Detroit out-migration, in-migration, and the "other"

[bust]

It's a phenomenon in places characterized by substantial out-migration to be more resistant to taking people in. Less exposure to other cultures leads to the preservation of your own and stronger identification with local traditions. I suggest Spain and Italy are two examples. I believe Detroit is this way too.

On a micro level, growing up in an inner ring suburb it was ordinary for Detroiters to remind me I was an outsider. I still hear all the time that I'm "not really from Detroit". Slightly more macro, I encounter opinions from Detroiters and Metro Detroiters that are unreceptive to "others" [[take your pick which ones) much more often than I do from people where in-migraton happens more.

I'm speaking in generalities here, across the board. But is this a phenomenon? Why does it happen? What are the pros and the cons? How were things different in the first half of the 20th Century, when migration into Detroit was the norm? What has improved since then? What do we still need to learn?

I basically exhausted all my knowledge on this subject in the first two paragraphs. But I'm interested in the topic. I'm curious to hear your experiences and your thoughts.

[mwilbert]

It's a phenomenon in places characterized by substantial out-migration to be more resistant to taking people in. Less exposure to other cultures leads to the preservation of your own and stronger identification with local traditions. I suggest Spain and Italy are two examples. I believe Detroit is this way too.

On a micro level, growing up in an inner ring suburb it was ordinary for Detroiters to remind me I was an outsider. I still hear all the time that I'm "not really from Detroit". Slightly more macro, I encounter opinions from Detroiters and Metro Detroiters that are unreceptive to "others" [[take your pick which ones) much more often than I do from people where in-migration happens more.

I'm speaking in generalities here, across the board. But is this a phenomenon? Why does it happen? What are the pros and the cons? How were things different in the first half of the 20th Century, when migration into Detroit was the norm? What has improved since then? What do we still need to learn?

I basically exhausted all my knowledge on this subject in the first two paragraphs. But I'm interested in the topic. I'm curious to hear your experiences and your thoughts.

I'm not sure this is true, but if it is, I would suspect that one reason is that in general if an area has a lot of out-migration it also has a shortage of income-producing options. Despite the fact that in-migration tends to be an economic positive, people in a situation of scarcity are likely to feel that newcomers are competing for limited resources. Of course that isn't the only thing going on--people often have other issues with newcomers, and people in areas where they are common may learn to accept them better, and the new folks are also less conspicuous.

[Mackinaw]

It is hard to speak in generalities, but one of the places I lived as a transplant for several years, Newark NJ, really had this phenomenon going strong-- at least in some circles. Again, generalities are tough, and there were substantial groups that were extremely welcoming of outsiders [[perhaps not surprisingly, they were communities were the majority of persons were immigrants).

But a substantial part of the black community there, which had seen a seemingly perpetual out-flow of people moving 'up' to greater affluence or different geography via education/opportunity, really was hostile to outsiders-- at least at a political level. There was a tremendous distrust of any leadership that wanted to focus on downtown revitalization and getting residential development going there--- cause why would you want new yuppie blood? What could that do? And there was a tremendous distrust of Cory Booker when he was mayor because, you know, he was from another part of Jersey, not Newark, and went to Yale. Yes, he got elected [[the second try) and then re-elected, but not without some ugly, racist, at times anti-Semitic [[because of his supporters/friends) politics. It was apparently not enough that he had moved to Newark at least a decade prior and lived most of that decade in a housing project where he was living poor and became an activist and city councilman. Basically, he divided the city and half of its residents didn't trust him based on his outsider identity. He won by a good margin because common sense prevailed in just enough people, and because the non-black vote was heavily in his favor.

I see less of this in Detroit on the whole. There are and will be some pains associated with the imagery of Detroit's revitalization-- driven by those who are more affluent, and not majority black like the rest of the city-- but such pains seem underpinned by race and class issues, not a fear of outsiders. We will be best off if we can create institutions and meeting places and events that create integration between old Detroiters and new Detroiters-- through conversation and interaction will come trust. It should be only the extreme and the mentally disturbed few who remain distrustful or even hateful of newcomers, and anything that is actually hateful should be condemned. Anyone who spews hate of the outsiders [[whether the immigrant or the suburban transplant) should be ostracized. Having said that, if some newcomers refuse to meet and to integrate, and stay sealed up in their ivory towers, they too deserve criticism.

[belleislerunner]

Did it happen - perhaps - but it's also important to look at a city through the lense of time. Detroit is 300 years old.

You had all the settlers and their views from 1701-1801, indigenous and settlers.

You had 1801-1901, the immigrants pouring in settling in their respective areas.

1901-1950, you had $5/day wages and mass immigration from everywhere.

From 1950-1970, you had the tipping point and the exodus of select demographic populations.

From 1970-2010 you had the mass exodus of select demographic groups and a continued exodus of others.

From 2014- present you have the influx of a demographic group.

The point being, Detroit's history is much more than the last 40-50 years at "defining culture" - culture spans decades/generations. These past decades will definitely have sizable contributions to Detroit's history but it is a fallacy to think it represents the totality of Detroit's history. Each Detroiter is merely the sum of their own lives experiences and shouldn't be extrapolated to speak for the city as a whole. That we're losing or gaining our heritage.

As such, each new resident brings their own perspective to what makes Detroit great and how it is/can be. A block of people moving onto Seminole in 1920 vs 1960 vs 2000 vs 2020 will all have different ideas of what a "Detroiter" is and that's okay.

Detroit in 2055 could be 40% Asian or 40% Syrian or 40% Hondurian. That's okay. Think that's farfetched? Imagine what the residents in 1690 thought it would look like in 40 years? Imagine what the residents in 1900 thought it would look like in 1940? Imagine what the people in 1940 thought it would look like it would in 1980. Compare 1980 to 2020 when we get there in five years.

The bad news is things can rapidly deteriorate in a generation or two but they can also rebound in a generation or two. That should be the hope that keeps us all moving that this can be the greatest city in the world.

[Wesley Mouch]

...

But a substantial part of the black community there, which had seen a seemingly perpetual out-flow of people moving 'up' to greater affluence or different geography via education/opportunity, really was hostile to outsiders-- at least at a political level. There was a tremendous distrust of any leadership that wanted to focus on downtown revitalization and getting residential development going there--- cause why would you want new yuppie blood? What could that do? And there was a tremendous distrust of Cory Booker when he was mayor because, you know, he was from another part of Jersey, not Newark, and went to Yale. Yes, he got elected [[the second try) and then re-elected, but not without some ugly, racist, at times anti-Semitic [[because of his supporters/friends) politics. It was apparently not enough that he had moved to Newark at least a decade prior and lived most of that decade in a housing project where he was living poor and became an activist and city councilman. Basically, he divided the city and half of its residents didn't trust him based on his outsider identity. He won by a good margin because common sense prevailed in just enough people, and because the non-black vote was heavily in his favor.

I see less of this in Detroit on the whole. There are and will be some pains associated with the imagery of Detroit's revitalization-- driven by those who are more affluent, and not majority black like the rest of the city-- but such pains seem underpinned by race and class issues, not a fear of outsiders. We will be best off if we can create institutions and meeting places and events that create integration between old Detroiters and new Detroiters-- through conversation and interaction will come trust. It should be only the extreme and the mentally disturbed few who remain distrustful or even hateful of newcomers, and anything that is actually hateful should be condemned. Anyone who spews hate of the outsiders [[whether the immigrant or the suburban transplant) should be ostracized. Having said that, if some newcomers refuse to meet and to integrate, and stay sealed up in their ivory towers, they too deserve criticism.

This is something that needs a 'conversation'. All In The Family addressed this problem from a 70s white frame. Now we have a aughts-teens black frame.

Hostility to outsiders might be the biggest problem that Detroit faces. I hear the voices justifying the hostility. Sure, blacks were treated badly. But that's not the issue. The issue is how to move Detroit forward -- for everyone. And being hostile about others doesn't help.

I'm glad to hear that Detroit doesn't seem as insular as Newark. Hope.

[emu steve]

Did it happen - perhaps - but it's also important to look at a city through the lense of time. Detroit is 300 years old.

You had all the settlers and their views from 1701-1801, indigenous and settlers.

You had 1801-1901, the immigrants pouring in settling in their respective areas.

1901-1950, you had $5/day wages and mass immigration from everywhere.

From 1950-1970, you had the tipping point and the exodus of select demographic populations.

From 1970-2010 you had the mass exodus of select demographic groups and a continued exodus of others.

From 2014- present you have the influx of a demographic group.

The point being, Detroit's history is much more than the last 40-50 years at "defining culture" - culture spans decades/generations. These past decades will definitely have sizable contributions to Detroit's history but it is a fallacy to think it represents the totality of Detroit's history. Each Detroiter is merely the sum of their own lives experiences and shouldn't be extrapolated to speak for the city as a whole. That we're losing or gaining our heritage.

As such, each new resident brings their own perspective to what makes Detroit great and how it is/can be. A block of people moving onto Seminole in 1920 vs 1960 vs 2000 vs 2020 will all have different ideas of what a "Detroiter" is and that's okay.

Detroit in 2055 could be 40% Asian or 40% Syrian or 40% Hondurian. That's okay. Think that's farfetched? Imagine what the residents in 1690 thought it would look like in 40 years? Imagine what the residents in 1900 thought it would look like in 1940? Imagine what the people in 1940 thought it would look like it would in 1980. Compare 1980 to 2020 when we get there in five years.

The bad news is things can rapidly deteriorate in a generation or two but they can also rebound in a generation or two. That should be the hope that keeps us all moving that this can be the greatest city in the world.

i like your perspective. Demographic changes or trends are measured in decades, not years.

the question going forward is there a new demographic trend?

there is a return to the city trend in a number of cities. Detroit next??

[iheartthed]

I'm not sure this is true, but if it is, I would suspect that one reason is that in general if an area has a lot of out-migration it also has a shortage of income-producing options. Despite the fact that in-migration tends to be an economic positive, people in a situation of scarcity are likely to feel that newcomers are competing for limited resources. Of course that isn't the only thing going on--people often have other issues with newcomers, and people in areas where they are common may learn to accept them better, and the new folks are also less conspicuous.

Perceived threats to political influence causes this as well.

[mwilbert]

Perceived threats to political influence causes this as well.

Sure, but presumably there would be a sense of a threat to political influence from newcomers whether there had been other recent in-migration or not--that is certainly how it has worked in cities with successive waves of immigration in the past--so I don't think it is a very satisfactory explanation of the alleged phenomenon of greater unhappiness with an influx of people after an outflow.

[Gannon]

Given that the response to at least a few of the larger influxes of population seems to have been civil unrest unto rioting, I'd hope the modern leaders learn from the past and not aid the divide.

It doesn't appear to be the case, though.

The bankruptcy allowed governmental misbehavior and abuses to foment, and the current economic surge is further dividing the city, not enabling a true revival.


I am particularly sensitive to the responses whenever any journalist or citizen poses the question to authorities about the separation...you will hear Quinn and the gang at WDET pose the key phrase, Two Detroits, often. Public Radio is almost alone with their awareness of the issue, and seem to keep prodding the leaders to address it.

Sadly, from the responses aired, it is clear that from Snydely down to Dug-in that a certain cluelessness lingers. They only seem to see things from the economic perspective, without realizing the myopia...even tunnel-vision...which results. Economic analyses in a capitalist nation do not consider life unless it is either producing or consuming...leaving a huge fault-crack for many to fall in.

This truth will plague this city unless there is specific policy put in place...which often runs into gentrification momentum. We have seen throughout history who loses those encounters.

The bulldozers look radically different when you're on the business side of the blade.

No cheers on this one...

[belleislerunner]

"Economic analyses in a capitalist nation do not consider life unless it is either producing or consuming"

What are the other productive uses of life if you aren't producing or consuming?

[Wesley Mouch]

"Economic analyses in a capitalist nation do not consider life unless it is either producing or consuming"

That's an absurd comment.

Wikipedia: "Economics is the social science that seeks to describe the factors which determine the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services."

Social Science. Economists constantly concern themselves with human behavior, decisions, activity of all kinds. There would be no need for economics, but to improve the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, like food and agriculture.

Listen to Freakonomics podcasts and tell me that Economics has nothing to do with people.

[Ray1936]

Funny that no one has mentioned that those who remained in Detroit post 1980 allowed it to structurally deteriorate. It's turned into a huge junkyard.

[Jason]

Depending on the situation one element of it might be that people and the media have taken the tough aspects of Detroit and interpreted them as authenticity and grit and character and all those other things. We may be so used to that identity being co-opted that we have a negative reaction when people come off as identifying too strongly as "a Detroiter" without putting in "their dues" first.

It's probably easier for a foreigner to be accepted as an American than as a Detroit. Most people will accept you as an American once you get your white picket fence and have fulfilled your hot dog quota, but god only knows what you have to do to get your official Detroiter card.

[Gannon]

"Economic analyses in a capitalist nation do not consider life unless it is either producing or consuming"

What are the other productive uses of life if you aren't producing or consuming?

Geez, they've got you caught up in a false dichotomy...are you serious?!


Why does life have to be productive? Can't anyone just be?!

And...how do we define that term, even?


There is an entire life of experiences which cannot be monetized or valuated. Most of it, actually.


All life has inherent worth, well beyond how one contributes to the bottom line calculation.

Closer one gets to the balance...with the least possible production AND consumption...there is a huge void in policy driven by myopic, incomplete economics.

Those are the folks who are reluctantly thrown into this out-migration phenomena...the ones who have the harshest definition of gentrification. To them, it does not look like progress at all.


As far as I can tell, much of what constituted the Detroit many of us continued to love during and after the decline is being swept away as the decades-old Benign Neglect grows increasingly Malignant.

Don't take this as argument against any change...of course there were elements of the city that took advantage of the Neglect to affect negativity.


I'm merely arguing for those who fall through the cracks...one doesn't need to destroy and broom away all that was in order for change to be positive, but if one subscribes to that scorched-earth redevelopment style...individuals and items with value well beyond production and consumption are very likely to suffer and be lost.


Sincerely,
John

[Gannon]

Funny that no one has mentioned that those who remained in Detroit post 1980 allowed it to structurally deteriorate. It's turned into a huge junkyard.

I'd argue the opposite, it was those who abandoned the city who turned it into the junkyard you see.


Those who stayed, the ones I've met and known, have done their best with the "junk" to make their lives...and neighborhoods. Many have even made art out of it...but going along with my economic statements, most artists do not profit off of their vision and effort.

I am always amazed when I see yet another pristine home in the midst of squalor and destruction...or another forty-year-old hunk of Detroit iron, lovingly preserved in the habit and tradition of Sunday-go-to-meeting pride. That is the city I prefer to see and encourage. Generational stabilizing of the family tree and neighborhood, in the face of extreme systematic challenges...in the vacuum caused by economics driven only by production and consumption.


There is so much life in and around this junkyard...

[313WX]

One complaint I've heard from the few transplants who have lived/visited Michigan is that the people here are very grumpy and calloused. People here tend to always seem to be very stressed and lack any empathetic to the hardships their neighbors face. This of course could be a by-product of the severe economic depression the state has faced for at least the past 15 years and the blue collar culture that cultivates an attitude of toughness and resilience.

Another complaint I here is that the people in Michigan as a whole are very hard to befriend and close-minded. I think Michigan has the highest number of people of any state who were born and raised in-state, so you have a ton of people who formed their relationships with others early on and are used to things being done certain way after living here their whole lives that they're very reluctant to welcome newcomers into their cir cl with their differing perspective.

[Wesley Mouch]

I'd argue the opposite, it was those who abandoned the city who turned it into the junkyard you see. ...snip... There is so much life in and around this junkyard...

Assigning blame to those who left for the actions or inactions of those left behind is a mistake.

Urban Churches find it possible to build megachurches with grand materials. Yet they can't manage to make a dent in urban blight? No. Easier to blame the racists who left.

I'd keep my mouth shut... except that this idea is so destructive to the city I love. There's no excuse for the poor level of urban housekeeping in the City. Not racism, poverty, nor disinvestment and corporate green. Wealth Inequality doesn't explain the problem.

Underneath, there's a social problem that needs to be addressed. Denial and blame won't help.

[iheartthed]

Sure, but presumably there would be a sense of a threat to political influence from newcomers whether there had been other recent in-migration or not--that is certainly how it has worked in cities with successive waves of immigration in the past--so I don't think it is a very satisfactory explanation of the alleged phenomenon of greater unhappiness with an influx of people after an outflow.

I don't see why we just limit the observation to only places that have experienced severe population decline or economic decline. I mean, if we're talking about Detroit and it's economics... The ethnic communities that make up the city's population probably have had steadily increasing quality of life even while the city they lived in deteriorated. So I'm not sure it is intuitive that they would perceive outsiders as a threat that would displace them economically. OTOH, outsiders would obviously be a perceived political threat if the politically dominant did not feel that the newcomers shared the same values/interests of the majority. This is a pretty standard reaction of humans to immigrants.

[bust]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts. There's a lot to ponder here.

And I appreciate how some have expanded the discussion beyond the initial premise. That Detroit has recently seen a substantial out-migration is surely only one piece of a much larger puzzle. But I suspect it's a big piece, worthy of consideration.

Allow me to note I did not intend a conversation limited to the old city vs. suburbs conflict. That's a real problem, I'm curious why it exists, I intensely dislike it, and I'll be happy once it's resolved. I think Detroit's recent out-migration has a lot to do with it. But I did not intend to point a finger at city residents. My perception is it's more common to be reluctant to embrace "outsiders" across the area overall. The phenomenon is not limited to some city residents alone.

Like Mackinaw said, it's hard to speak in generalities. Yet I certainly am. And there are all kinds of exceptions. But it was not until I left the Detroit area that I appreciated how people elsewhere are more often open to outside influences, or at least happy to co-exist among them. And now, after becoming something of an outsider to the Detroit area myself, I'm considering coming back. I did not intend to discuss it, but to help explain my perspective: the consideration how receptive societies are to differences is especially important to me because I've married someone from a different country, with a noticeably different ethnic heritage; I'm considering bringing a foreign family to make the Detroit area home.

Of course the Detroit area has plenty of its own kinds of diversity. And there are so many wonderful people here, including my kin. My new family is equally wonderful, willing to adapt, eager to learn, and their kindness is reciprocated wherever they go. We'd have good lives in Detroit, I'm sure. But navigating alongside them reveals they encounter certain frustrations. Most stem from honest mistakes, and it's uncontroversial that those happen. Misunderstandings are natural between unfamiliar cultures. The key to avoiding them, and resolving them easily when they occur, is for both parties to have an open mind, and a willingness to learn.

Reeling this back in, while Detroit's city vs. suburb conflict is a real concern worth discussing, I was hoping for a broader conversation. We are many in this forum; we can discuss multiple issues, and more.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and experiences. I hope you don't mind my own.

[Ray1936]

Assigning blame to those who left for the actions or inactions of those left behind is a mistake.

Urban Churches find it possible to build megachurches with grand materials. Yet they can't manage to make a dent in urban blight? No. Easier to blame the racists who left.

I'd keep my mouth shut... except that this idea is so destructive to the city I love. There's no excuse for the poor level of urban housekeeping in the City. Not racism, poverty, nor disinvestment and corporate green. Wealth Inequality doesn't explain the problem.

Underneath, there's a social problem that needs to be addressed. Denial and blame won't help.

Damn, where's the "like" button for this post?

[Gpwrangler]

...or another forty-year-old hunk of Detroit iron, lovingly preserved in the habit and tradition of Sunday-go-to-meeting pride...

Are we talking vehicles here?

[Gannon]

Are we talking vehicles here?

Good gosh, I hope so!


Here is something curious...apparently not everyone can or will "out-migrate"...

[erikd]

Assigning blame to those who left for the actions or inactions of those left behind is a mistake.

Urban Churches find it possible to build megachurches with grand materials. Yet they can't manage to make a dent in urban blight? No. Easier to blame the racists who left.

I'd keep my mouth shut... except that this idea is so destructive to the city I love. There's no excuse for the poor level of urban housekeeping in the City. Not racism, poverty, nor disinvestment and corporate green. Wealth Inequality doesn't explain the problem.

Underneath, there's a social problem that needs to be addressed. Denial and blame won't help.

I would like to offer an alternative to the either/or argument of "blame the people who left" or "blame the people who are left."

In many [[and probably most) cases, the actual blame and fault does not rest on the individuals who left or didn't leave, but on major federal/state/local government policies, macroeconomic changes, and other factors outside of the control of the average person.

When the federal, state, and local governments decided to invest in freeways, and phase out streetcars, it drastically changed daily life for people in city neighborhoods. In the span of a decade or so, hundreds of thousands of people in Detroit switched from taking the streetcar to go to work and shopping trips inside the city, to driving on the new freeways out to the new office buildings and new shopping malls in the new suburbs.
-------

I don't think that it is necessarily accurate to blame people for shopping at Northland mall instead of downtown, when the removal of the streetcars and the construction of the freeways made it much easier to go out of the city than into downtown. The same goes for the workers who saw their jobs move out of the city and into the suburbs. At some point, it started to make sense for many people to follow the jobs and stores, and move out of the city.
-------

On the other hand, I also find it inaccurate and incorrect to blame the people who are still in the city for all of the problems that have been left for them to deal with. It should be obvious to any rational person that the rapid and overwhelming decline of population, jobs, and tax base that swept through Detroit was not manageable. I find it disingenuous to assert otherwise.
-------

The reality of the situation is that both of these "either/or" blame arguments are inaccurate and invalid, because the actual causes are much more complex and gray.

[erikd]

Funny that no one has mentioned that those who remained in Detroit post 1980 allowed it to structurally deteriorate. It's turned into a huge junkyard.

What is the basis for this assertion?
------------

Detroit had a peak population of 1.85 million in 1950. By 1980, Detroit's population dropped by 650,000 to 1.2 million. By 2010, Detroit's population was down another 490,000 from 1980, which was significantly less than the loss between 1950-1980.

Violent crime in Detroit started to rise in the mid '60s, and peaked in the mid '70s. Detroit had 113 homicides in 1950, 150 in 1960, 495 in 1970, and peaked at 714 in 1974. In 2000, it was 396, and 308 in 2010.

Detroit's streetcar system was torn out in the early to mid 1950s, with the last streetcar pulled off the Woodward line in 1956. Detroit's freeways were almost all built between 1950 and 1980, save for the final spur of 696, which was finished in 1989.

Downtown Detroit had one of the best retail collections on the planet in 1950, but after 30 years of building freeways and suburban shopping malls, it was basically dead by 1980, and the closure of Hudson's downtown store in January '83 was the final blow.

I could go on for hours with examples of the dramatic changes that happened between 1950 and 1980 [[most of them in the 50s and 60s) that structurally destabilized Detroit, and many other American cities as well.
-----------

I would love to hear your reasons for assigning the blame for Detroit's downfall on the people who were left in the city after 1980.

[Wesley Mouch]

What is the basis for this assertion?
------------

Detroit had a peak population of 1.85 million in 1950. By 1980, Detroit's population dropped by 650,000 to 1.2 million. By 2010, Detroit's population was down another 490,000 from 1980, which was significantly less than the loss between 1950-1980.

Violent crime in Detroit started to rise in the mid '60s, and peaked in the mid '70s. Detroit had 113 homicides in 1950, 150 in 1960, 495 in 1970, and peaked at 714 in 1974. In 2000, it was 396, and 308 in 2010.

Detroit's streetcar system was torn out in the early to mid 1950s, with the last streetcar pulled off the Woodward line in 1956. Detroit's freeways were almost all built between 1950 and 1980, save for the final spur of 696, which was finished in 1989.

Downtown Detroit had one of the best retail collections on the planet in 1950, but after 30 years of building freeways and suburban shopping malls, it was basically dead by 1980, and the closure of Hudson's downtown store in January '83 was the final blow.

I could go on for hours with examples of the dramatic changes that happened between 1950 and 1980 [[most of them in the 50s and 60s) that structurally destabilized Detroit, and many other American cities as well.
-----------

I would love to hear your reasons for assigning the blame for Detroit's downfall on the people who were left in the city after 1980.

Great reminder of the problems. I don't see how this results in inability to keep your neighborhood clean. Do you really think that economic challenges caused moral decay? I would think it would have resulted in more gardens to grow food -- yet the urban garden movement seems to have only 'sprouted' after 'in-migration'. Maybe immigration is a good thing -- even if not a plank of Black Nationalism.