Michigan is not growing to keep pace with other states

[bigboat]

According to the Detroit News this morning Michigan's population has only grown .03% since the last census in 2010. Michigan will lose another congressional seat next year and this will make 5 Michigan has lost since 1980. This will make Michigan more irrelevant in congress, unfortunately.

[EGrant]

A stagnant taxpayer base supporting more and more sprawl and infrastructure that we can't even maintain in the first place, seems like a recipe for a bright future...

[renf]

Michigan's population really is stagnant. The state apparently had a larger population in 2004 than at present. We are, alas, when compared to other states a low fertility, high mortality state. Michigan still loses on the exchange of population with other states and attracts a disproportionately small share of international migrants.
Ordinarily, a state will attract migrants and grow, only if there is an
increase in economic activity. On the other hand, population growth in a developed economy is a stimulus for further economic growth.
So far, the solons in Lansing have not developed plans to promotoe population growth although there are groups in Detroit promoting international migration to the metropolis. But, with the sharp decline in
fertility, it is necessary to think about strategies for closing public schools, reducing the number of state supported colleges and, perhaps, a substantial reduction in the number of school districts and local governments.
Somehow, I do not think we are going to hear much about this from our
officials and legislators in Lansing. It is difficult to plan for a decline in
population and employment.

[401don]

Most of the midwest has similar stagnant population growth to Michigan. Ohio has had some growth and it has been entirely due to immigration, led by Columbus. I agree Michigan needs to attract immigrants and investment.
If Ohio can do it, why not Michigan?

[313WX]

According to the Detroit News this morning Michigan's population has only grown .03% since the last census in 2010. Michigan will lose another congressional seat next year and this will make 5 Michigan has lost since 1980. This will make Michigan more irrelevant in congress, unfortunately.

Metro Detroit is also not growing to keep pace with other metro areas.

Seattle and Minneapolis will both surpass it by 2030.

[Atticus]

Metro Detroit is also not growing to keep pace with other metro areas.

Seattle and Minneapolis will both surpass it by 2030.

Metro Detroit has had very poor legislative representation in Lansing for at least the past 40 years. And this is despite the fact that over half of the state’s population lives in the 7 county region overseen by SEMCOG.

Basically, despite being in the majority, the region can’t elect political leaders with strong enough ideas and bargaining to improve the region’s economy. Consistently “shooting yourself in the foot” would be the best way to describe our state legislature.

[Richard]

Metro Detroit is also not growing to keep pace with other metro areas.

Seattle and Minneapolis will both surpass it by 2030.

Seattle peaked because people moved in mass to escape California,they turned it into what they left,Seattle went over the hump and is now declining.

Minneapolis was not a very nice place in the 70s,thier saving grace is they have always been the headquarters of a large amount of a diverse group of Fortune 500 companies.

People like to also use California as a goal to achieve but they are also losing population and buisness at a faster rate then anybody else.

I think a lot has to do with what other posters touched one,polices enacted at the state level.

I also do not think the concept of Detroit was once a city of 2 million or what ever applies,if one is going to do comparisons it would be more geared towards other cities that were devastated in the similar manner,and have slowly come back.

Where are you at today and where do you want to be tomorrow and what does it take to get there.

The catch 22 is unless the current residents are happy where they are at it is tough to encourage others to relocate there,they have to have a reason,but the current residents are taxed supporting an infrastructure designed to accommodate twice the population.

Todays crutch could be tomorrowÂ’s saving grace,because you actually have the ability in place already to accept future growth,something that has been a detriment to those in comparison.

Florida is surpassing California in growth,it is not because of palm trees and sandy beaches,it is flipping hot in the summer and all kinds of critters that want to eat you and your small pets.

But it does have a lot of polices in place that protect the individual so they can keep what they have while obtaining it and after they obtain it.

I think Detroit will figure it out and move forward while figuring it out,it has come a long ways in a short amount of time already.

[iheartthed]

Michigan hasn't grown much since 1970, so this isn't really new. Michigan added just about as many residents between 1960 and 1970 as it has in the 5 decades since.

[Seven&wyo]

Seattle peaked because people moved in mass to escape California,they turned it into what they left,Seattle went over the hump and is now declining.

Minneapolis was not a very nice place in the 70s,thier saving grace is they have always been the headquarters of a large amount of a diverse group of Fortune 500 companies.

People like to also use California as a goal to achieve but they are also losing population and buisness at a faster rate then anybody else.

I think a lot has to do with what other posters touched one,polices enacted at the state level.

I also do not think the concept of Detroit was once a city of 2 million or what ever applies,if one is going to do comparisons it would be more geared towards other cities that were devastated in the similar manner,and have slowly come back.

Where are you at today and where do you want to be tomorrow and what does it take to get there.

The catch 22 is unless the current residents are happy where they are at it is tough to encourage others to relocate there,they have to have a reason,but the current residents are taxed supporting an infrastructure designed to accommodate twice the population.

Todays crutch could be tomorrowÂ’s saving grace,because you actually have the ability in place already to accept future growth,something that has been a detriment to those in comparison.

Florida is surpassing California in growth,it is not because of palm trees and sandy beaches,it is flipping hot in the summer and all kinds of critters that want to eat you and your small pets.

But it does have a lot of polices in place that protect the individual so they can keep what they have while obtaining it and after they obtain it.

I think Detroit will figure it out and move forward while figuring it out,it has come a long ways in a short amount of time already.

It's funny I have family in Portland, Seattle and Colorado and they absolutely loathe Californians. From what they tell me they basically move en mass to other cities and drive up prices to the point where it's borderline unaffordable. I even have familythinking about moving to Kansas City since it's more affordable. I remember an article stating in 2018 Detroit lost less than half a percentage point of it's population. I think the population of the city after the 2020 census will be lower then the previous one, but I think the population will be rising soon if not already. As for the population stagnation of Michigan overall I can't be too surprised. There are so many dead little towns up north it's mind boggling. I'm very proimmigrant, but it doesn't seem like the current administration is very kind to them as of right now so I don't t know how feasible it would be to depend on that. On the other hand I know nothing of what it takes to immigrate here so what do I know

[Meddle]

I 'sprawled' away to the country as did several others I knew there. Nearly everyone I knew there is either gone from the area, or gone from the planet.

No more hustle, bustle or high taxes.

[Canadian Visitor]

The obsession with population growth is odd.

Its quality over quantity. You want the Luxembourg standard of living, you don't require a lot of people, you require smart, well paid people.

The world is overpopulated with humans and this is a strain on the environment.

The idea that all growth is good growth is such nonsense.

The mindset needs to be 'smart growth'.

In the context of Michigan that means having more people live in Detroit and its inner burbs and de-commissioning expensive to service ex-urbs in favour of farmland or nature.

It means similar moves to larger urban nodes in key parts of the State, Kalamazoo, Pt. Huron, Sault Saint Marie and so on.

It means phasing smaller centers that are non-viable out of existence or back to quaint villages.

***

It also means focusing on education, on productivity per worker and on quality of life.

That not only isn't achieved through large-scale population growth, its almost always diminished.

Time to re-think the goals and the ways of measuring success.

[313WX]

The mindset needs to be 'smart growth'.

That's all fine and dandy.

The issue here is Detroit and Michigan are seeing [[statisically) *NO* growth.

[Hypestyles]

state: invest more in K-16 public education

[Atticus]

The mid-to-larger sized states that are doing well in population growth tend to have well run state governments. There are good conservative governments and bad conservative governments, just like there are good liberal governments and bad liberal governments.

In today’s polarized climate, very few can see the difference. Liberals think both Kansas and Texas have awful state governments because both are conservative and they despise most conservative thinking. But an objective person can see that what Texas [[or Florida or Utah)’s state government is doing actually works, where as Kansas [[and Michigan’s legislature) have been colossal failures. Again, Dems hate them all because they are all conservative, and Republicans love them all, because they are all conservative. But very few can actually see the subtle differences, and even fewer can recognize why one state is successful and the other fails.

The same is true among liberal governments [[Illinois = bad liberal politics, Minnesota = good liberal politics). But again Republicans hate both because both are liberal, and Democrats think both are superior to any conservative ideology, despite the fiscal cliff Illinois is about to fall into.

Michigan has been cursed with a horrible conservative legislature for decades, and Republicans are too incompetent to realize it. Even compared to neighboring Indiana, Michigan’s version of conservatism fails time and time again. And of course the liberals simply hate it all because the Republicans are in charge.

Point being, very few people can actually discern a good conservative/liberal policy from a bad one, and the few that can have not been in charge here in Michigan.

[Atticus]

state: invest more in K-16 public education

Doesn’t matter, the graduates will still leave whether they had a good education or a bad one. More educated people tend to have less kids, and at older ages. So arguably that works against population growth.

If you are talking about quality of life, sure more investment could help. But the problem is the only real effective way to improve education is to reduce class sizes [[hire more teachers), and pay teachers more. Right now a large percentage of “smart” people refuse to consider teaching as an option, because of how bad the pay is. Better pay equals better students going into education degrees, and eventually better teachers and improved student educations.

The bigger issue though is increasing teacher pay [[and the number of teachers) requires more spending, which requires higher taxes. In Michigan, conservatives in charge believe all taxes are bad, without exception. Just look at the roads, where the problem and solution [[more gas tax) is obvious. But because the solution requires taxing, the challenge can’t be overcome.

[ddaydetroit]

I agree 100% I like the country being country why do more people to make the suburbs of Detroit to expand out any more then they are.
I have no problem with no population growth in Michigan

[Canadian Visitor]

That's all fine and dandy.

The issue here is Detroit and Michigan are seeing [[statisically) *NO* growth.

No population growth.

But that's not the correct measure.

More people to divvy up the pie to is not the answer unto itself.

A larger pie is.....

Note than in 2017 Michigan was tied for 6th in the US in real GDP per capita growth, at 2%

That ain't so bad.

The challenge for Michigan is that as at 2018, its overall GDP per capita is 36th in the U.S.

That has nothing to do with population growth and everything to do with too many low-wage jobs vs high-wage jobs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...GDP_per_capita

Note how this correlates with the high school graduation rate by state, as at 2014-2015

https://www.governing.com/gov-data/h...-by-state.html

Where Michigan is also 36th.

Michigan's level of post-secondary attainment is also below US norms.

https://www.insidehighered.com/quick...tainment-goals

We can also see that the Michigan urbanization rate is relatively low, well below many high GDP per capita performers like Conn, and New Jersey and Mass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbani..._United_States

Educate, urbanize, succeed.

Note that there are low urbanization states that succeed but that is mostly linked to natural resources [[oil) which is not in Michigan's future.

[iheartthed]

If Michigan had grown at the same rate as Luxembourg since 1960 the state would have 5 million more residents than it does today.

[Luke09]

despite the fiscal cliff Illinois is about to fall into.

Illinois is a state that faces serious issues. Probably the worst run state in the union and the population there is dropping quicker than any other state. Illinois will likely get passed by Ohio, NC and Georgia in the coming decade.

[Canadian Visitor]

If Michigan had grown at the same rate as Luxembourg since 1960 the state would have 5 million more residents than it does today.

Not the number to be concerned about.

Michigan GDP per capita $43,372 USD

Luxembourg GDP per capita $103,104 USD

There's the standard of living difference. Not the total population number.

[Richard]

Illinois is a state that faces serious issues. Probably the worst run state in the union and the population there is dropping quicker than any other state. Illinois will likely get passed by Ohio, NC and Georgia in the coming decade.

^ add New York State to that list also,Detroit has been there done that and under the surface is probably in better fiscal shape then half of the cities that some yearn it to mimic.

I think if there was a major economic downturn it would hurt Detroit and Michigan but not push it over the edge like it will many others.

[313WX]

No population growth.

But that's not the correct measure...

Neither is no population growth.

Just look at Japan as an example of why. The problem you have is that with too few new people, you have an increasingly aging population who can no longer contribute the tax revenue necessary to support the infrastructure in place.

[Luke09]

People like to also use California as a goal to achieve but they are also losing population and buisness at a faster rate then anybody else.

Except that California grew by 2.2M people in this decade and recently surpassed the UK economy to become the 5th largest in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_population

[Luke09]

^ add New York State to that list also,Detroit has been there done that and under the surface is probably in better fiscal shape then half of the cities that some yearn it to mimic.

I think if there was a major economic downturn it would hurt Detroit and Michigan but not push it over the edge like it will many others.

Yes NY state too. IF there is a major economic downturn, IL and possibly Chicago might see bankruptcy

[Richard]

Except that California grew by 2.2M people in this decade and recently surpassed the UK economy to become the 5th largest in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_population

Between 2007 and 2016, some 5 million people moved in to California and 6 million people moved out to other states — a net loss of about 1 million residents, the report relayed.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...htmlstory.html

California-based Spectrum Location Solutions, found that roughly 9,000 California companies moved their headquarters or diverted projects to out-of-state locations in the last seven years due to the Golden State’s “hostile” business environment. As the DBJ points out, companies are fleeing California to escape escalating costs and regulations and states like Texas and Nevada with no income tax and high relative purchasing power are the key beneficiaries:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...tes-california