Quote:
Originally Posted by M TYPE X
I like it how everyone is trying to isolate certain factors. What Michigan has is a perfect storm of various factors hitting all at the same time. The model is extremely complex, like explaining what caused World War I.
A revitalized Michigan WILL both have thrown GM/Ford/Chrysler out to sea and have a revitalized Detroit. GM/Ford/Chrysler will not turn around, even though they can and should. Their organizations are in death spirals. The big city is necessary to attract people. City plus suburbs, like Chicago. Again, I'm telling you what a successful Michigan will look like, but not how to get there.
|
Exactly - there are a ton of factors all interplaying with each other that is putting Michigan into the state that it is now.
It's also a bit too simple to state that "lots of other states and cities" suffer from the same problems. For example, while there is an epidemic of real estate foreclosures in both the San Francisco Bay Area and metro Detroit right now, you have to look at the root causes. In California, real estate prices were rising sky high a couple of years ago due to limited supply, so people over-extended themselves with variable interest or highly leveraged loans. While it is certainly a bad situation there, the population in the Bay Area is still growing at a fast pace, supply is still relatively low, and incomes are still rising. For the Detroit area, on the other hand, the main reason why people were overextending themselves was that there was a disproportionate number of layoffs leading to lower incomes and a stagnant-to-negative growth in population (in the entire metro area, not just the city). As a result, incomes are falling and housing supply is high. So, what area is more likely going to rebound when the real estate market stabilizes?
That's just one piece. The successful metro areas are the ones that benefit from free trade (NYC, Chicago, SF, etc.) as opposed to being hindered by it. So, there is no longer a question of whether free trade is good or bad - it doesn't matter, because it's here and either people need to adapt or suffer the consequences. Heavily unionized areas aren't attractive to new investment by businesses when they have an alternative of non-unionized areas. As M Type X alluded to, a vibrant urban environment is the best way to attract a young and educated workforce, but you also need quality public schools in order to keep them in the area when they start families. Cheap real estate alone can't attract people - there's plenty of cheap real estate in Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina with a lot more job growth and better weather, so there has to be more offered to lure people back to Michigan.
I wish I were smart enough to put together a solution, but the fact is that the problems in the Michigan economy aren't just tied to one single issue or even a handful of predominant issues. It's a result of a myriad of issues both large and small that all need to be addressed. Just as the problem is the result of all of these problems being intertwined, a turnaround can only happen when the solutions all work together.
I'm a big believer in the concept of critical mass. Plenty of cities can build a shiny new stadium or some trendy lofts, but what causes a true transformation is when all of those things combine together where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts - that is, the city or state ITSELF is the prime attraction, not the list of things that are within them. Unfortunately, there's no magic plan for that to happen.