Would a declining population create a stronger Chicago? (Naperville, Joliet: crime, tech jobs)

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

I didn't make any such argument. I refuted the nonsense argument that Chicago/Chicagoland/Illinois population stagnation/loss can be rationalized by looking at population loss in medieval parts of Paris/Rome.

And you don't understand the meaning of "straw man".


More spin. The Chicago Metro gained a whole 82 people last year, easily the worst performance of any major metro area in the U.S. That's abysmal population growth. Even Metro Detroit is doing better. I'm pretty sure that Chicago would like to compete with the NYCs and LAs and SFs of the world, not Detroit and Cleveland.

And given that the Census figures for Illinois are vastly worse this year, I would be really surprised to not see population losses when the City/MSA/CSA figures come out in a few months.

are we ever going to come to terms with the very notion of "That's abysmal population growth" is pure insanity? All cities grow and contract. Nothing is built on endless growth except cancer.

Chicago (Chicagoland) is not now, nor will it ever be a population growth engine. It is a mature, northern city and like other northern metro areas (NYC very much included) is not going to attract enormous growth. You mention San Francisco which, as I've pointed out to you before, is never going to experience massive or even appreciable growth…..no place to put the people in a tightly packed peninsula and the city would totally destroy itself if it tried to do so (it won't). Bay Area growth: very limited. not by its economic successes (which should be obvious), but because the Bay Area limits height/density as policy. Indeed these limitations is what helps to put real estate prices through the stratosphere. it's why you won't see dense development near BART stations.

Do you really believe that continuous, endless growth is a good thing, NOLA?

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

Anything you say that does not fit NOLA's narrative is "booster-ism". Facts have no business here!

Irish, you were repeatedly caught making up stuff, and I have posted the official Census data. Deal with it.

Nothing I wrote in this thread isn't supported by actual Census data. Nothing you wrote in this thread has any basis in reality.

[marothisu]

The point about 2012 is actually a very good one. The unemployment rate is down big time since the end of 2Q in 2013. The recession in the city at least didn't really recover as quickly as a few other cities (on the West Coast mainly, save for LA but also cities in Texas, some in the midwest like Minneapolis and Madison) and took until then to really do so not just in Chicago, but many other cities (not MSA, but city).

The unemployment rate for the city was 10.2% in August 2013, but the figure for October 2015 is 5.6%, or down 4.6% in 2 years, which is a 45% decrease in just over 2 years. This has happened in other cities, so using 2012 as a baseline is actually too early compared to how numerous cities around the country have recovered for a bunch of cities (you could include NYC, LA, etc in the same list). The MSA unemployment rate as of October 2015 is 5.1%, down from 9% in August 2013 (43% decrease).


It would be important to use a little bit more up-to-date numbers than 2012, considering the unemployment rate in Chicago is down 45% since August of 2013 for not just Chicago, but other cities just as much such as NYC, LA, Atlanta, etc. The following are the percent decreases between August 2013 and October 2015 of cities who had an unemployment rate higher than 8% in August 2013. This is city level, not MSA:


* NYC: -47.8% (October 2015 unemployment rate: 4.7%)
* Cincinnati: -47% (October 2015 rate: 4.4%)
* Indianapolis: -46.3% (October 2015 rate: 4.4%)
* Chicago: -45% (October 2015 rate: 5.6%)
* Milwaukee: -44.6% (October 2015 rate: 5.6%) * Los Angeles: -40.6% (October 2015 rate: 6.3%)
* Philadelphia: -40.1% (October 2015 rate: 6.5%)
* Kansas City: -39% (October 2015 rate: 5%)
* St. Louis: -37.5% (October 2015 rate: 5.5%)
* Cleveland: -37.1% (October 2015 rate: 5.6%)
* Las Vegas: -36% (October 2015 rate: 6.4%)
* Jersey City, NJ: -35.8% (October 2015 rate: 5.2%)
* Newark, NJ: -35.8% (October 2015 rate: 7.9%)
* Buffalo, NY: -35.4% (October 2015 rate: 6.4%)
* Detroit: -35.3% (October 2015 rate: 13%)
* Atlanta: -33.3% (October 2015 rate: 6%)
* Memphis: -31.4% (October 2015 rate: 7%)
* Baltimore: -24% (October 2015 rate: 7.6%
* Washington DC: -22.1% (October 2015 rate: 6.7%)

Source: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics
Local Area Unemployment Statistics Home Page

[WizardOfRadical]

Originally Posted by chet everett

The relative level of affluence in San Francisco.varies from billionaires living in literal block covering mansions like Larry Ellison to bums that take dumps inn the sidewalk like wild animals.The more telling shift in values is the sorts of libertarian views are championed by the majority of tech leaders - from Peter Thiel to the Marc Andreessen.and scores of other VC heavyweights that recognize a truism voiced by another famous politician from California - "The best government is the least".

Rather than supporting a stifling array of schemes that do more to promote corruption and enrich insiders the success of Silicon Valley I'd largely a text book example of laissez faire governance.

If Rahm never gave another fake start-up some worthless "tax break" at a ribbon cutting for their shiny-grungy West Loop office but also stopped lavishly enriching pals looking for fat contracts for sports arena and other scans he'd go a long way toward convincing the bond rating agencies that the city is not heading off a cliff...

When it comes to population loss the most troubling issue is probably that bright young minorities that do earn solid degrees in valuable tech areas largely do not stick around here. They go to the coasts. It is more likely to find higher positions in NY or Silicon Valley than here, and the reason is largely that "corruption connection" that values insiders that will go along with cheats and crooks instead of letting the merits of deal speak for themselves...

LoL Silicon Valley is not an example Laissez Faire governance. The tech industry is rife with subsidies that are probably only rivaled by energy companies.

[LeaderOCola]

a declining population would leave it MORE like detroit:

massive infrastructure sprawl to sustain without a tax base.
vacancy leads to even worse blight and apathy as well as general property devaluation


(one can argue that many a current resident doesn't contribute to the tax base, .... but...)

[LeaderOCola]

Originally Posted by edsg25

are we ever going to come to terms with the very notion of "That's abysmal population growth" is pure insanity? All cities grow and contract. Nothing is built on endless growth except cancer.

is there a specific cancer that grows "endlessly" without killing the host?


oh. there isn't....

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by LeaderOCola

a declining population would leave it MORE like detroit:

Chicago has a long way before it is Detroit - both in population loss and employment statistics. Detroit has been estimated to lose over 33,000 people since 2010, or a 4.7% decrease in population. Although Chicago is not experiencing huge growth as an overall city (it is though in some areas like downtown and other north side areas) and lags behind other major cities like LA and NYC, it is still estimated to have grown by about 27,000 people since 2010. This is the opposite of Detroit who is estimated to have lost more people than Chicago was estimated to have gained in the same time period, since 2010.

Not only that, but economically Detroit is at 13% unemployment as of October 2015. Chicago is at 5.6% unemployment, which is 2.3X lower than Detroit. That rate is actually lower than the cities of LA, DC, and Atlanta currently (October 2015).

SOURCES
Employment Statistics: Local Area Unemployment Statistics Home Page
Population Statistics (2010 Census and 2014 ACS): American FactFinder


As far as taxation goes, that is a little more complicated. Obviously you want more people for the tax base, but it can get more complicated than that. For example, if 3000 people left the city who were not property owners and were replaced by 500 people who decided to purchase property in Chicago, those 500 people would contribute more to the tax of the city than the previous 3000 did. I am not saying this is the case (it may or may not be), but I'm merely showing you that things are not always as black and white as one may think with something as broad as taxation.

[LeaderOCola]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Chicago has a long way before it is Detroit - both in population loss and employment statistics. Detroit has been estimated to lose over 33,000 people since 2010, or a 4.7% decrease in population. Although Chicago is not experiencing huge growth as an overall city (it is though in some areas like downtown and other north side areas) and lags behind other major cities like LA and NYC, it is still estimated to have grown by about 27,000 people since 2010. This is the opposite of Detroit who is estimated to have lost more people than Chicago was estimated to have gained in the same time period, since 2010.

Not only that, but economically Detroit is at 13% unemployment as of October 2015. Chicago is at 5.6% unemployment, which is 2.3X lower than Detroit. That rate is actually lower than the cities of LA, DC, and Atlanta currently (October 2015).

SOURCES
Employment Statistics: Local Area Unemployment Statistics Home Page
Population Statistics (2010 Census and 2014 ACS): American FactFinder

what part of "would" on my post led you to think I said it IS like detroit?


*edit note*
I lived in the Chicago metro area for ~7 years.
I don't want a negative outcome

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by LeaderOCola

what part of "would" on my post led you to think I said it IS like detroit?

Sure, good point. Anyway - Detroit lost 25% of its population in just 10 years and their situation had/has more to do with the economic situation of their city and the fact that it was reliant on one industry. The unemployment rate there is still extremely high - it has come down a bit, but it's still extremely high (13%). Even if Chicago were to lose 100,000 people in the next Census (2020), it would not be Detroit-esque due to the fact that Detroit got this way because of the Automobile industry and the city was majorly reliant on only that industry. The reasons why people move out of Chicago right now are a lot more varied than Detroit in the 2000s - some are escaping violence, others are moving for better weather, others are moving because of jobs, others are moving because they want something different, etc. The majority of people who left Detroit during that 25% decline in population did so because their jobs ceased to exist and other parts of the country had jobs.

I'll be very surprised if we see another Detroit situation, regardless of any city losing population, in the next handful of decades if ever in our lifetimes.

[VA All Day]

I’ve never understood the fixation with population growth. Thereare more people than jobs in 2015, especially at the lower end of thesocioeconomic spectrum, which to me means that perpetual growth isunsustainable. Many of the industriesthat once provided gainful employment for the unskilled or less educated are goneand unlikely to ever return. I’ll leavethe research to someone else, but I’d bet most of those leaving fall into thiscategory, so it doesn’t seem like the worst thing for these people to seekopportunities elsewhere.