A proposal to Merge Detroit with Wayne County

[Danny]

Just to be clear, without the migration from Detroit, Oakland County would have lost population, last Census, and Macomb County's population would have been much, much less if not negative, too. Every central county [[Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb) of the metro lost a considerable amount of their white population. The metropolitan area as a whole lost population [[a statistically significant 3.5%), so the "growth" you see in Oakland isn't what it appears to be on paper.

For a suburban county that large and wealthy in this nation to post an aenemic 0.7% growth over an entire decade - really a stagnation - points to some long-term demographic issues and likely decline over the next decade if Detroit doesn't get back on its feet. This isn't some morbid wish or tear-down, it's just facts. Even seemingly healthy middle-ring mega-burbs posted significant losses [[relative to both the growth of the nation as a whole and similar suburban counties across the country) or the most modest of gains in Oakland County.

Last night, did a population rundown of the tri-county area, in specific, to see how the population has changed since the 1970 Census, which I believe is the first decade when the inner-metro started posting population drops. Here is the trend:

1970: 4,199,931
1980: 4,040,284 [[-3.8%)
1990: 3,912,678 [[-3.1%)
2000: 4,043,467 [[+3.3%)
2010: 3,863,924 [[-4.4%)

As you can see, the core metro area has basically been the same size for a good 40 years, now, and it seems most recently that now even the Oakland and Macomb are starting to lose singificant demographic bases. It seems that, now, the "growth" of these two areas is exclusively or near exclusively the result of out-migration from Detroit proper seeing as how the white population is falling, on net, in all of these counties for the first time ever.

NO, its Wayne County that contribute to the sudden population decline. Not Oakland and Macomb County. Both of those countries have endure population growth with no signs of declining. You have analyze data from the tri-counties making you think theoretically that Wayne, Oakland and Macomb lost population. Do more research by looking it the percentages from ethnic, economic and regional migration from SEMCOG and NY Times projects. There you will find your answer.

[Danny]

Look at the census map at the NY Times that has population by census tract. You can see that even in places like Farmington Hills, Novi, Canton and Plymouth Township, population is declining in the areas of the communities that were the first to develop. That's due to a combination of factors but it shows that even in "desirable" communities, there are areas where the exodus of people leaving isn't offset by people moving into those areas.

YES, because the inner ring suburbs that borders Detroit had experienced an influx of middle to low-income African Americans and ethnic races starting from Southfield, Oak Park, Lathrup Village, Royal Oak TWP. and Pontiac. That would most white middle families in a state of racial fear that they would move further north to ex-urbs. But why is Oakland County as a whole has population growth and other areas on OC cities with negative population growth? That's because where 10 to 100 blacks and ethnic folks move into the inner ring OC cities which where mostly whites, they will move out by 100 families a year. Same trend is going on on Macomb County cities, too. This is NOT just white folks want more space and greener areas. This is an issue of race, peers and fears.

[Danny]

Well, less loss anyway.

More growth from middle class blacks [[ Mostly from Detroit) and other ethnic folks. L.B. Patterson makes sure that OC is the next regional richest county in the State of Michigan before he leaves office dies. He doesn't give hoot what Detroit, Wayne County and State of Michigan is doing unless they join with his ideals.

[Bham1982]

Another issue is that we may be conflating population trends with decline.

Just because an area has negative population growth does not mean it's declining.

For example, Birmingham grew in population but Bloomfield Township shrank. Does this mean Birmingham is doing better than Bloomfield? Not necessarily.

The difference, probably, is that Birmingham has tons of bigfoot homes built on the site of bungalow teardowns. The bungalows tend to have small households and the new bigfoot homes tend to have larger households. Hence, the population increase.

In Bloomfield, they also have teardowns, but it's mostly big homes being replaced by even bigger homes. I doubt household size changes.

In Birmingham, many of the bungalows are tiny and really only suitable [[by today's standards) for small households.

Also, there were some condos built in Birmingham. No way they allow condos in Bloomfield.

[JMarx]

Surprised no one has posted this related article yet:

Don't Shrink Detroit, Super-Size It

By Mark Binelli

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...size-it/73165/

[NorthEndere]

You guys completely missed my point. The days of Oakland [[and maybe Macomb) growing from in-migration from anywhere besides Wayne County are done. There is no more net in-migration from either within the state, nationally, or internationally. And, Detroit is quite literally running out of bodies to bleed across 8 Mile. If Oakland doesn't post a population lost over the next decade, I'll be shocked. Again, Oakland only grew because of Detroit out-migration. If you could take that number out, it'd have lost population, period. The entire metro area is a demographic ticking time bomb without higher in-migration, immigration and births. That's not an opinion; the Census showed this.

Oakland used to be able to get along because it did have quite a bit of in-migration from outside the city of Detroit [[though, that migration definitely did inflate the appearance of growth), and had a substantial amount of immigration. Hopefully, the economy turns around to the point where this happens again, but I'm not seeing it. Metro Detroit, as a whole, is in demographic trouble for real, this time.

[Bham1982]

You guys completely missed my point. The days of Oakland [[and maybe Macomb) growing from in-migration from anywhere besides Wayne County are done. There is no more net in-migration from either within the state, nationally, or internationally.

This is simply false. There's lots of domestic and international migration to both Oakland and Macomb.

Oakland is, by far, the most popular county for expats and international types. All the Italians from Fiat live in Oakland. Same with the Germans when they owned Chrysler.

They currently have huge Italian language banners up at Somerset Park apartments. I have Italian and French expats on my Birmingham block. The Japanese community is in Novi. Country Day and the International Academy are big draws for foreign professionals. There's even a German school.

And Macomb? Sterling Heights is the #1 city for Iraqi refugees in the U.S. Ryan Road is America's Chaldeantown. Many of these older communities in both counties have tons of intl. migration.

Now obviously Wayne County is the biggest source of inmigration for both counties, but that's likely been true since these counties have been in existence.

And, Detroit is quite literally running out of bodies to bleed across 8 Mile.

If there are 713,000 Detroiters, and if outmigration continues at the same level, Oakland and Macomb don't have to worry about a decrease in Wayne migration for at least 50 years.

And I'm definitely not going to speculate about Metro Detroit in 2061.

If Oakland doesn't post a population lost over the next decade, I'll be shocked.

And I would be quite surprised if it posted a population loss. Why would it? Southeast Michigan had basically the worst decade ever, and it still grew.

This decade is already much stronger. Michigan's economy has vastly outperformed the rest of the country in the past year.

Again, Oakland only grew because of Detroit out-migration. If you could take that number out, it'd have lost population, period.

Yes, and Oakland only grew because of Detroit outmigration basically since the beginning of time. It never grew because of folks from the U.P. or Toledo or Nigeria.

Who do you think built Southfield, Troy, Warren and Royal Oak? Almost all were Detroiters.

The entire metro area is a demographic ticking time bomb without higher in-migration, immigration and births. That's not an opinion; the Census showed this.

The Census showed that parts of the metro are growing and other parts are declining. Perhaps you're uncomfortable that certain counties are performing better than others, because it calls into the question the "we all swim or sink together" meme.

The main problems in Metro Detroit aren't urban decline, suburbanization, lack of public transit or race relations. The main problem has been the decline of the auto industry and the region's reliance on this single industry.

When autos sell, Metro Detroit booms.

This region was the wealthiest in the country in 1970, and the City of Detroit was already in very deep doo-doo. History shows that the relative health of the center city isn't critical to overall regional economic health.

So while I want downtown to revitalize, and I hope for a stronger Detroit, it's not really critical to the region. The auto industry is critical, as is increased diversification. Downtown and Detroit will hopefully play a big role in this diversification, but it's really not the main storyline here.

[Novine]

"The Census showed that parts of the metro are growing and other parts are declining. Perhaps you're uncomfortable that certain counties are performing better than others, because it calls into the question the "we all swim or sink together" meme."

The problem with your argument is that it ignores the reality that no other successful metro area in the country is following this pattern. Those metro areas are actually growing, not simply shifting people around the region. In SE Michigan, the overall metro area isn't growing at all. By what standard is this a success?

[mwilbert]

I think the different views here reflect fundamentally different notions about what is going on in Southeastern Michigan [[or the CSA, if you prefer).

If I believed that the last decade was an anomaly, and that the economy would create large numbers of jobs in the region going forward, then I would expect most of Oakland County would do fine and its population would probably rise a bit over the next decade.

I don't believe that at all, and I believe that in fact the area's population hasn't even adjusted to all the jobs which have already been lost and will not return. The revival in employment over the past year is welcome, but it is the [[small) correction of an overshoot, and not a sustainable trend. I also think that the vast bulk of the region is fundamentally unattractive to young people which reduces the attractiveness of the region to employers and makes additional population losses almost inevitable, as those people will form households someplace else.

Here's a few employment numbers from the BLS for you to contemplate: [[these are for the MSA)

Jan 2001 2,153,468
Jan 2010 1,744,098 [[this is the low--note that 19% of jobs have been lost over 9 years)
Jan 2011 1,778,181 [[now we've only lost 17.5% over 10 years.)

On the other hand the MSA population has only fallen about 4%. I don't think that combination reflects equilibrium. [[Because of changes in how they calculate employment, it is possible that this overstates the loss of employment by 1.5% or so, but I don' think that fundamentally changes the situation.)

I am fundamentally optimistic that things will bottom out and eventually improve, but that process is going to involve the region shedding a lot more people.

[NorthEndere]

I don't think Bham man understands what "net" means. The core of Metro Detroit hasn't had net in-migration from the rest of the country in years. This is finally being exposed. Again, for the first time ever, all three core metropolitan counties lost singiifcant white population. I don't think people understand how big of a demographic change that is from decades past. With whites being the base of the population for the area, and with Michigans black population also beginning to drop [[and not enough other minorities to replace this loss), things are fundamentally different now than in decades past. The metropolitan area is in trouble, demographically. If the out-migration isn't turned around or at least stymied, there aren't enough births, minorities, and immigration in the world that's going to offset the out-migration in the region. It used to be the basic trend was people fleeing Detroit for Western Wayne and the two northern counties; now, the base population is leaving the core metro, altogether.

[313WX]

Look, 240K people left Wayne County [[237K of which came from Detroit) yet the MSA outside Wayne only gained 86K.

Anyone care to explain what the hell happened to the other 154K? When you do this, could you also explain to me the logic of celebrating a gross gain when you have an overall net loss?

[NorthEndere]

Look, 240K people left Wayne County [[237K of which came from Detroit) yet the MSA outside Wayne only gained 86K.

Anyone care to explain what the hell happened to the other 154K? When you do this, could you also explain to me the logic of celebrating a gross gain when you have an overall net loss?

Bingo. You did what I did in far fewer words.

[Bham1982]

" In SE Michigan, the overall metro area isn't growing at all. By what standard is this a success?

Metro Detroit isn't a success.

But I don't think the main problem is sprawl, lack of transit, etc. The problem is Big 3 and lack of diversification, IMO.

Plenty of booming metros have pathetic cores [[Orlando, Phoenix, Dallas, etc.), and plenty of strong-cored metros are declining [[Pittsburgh, Cleveland, St. Louis, etc.).

IMO, it's much more nuanced than "fix Detroit and you fix SE Michigan".

[Bham1982]

I don't think Bham man understands what "net" means. The core of Metro Detroit hasn't had net in-migration from the rest of the country in years.

Growth is growth. It doesn't matter if the folks are from Detroit or Timbuktu.

Why does growth not count if there is negative net domestic in-migration?

Using your standard, I guess NYC, LA, San Francisco/Silicon Valley, Boston and DC are all in trouble, because their metros all have negative domestic in-migration.

Heck some of these places have had negative domestic in-migration since basically these cities were founded. Immigrants have always been their lifeblood.

If Oakland and Macomb counties start declining, then there may be cause for concern. Until that happens, you're just twisting yourself in knots, trying to find some negative angle to the population growth, IMO.

[Bham1982]

Look, 240K people left Wayne County [[237K of which came from Detroit) yet the MSA outside Wayne only gained 86K.

Anyone care to explain what the hell happened to the other 154K? When you do this, could you also explain to me the logic of celebrating a gross gain when you have an overall net loss?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

Obviously folks move all over the place.

Not all folks who leave Wayne go to Oakland or Macomb. Similarly not all folks who move to Oakland or Macomb are from Wayne.

And noone is "celebrating" the demographic issues in Metro Detroit. Quite the contrary. It seems, however, that some folks are uncomfortable that the region's weaknesses are not shared equally.

[313WX]

Growth is growth. It doesn't matter if the folks are from Detroit or Timbuktu.

Why does growth not count if there is negative net domestic in-migration?

Using your standard, I guess NYC, LA, San Francisco/Silicon Valley, Boston and DC are all in trouble, because their metros all have negative domestic in-migration.

Heck some of these places have had negative domestic in-migration since basically these cities were founded. Immigrants have always been their lifeblood.

If Oakland and Macomb counties start declining, then there may be cause for concern. Until that happens, you're just twisting yourself in knots, trying to find some negative angle to the population growth, IMO.

I'm glad you're not my accountant.

So using your logic, if we had a gross gain of 130K jobs but a gross loss of 245K would it still be job growth? Also, if my business had a net income of $435K but net expenses of $678K is it still gaining income?

[mwilbert]

iheartthed posted this in a different thread, but it is apropos here. Of course this is the ever-cheery News.

http://detnews.com/article/20110407/...#ixzz1Iq74Fv1x

[Bham1982]

I'm glad you're not my accountant.

So using your logic, if we had a gross gain of 130K jobs but a gross loss of 245K would it still be job growth? Also, if my business had a net income of $435K but net expenses of $678K is it still gaining income?

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the conversation.

Per the Census, Oakland and Macomb are gaining population. There's no disputing this. And suburban Wayne is losing population. Again, no dispute.

The claim some are making is that the population growth is somewhat less legitimate because these counties have negative net domestic migration [[in other words, more non-international folks are moving out than moving in, and population growth is only from natural increase and international migration).

While this is true, I have no idea why it's relevant. NYC, DC, LA, SF, Boston, Miami, etc. etc. all have more U.S.-born folks moving out than moving in, and all grow due to immigration and natural increase.

This is the nature of most metros. It's actually the rare exception for a large, mature metropolitan county to have positive net domestic migration.

[mwilbert]

Per the Census, Oakland and Macomb are gaining population. There's no disputing this. And suburban Wayne is losing population. Again, no dispute.

Actually I do dispute that Oakland county is gaining population. I think it gained population up to maybe 2005 and then started losing. I am pretty sure it will lose more.

[Bham1982]

Actually I do dispute that Oakland county is gaining population. I think it gained population up to maybe 2005 and then started losing. I am pretty sure it will lose more.

I would agree it's possible that Oakland lost in some of the later years of the decade, but it's all speculative, and the only definitive source [[Census) only counts from a decennial perspective.

Until that source registers decline, it's just biased guessing.

And if it's true that Oakland lost in some years, it still doesn't change the central point, which is that some counties are doing much better than others, and that relative population and economic trends differ considerably across jurisdictions.

[313WX]

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the conversation.

Per the Census, Oakland and Macomb are gaining population. There's no disputing this. And suburban Wayne is losing population. Again, no dispute.

The claim some are making is that the population growth is somewhat less legitimate because these counties have negative net domestic migration [[in other words, more non-international folks are moving out than moving in, and population growth is only from natural increase and international migration).

If you were an accountant of my business and you tried to rationalize how an income of 435K despite my business LOSING $243K is good you would be fired.

Could you tell me what happened to the other 154K missing from the 2000 census? Once you do, maybe then your argument will hold some water [[not really).

Then has nothing to do with the migration rate, I'm strictly referencing the census numbers.

BTW, for your other MSA examples, Miam I know for sure gained population, and I'm pretty sure NYC, LA, SF and Boston and LA did too. Fact is even despite their out-migration rates they still have enough in-migration to make up for it, which is what Metro Detroit doesn't have. So those aren't the best of examples to support your point.

[Bham1982]

If you were an accountant of my business and you tried to rationalize how an income of 435K despite my business LOSING $243K is good you would be fired.

Again, per the Census, Oakland and Macomb are GAINING population. There is no loss by any rational standard.

Your hypothetical numbers have nothing to do with reality, which is that these counties are growing.

Could you tell me what happened to the other 154K missing from the 2000 census? Once you do, maybe then your argument will hold some water [[not really).

Who is "missing"? What are you even referring to?

The Census does household-based population counts. There is no such thing as "missing".

Is this 154k number the net domestic migration from Oakland County for 2000-2010?

If it's true [[doesn't sound true), then Oakland County must be an immigration and babymaking boomtown.

[313WX]

Again, per the Census, Oakland and Macomb are GAINING population. There is no loss by any rational standard.

Your hypothetical numbers have nothing to do with reality, which is that these counties are growing.

Who is "missing"? What are you even referring to?

The Census does household-based population counts. There is no such thing as "missing".

Is this 154k number the net domestic migration from Oakland County for 2000-2010?

If it's true [[doesn't sound true), then Oakland County must be an immigration and babymaking boomtown.

Do you know the difference between net and gross?

It's basic addition and subtraction Bham1982. If 240K left Wayne County then in order to prevent an overall MSA loss the rest of the MSA would have had to measure a gain of 240K or greater.

It doesn't matter if someone saw a gross gain if there's a net loss. It's that simple. the Metro area shrunk, that's a fact.

My hypothetical situation is relevant to the discussion in that you're using the same method you would when mesuring the population numbers.

[mwilbert]

I would agree it's possible that Oakland lost in some of the later years of the decade, but it's all speculative, and the only definitive source [[Census) only counts from a decennial perspective.

Until that source registers decline, it's just biased guessing.

I don't see why it should be particularly biased; I have no special interest in Oakland County's population declining. I just think the evidence indicates it probably is. I don't claim to be able to prove it, but the numbers and all those empty houses make me think I'm right.

And if it's true that Oakland lost in some years, it still doesn't change the central point, which is that some counties are doing much better than others, and that relative population and economic trends differ considerably across jurisdictions

How did that become the central point? Did someone claim the problems were equally distributed somehow? I didn't notice that. Asserting that the region as a whole has problems isn't asserting those problems are all equally severe. And while it seems to me that you are too optimistic about the prospects for the region, I am quite sure that Detroit will lose more people than Oakland county over the next ten years, and I said so earlier in this thread.

[Bham1982]

Do you know the difference between net and gross?

There is only gross. There is no net. We are talking total decennial population counts.

The fact that there may have been a net loss of redheads or Carpathians or whatever is irrelevent to total population counts.

It's basic addition and subtraction Bham1982. If 240K left Wayne County then in order to prevent an overall MSA loss the rest of the MSA would have had to measure a gain of 240K or greater.

We were talking Oakland County, not Wayne County. Oakland grew, and Wayne shrank.

And yes, obviously the MSA shrank. That's the whole point. Despite the overall regional economic and population losses, Oakland and Macomb counties continue to grow.