Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If healthcare continues to grow at its present rate, the cost of health insurance for families will surpass household income some time in the 2020s.
Obviously this can't happen. Growth has to slow down, if not stop entirely. Hence the healthcare industry will "cool down" eventually.
I can foresee a cooling down period, but I still foresee healthcare remaining a relative lucrative industry. I'd love to be proven wrong though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indentured Servant
I am talking circa 2001 - 2008....and the era of liar loans, collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO) bundled as stock market investments......that whole era. That era was an aberration in terms of black urban population. Blacks left cities in record numbers....and it was highly correlated with the "mortgages for all" era.
But the thing is, Detroit was already in a world of trouble even before that period of time which I'm sure you already knew.
I can foresee a cooling down period, but I still foresee healthcare remaining a relative lucrative industry. I'd love to be proven wrong though.
But the thing is, Detroit was already in a world of trouble even before that period of time which I'm sure you already knew.
Yes....Detroit was in a world of trouble, economically, in 1980 as well, but the black population in the city continued to grow. Detroit black population continued to grow in the city of Detroit up until 2001. It peaked at around 770,000. In a city over 80% black, one has to look at what was happening with the black population to understand Detroit decline from 2000 to 2010, because white flight had pretty much run its course as there were few whites left in the city to drive the numbers down from 2000 to 2010. The black population should have stabilized Detroit's population decline.....if not for the suburbs opening up due to easy mortgage policies.
Yes....Detroit was in a world of trouble, economically, in 1980 as well, but the black population in the city continued to grow. Detroit black population continued to grow in the city of Detroit up until 2001. It peaked at around 770,000. In a city over 80% black, one has to look at what was happening with the black population to understand Detroit decline from 2000 to 2010, because white flight had pretty much run its course as there were few whites left in the city to drive the numbers down from 2000 to 2010. The black population should have stabilized Detroit's population decline.....if not for the suburbs opening up due to easy mortgage policies.
Deindustrialization was certainly already underway in 1980, but there were still jobs to be had in the auto industry. I'm not disagreeing that the housing crash didn't have an effect in metro Detroit, but the exodus out of the city and even the metro had already been underway even before the crash.
Nashville is already a second-tier "it" city. If you don't want to or can't afford to do Portland, Seattle, Denver, or Austin, Nashville is a good alternative.
I would say Louisville, New Orleans, and Richmond can also be added to that list. Omaha is on its way though it isn't quite there yet.
I think the red-headed stepchild of the Texas Triangle, San Antonio also has potential.
I'd say Nashville is significantly different. There are a lot of people moving in, but it feels far less liberal than the others listed and very conservative as a whole. Then, there's state issues related to alcohol (forget about TN ever legalizing marijuana) which remind you that you're in the Bible Belt.
I can foresee a cooling down period, but I still foresee healthcare remaining a relative lucrative industry. I'd love to be proven wrong though.
But the thing is, Detroit was already in a world of trouble even before that period of time which I'm sure you already knew.
But by 2000 its seemed Detroit was stabilizing. The city only lost 76,000 people in the 90's, lower than it had lost in the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's.
Then the 2000's hit, with the subprime mortgages, foreclosures galore, the Great Recession. By the time the dust cleared, Detroit lost 237,000 during the 2000s.
But by 2000 its seemed Detroit was stabilizing. The city only lost 76,000 people in the 90's, lower than it had lost in the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's.
Then the 2000's hit, with the subprime mortgages, foreclosures galore, the Great Recession. By the time the dust cleared, Detroit lost 237,000 during the 2000s.
Yet several other majority Black cities, even those that didn't experience much gentrification, didn't see anything near as precipitous a decline. I don't think the housing crash was the primary cause here, although it obviously played a role.
What many people do not know is this. In 2000, the official census count for Detroit was around 899,000 people. Detroit, however, was one of many cities that subsequently sued (and won), claiming an under count of minorities. Thus, Detroit 2000 census population WAS ADJUSTED UPWARD to 954,000. In 2010, there was no adjustment after the fact (cities did not file or lost the suit this time around). Hence, comparing the delta between 2000 and 2010 is not an apples to apples comparison. Based upon the official counts....Detroit lost ~ 185,000 people and not 250,000. Furthermore, Detroit, prior to 2010 census, had massive political campaigns to get people counted, undertaken by the city. Detroit has a large squatter population due to the number of abandoned properties. Many of these people, who are squatting, do not want to reveal themselves...unless given some assurances. Mayor Bing failed to continue the efforts of previous mayors to get everyone counted.
In light of that, I am saying that people are going to be surprised by the 2020 totals....because its not going to show a big movement....assuming that whoever is the mayor pushes for everyone to get counted. I say the city of Detroit will be 700,000 in 2020.
Mayor Mike Duggan is a much better Mayor than Bing. If he's still in office I know he will do whatever it takes to get people counted. Bing didn't do a damn thing. If developers play their cards right, your figure may not be too far off the mark. Right now people are on waiting list to live in certain parts of Detroit. If they strike the iron while it's hot, Detroit could have 1,000 new units a year creating more demand and eating up empty space and at the same time offsetting the loss in certain neighborhoods.
Quote:
Yet several other majority Black cities, even those that didn't experience much gentrification, didn't see anything near as precipitous a decline. I don't think the housing crash was the primary cause here, although it obviously played a role.
Actually it did, anybody from Detroit can tell you first hand there weren't nearly as many abandoned houses so widespread before the housing crash. It destroyed alot of black communities especially in the Midwest. The black neighborhoods in Detroit, Chicago, STL, even smaller cities like Flint, Kalamazoo, ect has never had so many vacant homes and properties. Even Atlanta as a booming metro had problems in it's inner city due to the crash. Atlanta only grew by 4,000 people while metro Atlanta grew by almost 1 million. That's because there were so many people moving out of inner city Atlanta during the crash, even my relatives in college park have told me that.
Look at how many black people moved out of Chicago last decade. I've been visiting family there since I was little and I can clearly see the difference. I have never seen south and west Chicago look as bad as it does now.
One block I lived on in Kalamazoo, MI had no abandoned houses, now has 5 abandoned houses post housing crash.
This was in the housing bust era. It destroyed alot of black communities especially in the Midwest. The black neighborhoods in Detroit, Chicago, STL, even smaller cities like Flint, Kalamazoo, ect has never had so many vacant homes and properties.
Blacks that otherwise could not afford housing moving out of their apartments due to subprime, adjustable, etc in the early 00s with no money down, among other things.
Actually it did, anybody from Detroit can tell you first hand there weren't nearly as many abandoned houses so widespread before the housing crash. It destroyed alot of black communities especially in the Midwest. The black neighborhoods in Detroit, Chicago, STL, even smaller cities like Flint, Kalamazoo, ect has never had so many vacant homes and properties. Even Atlanta as a booming metro had problems in it's inner city due to the crash. Atlanta only grew by 4,000 people while metro Atlanta grew by almost 1 million. That's because there were so many people moving out of inner city Atlanta during the crash, even my relatives in college park have told me that.
Look at how many black people moved out of Chicago last decade. I've been visiting family there since I was little and I can clearly see the difference. I have never seen south and west Chicago look as bad as it does now.
One block I lived on in Kalamazoo, MI had no abandoned houses, now has 5 abandoned houses post housing crash.
The crash didn't have nearly as bad of an impact on Atlanta. For one, the suburbs have outstripped the central city in growth since the 80's/90's and secondly, there was also the effect of Atlanta demolishing all of its public housing projects and the dispersal that happened in the aftermath.
It seems that the housing crash just accelerated pre-existing trends in many Rustbelt(ish) cities in particular. Other predominantly Black cities, like Philly and Memphis, didn't see such drastic decreases in population.
I've lived in Detroit before. I like the city, but I just don't think it has what it takes to gentrify.
Once you're outside of the tiny core of urban neighborhoods (basically Downtown, Midtown, New Center, Corktown, and Eastern Market) Detroit is a city with a suburban built form, with miles and miles of detached-single-family housing built out in the early and mid 20th century. Lots of millennials have no interest in living in a house - they want an apartment. Thus Detroit's core would attract them, but not the outlying areas.
I could see Mexicantown and some other areas in/around the Southwest eventually gentrifying - at least around the major commercial corridors. But I don't think there will ever be enough growth in the recovering portions of the city to cancel out the decline elsewhere.
-Detroit didn't achieve a population density of 13,300 p/square mile when it peaked in 1950 due to solely single-family houses. Pittsburgh's population density when it peaked was less than Detroit's.
-Detroit has/had miles of multifamily housing in the form of 2 to 4-family flats and small apartment buildings in the pre-1930's neighborhoods.
-Detroit has large districts of old warehouses that could be converted to high-density housing, such as the Milwaukee-Junction area
-Detroit has attractive multi-family housing outside of the few neighborhoods you mentioned, for instance:
-Concerning single family houses - many of the trendy areas of San Diego, Oakland, Seattle, Portland, Nashville, Minneapolis, etc. etc, are mostly or largely comprised of single family houses.
-Lastly, to challenge your notion that single-family house neighborhoods are suburban, the streetcar suburb community of Hamtramck peaked at 56,000 in 1930. At 2.09 square miles in area, the population density was 26,700 p/sq mile, yet the city looks like this:
and this
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
