  7051 Member Username: 7051 Post Number: 199 Registered: 02-2006 |
"Kurt Metzger, a demographer and director of the Detroit Area Community Information System, said Wednesday he found it noteworthy that the combined population of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties fell below 4 million for the first time since 1970." http://www.freep.com/article/2 0090319/NEWS06/903190342/DATAB ASE++Wayne+Co.+No.+1+in++popul ation+drop+ Anyone who thinks that this area has not been stagnant and lacking true growth the last 39 years only needs need to look at the previous Freep database. -1970 4.2-4.4million for the 3 county area -1970's, 1980's, 1990's about the same -2009 just under 4 million Combine the net increase in housing units and public infrastructure with lower population, the loss of 425k of Michigan's 500k lost manufacturing jobs (averaging $50k in pay), the lower median incomes of those who still have jobs--this 3 county area is screwed for the next 20-40 years and probably permanently. Less taxpayers to support the infrastructure costs means higher future taxes. Loss of high paying jobs and lowered incomes and an oversupply of housing units equals low property values and lower rents for investors who have rental property. The implications are many. Thanks, Mr. Patterson, Mr. Young, Mr. Cavanagh, Mr. Miriani, Mr. Cobo, Macomb county, Mr. Kilpatrick, the Detroit and all the other city clownsils and city managers,past governors, and any other morons I forgot to thank for their brilliant leadership over the last 45 years. S.E. Michigan sucks and it has sucked for 45 years. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 5402 Registered: 06-2004 |
I'll bet the sprawl continues. If you add in Washtenaw and Livingston counties (and maybe even Genessee) are the numbers still stable? | ||
Rooms222 Member Username: Rooms222 Post Number: 194 Registered: 04-2005 |
Here are a lot of the numbers on the Metro..... http://www.oakgov.com/econ/ass ets/docs/demographic/populatio n_trends.pdf In short, yes, the entire multicounty region is stable, but Detroit is shrinking fast, and the inner ring suburbs are shrinking a little less fast, the second ring is flat, and the outer ring has slow growth---- kind of like the reverberations you would get if you hit the center of Detroit with a large hammer (i.e. a wave radiating outward)..... | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3871 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: Not to mention that Metro Detroit has grown about 40% in land area in the same amount of time. And L. Brooks Patterson says that I-75 needs to be widened. M-5 needed to be extended. Etc., etc. For who?! The area isn't growing, it's shifting. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 4566 Registered: 02-2004 |
Most people think that Detroit and its suburbs are doomed that that started to move out of Michigan to other sucessful states and cities. Most folks in nation just want out leaders to fail to that other people or maybe a proposed corporations could take over. | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 1003 Registered: 04-2008 |
Room222, your numbers were for 2004, 7501's numbers were for 2008. Michigan will continue to lose manufacturing jobs. "Out of a city yet? Keep buying foreign." | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 5405 Registered: 06-2004 |
7051 it isn't just the attitude in SE Michigan - it's the entire MBA driven business world. This guy wonders why the US is losing foreign university graduates and wants enticements to have them stay while US engineers and scientists are being laid off and can't find work! http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/200 90319/bs_bw/mar2009tc200903181 62454;_ylt=Aj03DFpI13Z9KZ2sY82 y6IuyBhIF | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 2281 Registered: 12-2005 |
quote: Perhaps because of your anti-sprawl fixation, you forgot to also thank the chemists at G.D. Searle & Co. and the parents who have decided to have smaller families, not to mention the US Supreme Court. One cannot ignore the role of demographics in what has happened here. U.S. fertility first dropped to less than replacement level fertility in 1972 and since then our country's population growth has been sustained primarily by increased longevity and immigration. SE Michigan is no different in this regard and our fertility and in-migration levels are probably less than the national averages. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1268 Registered: 07-2007 |
"Perhaps because of your anti-sprawl fixation, you forgot to also thank the chemists at G.D. Searle & Co. and the parents who have decided to have smaller families, not to mention the US Supreme Court." I guess people in Phoenix and Las Vegas and Charlotte don't use birth control and don't have abortions. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 2282 Registered: 12-2005 |
quote: You can "guess" all you want, but any reasonable person can understand that the underlying demographics have also played a big part in the flat growth rate of SE Michigan. To blame our problems on "sprawl" is narrow-minded and typical of what one all too often reads on this forum - and when someone suggests that another factor may also be involved, they typically receive a snarky response instead of meaningful dialogue. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3692 Registered: 07-2004 |
I think the reason our population has flatlined is because we're all a bunch of fat, selfish, arrogant assholes who don't care about each other and just want to scream at each other until our heads pop off. Who'd want to mate with that?  | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1929 Registered: 12-2006 |
Mikeg, you're missing the very essential point that other regions are not losing population. I'm not sure why exactly you brought in the Supremes (feel free to elaborate), but birth rate decline is not meaningful because the US population continues to increase, but our regional population is declining. I have never seen any evidence whatever that Detroit area people have fewer children than people anywhere else. What is happening, relative to the rest of the United States, is this: (1) More people are leaving the area, especially young adults. (2) Fewer people are coming to the area. We can have a good debate as to why this is, but let's keep the facts straight. Metro Detroit is in fact losing population relative to the rest of the country, and birth rates do absolutely nothing to explain that fact. | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 3829 Registered: 09-2007 |
I'm sure your suspect "optimists" will think of this as Detroit losing the "weak" people holding us down. (Message edited by DetroitRise on March 19, 2009) | ||
Rooms222 Member Username: Rooms222 Post Number: 195 Registered: 04-2005 |
I linked to those old numbers because they show that the whole Metro or Combined Statistical area is pretty stagnant, but not deeply shrinking.....I think I posted this a while ago but this article best explains whats going on in our region versus others.... http://www.opinionjournal.com/ editorial/feature.html?id=1100 10045\ We have a tiny immigrant inflow and a slightly bigger US-born outflow..Combined this leads to stagnation...(A swath along the Great Lakes from Milwaukee to Western MA is experiencing the same thing we are).... | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1270 Registered: 07-2007 |
"Mikeg, you're missing the very essential point that other regions are not losing population." What the good Professor said. The factor that you suggested as the cause isn't backed up by the facts. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 2283 Registered: 12-2005 |
Professor, I don't think I am missing the point but I'll listen to any reasonable exchange of ideas. The OP made the point that over the past 39 to 45 years we have seen flat to negative population growth. He then attributes it to the region's "leadership", without even examining any of the other things which may also have changed over that time period. Over that same time period, the US as a whole, SE Michigan included, has experienced a significant demographic shift which, when combined with any local political and business leadership mistakes, has made this region even more susceptible to negative population growth. Population change over time = (total births - total deaths)+ (net migration) Assuming that the SE Michigan fertility rate has declined in lockstep with the rest of the country to below replacement levels, then all US regional population growth is highly dependent on maintaining an improvement in the death rate and attracting new residents. That means a region's growth rate becomes dependent on their residents living longer plus experiencing a net inflow of people moving in and out of the region. I think most reasonable people will agree that not only is our region losing our young adults to other regions, we are also losing our oldsters to other regions when they retire (esp. back when they could still sell their homes). It's also clear that SE MI is not attracting the same numbers of outsiders to move here for jobs like we saw in the 1970s and 80s. So from my viewpoint, our business and political leaders can be legitimately blamed for our flat/negative growth only based on what they may have done to make the SE MI business environment less conducive to a positive net migration, the rest is demographics. I mentioned the US Supreme Court for their role in legalizing abortion during the time period addressed in the OP. | ||
Hornwrecker Member Username: Hornwrecker Post Number: 1743 Registered: 04-2005 |
New Baby Boom Misses Michigan Declining Michigan Birth Rate Threatens Future Of State Colleges | ||
Lt_tom Member Username: Lt_tom Post Number: 165 Registered: 06-2004 |
The manufacturing jobs (and the related service indsutry jobs) that formed the base of the local economy have been whittling away for years. It should be of no surprise that the population continues to decline as well. I wouldn't blame local government. The politicians (both parties, mind you) of our Federal Government, under the influence of their corporate masters, enacted innumerable policies over the last 40 years to create our new over-leveraged Ponzi economy. SE Michigan, and the rest of the rust belt for that matter, just happened to be the big losers in it all. I'm sure these issues have been discussed on the forum ad nauseum. | ||
Jiminnm Member Username: Jiminnm Post Number: 1789 Registered: 02-2005 |
Mike, the numbers don't bear out your hypothesis. In the US, about 22% of pregnancies result in abortion. In Michigan, it's about 16% (although wayne county is about 24%). http://www.johnstonsarchive.ne t/policy/abortion/ab-unitedsta tes.html My opinion, as one who left Detroit for a sunnier and warmer clime, is that the reduction is mostly due to folks leaving and not being replaced. Folks I've spoken with about this issue here and in AZ, but who came from other places (MI, IL, PA, WI, MN, etc.), see little reason to return. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 766 Registered: 07-2004 |
The population becoming stable and not really growing started just after Detroit started going into decline. A central city that is not healthy does not lead to great growth metropolitan wide. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 2284 Registered: 12-2005 |
Jiminnm, my point isn't one of statistics, it's that instead of just trying to fix blame on business leaders and politicians, we need to also accept some personal responsibility for the lack of population growth in this region. Who decided that the couple next door would have only one child? Who made the decision to abort instead of taking the adoption route? It wasn't "Mr. Patterson, Mr. Young, Mr. Cavanagh, Mr. Miriani, Mr. Cobo, Macomb county...." ad naseum. Population growth is a key element of our economic prosperity and we have lost the momentum partially because we've forgotten our own personal role in it and instead relied on organizations and government to make it happen. | ||
Lo_to_d Member Username: Lo_to_d Post Number: 117 Registered: 07-2007 |
In more positive news. The Downtown population continues to increase. | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 785 Registered: 04-2006 |
Can Mr. Hertel's regional mass transit plan increase the population and job growth? if we invest in NEW mass transit taxes from $60 to $184 per year, will this work? Does every dollar in mass transit taxes mean 3 or more dollars generated in economic growth? Why don't we get Mr. Hertel on television? Or, is he first waiting to sneak in the SMART Property Tax Renewal next August 2010? Maybe Mr. Hertel does not want the public to know about the massive state cuts for public bus service that will now be used to expand freeways? Maybe mass transit will again fail with the replacement of local money from previous state and federal money in the next 50 years? Or, is local funding the real answer? | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4309 Registered: 10-2003 |
Metro Detroit has finally joined the ranks of Metro Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Rochester, and Buffalo in a falling metro population. | ||
Crawford Member Username: Crawford Post Number: 524 Registered: 10-2006 |
Actually Rochester is now (barely) growing. Your general point is true, though. Until about 2005, Detroit had healthier population numbers than most of it's nearby "sister" Rust Belt cities. Metro Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Buffalo show consistent population loss year after year, but in metro Detroit, this is a relatively recent phenomenon. One significant negative, though, is that these cities appear to have smaller losses than in the past, while Detroit's losses appear to be rapidly growing from year-to-year. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4310 Registered: 10-2003 |
My bad on Rochester's number. Good to see any growth for that region. Yeah, the most recent numbers are showing that the metro continued growing through 2004, and then totally fell off a cliff, which seems suspect to me. I remember when I viewed the annual estimates, last year, that they had the metro growing into 2006, I think it was, and showed a small drop off for 2007. I really have to read up on how they calculate state populations, which they then divide amongst the counties and cities to calculate those lower level populations. The News article did bring up an interesting thing, though, and that is given the complete dive the economy (and the housing market) took in the second half 2008, that it makes it much harder/more risky to leave an area, struggling or not, which may staunch the outflow, a bit. | ||
Ocean2026 Member Username: Ocean2026 Post Number: 166 Registered: 11-2008 |
Rooms your 2004 numbers are worthless. Doesn't Michigan have up to date projections and numbers? | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1930 Registered: 12-2006 |
By the way, our birth rate (locally) is falling not because young couples here are having fewer kids per young couple than young couples anywhere else. Because we have a huge outmigration of young adults, and the people who have most all the children are exactly the young adults, we aren't having kids because there's nobody to have the kids. |
