are single in other cities, and end up 30-something and coupled/with children back in Michigan.

Now if you hate suburbia, and desire an urban environment, no, you likely won't be moving back. But kids tend to change everything. When they're part of the equation, it doesn't really matter if you find urban areas more interesting, it's just a hell of a lot more difficult raising kids in the city, and your priorities totally change.

I think there are plenty of people acknowledging that Novi kind of sucks, yet, at the same time, Novi is a much easier place to be married with kids than some urban yuppie neighborhood.

[mwilbert]

I think this probably isn't true. When people move to the suburbs, as most are apt to do, they are likely to consider things like family, caregiving and the like. If you're moving to some random suburb in Illinois or Ohio, you might as well do it in Michigan, because suburbs are more or less the same, but the advantage in Michigan [[provided you're from Michigan) is proximity to family and caregivers.

Certainly some stay in their out-of-state metros, and move to their local suburbs. My anecdotal sense is that lots of 20-somethings are single in other cities, and end up 30-something and coupled/with children back in Michigan.

You are saying that people who move to a different major city in their 20's/30's are about as likely to move back to a local suburb as people who move into the local core city are? I don't think there is any chance that is true. Not to say it doesn't happen, but a lot of those people are gone for good.

I think there are plenty of people acknowledging that Novi kind of sucks, yet, at the same time, Novi is a much easier place to be married with kids than some urban yuppie neighborhood.

It is also not my experience that it is easier in general to raise kids in the suburbs than in a normal city either. Of course it depends on the suburb, but my impression is that people want to raise their kids in suburbs because the public schools tend to be better and perhaps that the environment is cleaner/safer, but there is nothing easy about providing the endless chauffeur services that kids in a non-walkable area are going to require. My daughter grew up in a suburb, and even if I thought the benefits were worth it [[which I'm not sure of), it was definitely not easier than living in town.

[Towne Cluber]

You are saying that people who move to a different major city in their 20's/30's are about as likely to move back to a local suburb as people who move into the local core city are? I don't think there is any chance that is true. Not to say it doesn't happen, but a lot of those people are gone for good.



It is also not my experience that it is easier in general to raise kids in the suburbs than in a normal city either. Of course it depends on the suburb, but my impression is that people want to raise their kids in suburbs because the public schools tend to be better and perhaps that the environment is cleaner/safer, but there is nothing easy about providing the endless chauffeur services that kids in a non-walkable area are going to require. My daughter grew up in a suburb, and even if I thought the benefits were worth it [[which I'm not sure of), it was definitely not easier than living in town.

1. From what I've seen, 25%-33% [[or slightly more) of 20-30 somethings that I know have moved back to Michigan in the last few years.

2. Again, from what I've seen/heard, parents have said it is far easier to raise kids in the suburbs than in a city. Given the endless activities these days [[spread out between suburbs and city), it's endless chauffeuring no matter where a family lives.

[iheartthed]

1. From what I've seen, 25%-33% [[or slightly more) of 20-30 somethings that I know have moved back to Michigan in the last few years.

That's a pretty poor recovery considering that there is virtually no in-migration to Michigan from non-natives.

I'm in my early 30s and of my friends who left the state I think less than 10% of us have gone back. Of those who haven't already gone back I don't think many of us have a real desire to ever go back. I'm an older millennial but it will be interesting to see how this plays out among the younger millennials who left college after the economic collapse.

[emu steve]

Wait for the "hard count". Remember how inaccurate they were with Detroit 2000-2010? The hard count in 2010 surprised the hell out of everyone.

Maybe, but Detroit during the 2000-10s was very, very difficult to estimate.

In demography change = births - deaths + net migration [[net migration was a huge loss for Detroit). Net migration is hardest to estimate and that decade was incredible unstable with depopulation.

I thought Census used driver license registration data. Someone moves from Southfield to [[downtown) Detroit so that would be -1 for Southfield and Oakland and +1 for Detroit and Wayne.

My guess is that school enrollment data [[is it still called the 'fourth Friday' count?) also shows gains/losses in the K-12 school aged population.

My guess that population estimates for 'stable' cities like D.C., N.Y., probably Chicago are accurate. Detroit still not sure... Maybe need to see school enrollment data to see if the neighborhoods are holding up or still losing a lot of people.

Just a population note: I saw a nice article on D.C.'s population growth and it is really slowing [[still + though) in recent years which seemed to do with a negative [[if I remember right) natural increase [[births - deaths) or actually decrease [[more dying then born) in recent years. In D.C.'s case, more people are moving in than moving out, the millennial effect [[?).

I suspect this is a big demographic trend in America: births - deaths isn't a big driver of population growth, it is migration either internal to the country, state, etc. or external such as people migration to the U.S.

[Bham1982]

My guess that population estimates for 'stable' cities like D.C., N.Y., probably Chicago are accurate. Detroit still not sure... Maybe need to see school enrollment data to see if the neighborhoods are holding up or still losing a lot of people.

DC and NYC aren't "stable"; they're growing [[actually fairly fast growing if you're talking city proper only).

The methodology being used for Census population calculations is the exact same for all cities, so it's either right or wrong. You cannot logically say "it's right for City A and wrong for City B".

Just a population note: I saw a nice article on D.C.'s population growth and it is really slowing [[still + though) in recent years which seemed to do with a negative [[if I remember right) natural increase [[births - deaths) or actually decrease [[more dying then born) in recent years. In D.C.'s case, more people are moving in than moving out, the millennial effect [[?).

Not true. DC's population growth has accelerated in recent years, and it has more inmigration than outmigration. The city has massively benefited from the growth in federal employment.

[mwilbert]

DC and NYC aren't "stable"; they're growing [[actually fairly fast growing if you're talking city proper only).

The methodology being used for Census population calculations is the exact same for all cities, so it's either right or wrong. You cannot logically say "it's right for City A and wrong for City B".

Well "right" and "wrong" might not be the best words, but certainly a methodology that works acceptably in one city might not work acceptably in another. For instance, one factor that goes into Census population estimates is number of housing units, which is relatively easy to observe. But if you had two cities, one without a lot of vacant units, and one with, unless you have a good adjustment for vacancies you probably aren't going to get a very good estimate in the second city, even though your estimate for the other city might be excellent.

[iheartthed]

Well "right" and "wrong" might not be the best words, but certainly a methodology that works acceptably in one city might not work acceptably in another. For instance, one factor that goes into Census population estimates is number of housing units, which is relatively easy to observe. But if you had two cities, one without a lot of vacant units, and one with, unless you have a good adjustment for vacancies you probably aren't going to get a very good estimate in the second city, even though your estimate for the other city might be excellent.

Don't they also use the county in which the city sits as a proxy for the estimate? That would also make the cities on the east coast easier to approximate than those in the Great Lakes, since major city boundaries on the east coast are often contiguous with county lines. Detroit and Chicago are in a similar situation since neither are contiguous with their county and the actual population decline in 2000 - 2010 of both was much more pronounced than the yearly estimates suggested.

[emu steve]

DC and NYC aren't "stable"; they're growing [[actually fairly fast growing if you're talking city proper only).

The methodology being used for Census population calculations is the exact same for all cities, so it's either right or wrong. You cannot logically say "it's right for City A and wrong for City B".


Not true. DC's population growth has accelerated in recent years, and it has more inmigration than outmigration. The city has massively benefited from the growth in federal employment.

I'll try to find the article, I probably even have the 'hard copy' [[WashPost article) but D.C.'s increase in population is NOW really slowing.

I believe births - deaths were negative [[i.e., more deaths then births).

Amazing statistic, but consistent with the 'millennial effect': Millennials moving to the city are childless... They occupy more and more housing units but the number of persons / housing unit is declining.

It used to be mom and dad and six kids and then mom and dad and two kids and now it is son and his girl friend [[or boy friend, whatever the case may be).

EDIT: Here is a WaPo article 3 weeks ago showing the dramatic decline in + [[in) migration for D.C. and the surrounding areas of D.C.

Amazing but Arlington, Alexandria, and Fairfax [[County) had net OUT migration.

D.C.'s net migration was cut in half in 2014 compared to 2013.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...b_graphic.html

Population growth in parts of the D.C. area are in areas where, largely foreign born [[?) families are having more children [[I live in a D.C. suburban area which has turned from empty nesters to younger families having a lot of children.)

A companion article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...f9d_story.html

For someone interested in demographic tends, it would be interesting to plot over [[1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010) the population for a central city, county, or whatever AND housing units for those same censuses.

In D.C. the number of housing units increases significantly faster than does population growth.

Net result: residents / housing unit declines over time.

In Detroit there has been significant depopulation as well as decline in the number of housing units.

[hortonz]

And people actually voted for this jackass? Seriously, if Dan Gilbert is an irritation maybe he should ask himself why Dan chose Detroit over his fiefdom. Maybe it's because he's doing a lousy job attracting new investment and Mike Duggan is doing an awesome job at bringing in new business.

[emu steve]

One thing about economic activity at say the state level. Population in Michigan is pretty stagnant. That means there is little real growth. Without robust growth what we have is city A trying to grow at city B's expense [[or vice versa). Kind of a zero sum game.

[professorscott]

One thing about economic activity at say the state level. Population in Michigan is pretty stagnant. That means there is little real growth. Without robust growth what we have is city A trying to grow at city B's expense [[or vice versa). Kind of a zero sum game.

Just so. The region needs to work together to attract talent from elsewhere, and then jobs will follow the talent. It isn't like it was fifty years ago, when you built a factory and people flocked to your town to work there. So the question is, how do we attract talent? Couple facts to feed such a discussion:

1. It's easier to try to attract young talent than older talent, just because younger adults are more portable. A forty year old is likely to have family or other commitments and be much more anchored to a community than someone who is twenty-five.

2. It's easy to gather data about communities that are successful in attracting young talent. The difficult part lies in determining which data are relevant. I have always felt that our cultural amenities were a strong positive [[arts, sports, the river, Canada, coney dogs) but our transportation and segregation were strong negatives. But I could be entirely wrong about this. Anyhow, once you figure out what your positives and negatives are, trumpet the positives to the skies, and work on the negatives.

By the way this doesn't work if we try to improve and market Detroit as one thing [[or two, or many) and Oakland County as another thing and Macomb as yet another thing and A-squared as another. We need to improve and market the whole area to be successful. Nobody [[in leadership) seems to be on the same page with me about this, though.

[BankruptcyGuy]

Just so. The region needs to work together to attract talent from elsewhere, and then jobs will follow the talent. It isn't like it was fifty years ago, when you built a factory and people flocked to your town to work there. So the question is, how do we attract talent? Couple facts to feed such a discussion:

1. It's easier to try to attract young talent than older talent, just because younger adults are more portable. A forty year old is likely to have family or other commitments and be much more anchored to a community than someone who is twenty-five.

2. It's easy to gather data about communities that are successful in attracting young talent. The difficult part lies in determining which data are relevant. I have always felt that our cultural amenities were a strong positive [[arts, sports, the river, Canada, coney dogs) but our transportation and segregation were strong negatives. But I could be entirely wrong about this. Anyhow, once you figure out what your positives and negatives are, trumpet the positives to the skies, and work on the negatives.

By the way this doesn't work if we try to improve and market Detroit as one thing [[or two, or many) and Oakland County as another thing and Macomb as yet another thing and A-squared as another. We need to improve and market the whole area to be successful. Nobody [[in leadership) seems to be on the same page with me about this, though.

Interesting article on fivethirtyeight.com on the topic of segregation.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...st-segregated/

The most segregated city in America? Chicago.