A very tough question to ask, an even tougher one to answer (Detroit: real estate, crime)

[TheIntrepidNobody]

Why does it *seem* that devaluation, decay, and even the notion of ruin, follow a city's initial minority population influx and subsequent growth? Is this because of something scientifically measurable? Or do we always have to revert to opinion based philosophy, or worse, racism?

I am 50 years old and grew up in and around the Pontiac, MI area. I remember clearly Pontiac being a really nice, clean and healthy community until the late 60s/early 70s when it headed south in a hurry. It just seems like whether you consider Detroit, Southfield, Bloomfield, Pontiac, Waterford, or wherever, as soon as the minority factor comes into play within any specific area, down goes the per capita and real estate valuations, and up goes the welfare, crime and basic social dysfunction. Why?

I honestly believe I know the answer to this question, but I have no idea how to scientifically express as much. Maybe it's a combination of too many things to be as specific as any one answer. Still in yet, you would think there should be enough specifics to intelligently counter the process. At very least prevent it from happening. Any help and/or insight here would be greatly appreciated.

[zthatzmanz28]

A search will reveal this question has been discussed ad nauseum.

[animatedmartian]

Jobs.

Many minorities were employed in the factories and low wage jobs that were located in the cities that you talk about. When those jobs closed or relocated, those who were able to move did so. Those who couldn't...well you're well aware of the effects. Statistically, whites will make more money than minorities, by just being the majority group or lack of fair equal hiring, but either way, income is unequal among racial groups. So statistically, whites are more likely to move than minorities should they need to find a job and minorities are more likely to turn to crime and welfare in order to make money. The roots of this inequality more likely than not lead back to racism and segregation of the past regardless if people are less racist today.

So in short, the more jobs there are, the less crime there is.

[TheIntrepidNobody]

Originally Posted by zthatzmanz28

A search will reveal this question has been discussed ad nauseum.

All "discussion" that does not provide an answer to the question is irrelevant. What is the answer?

[TheIntrepidNobody]

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

Jobs.

Many minorities were employed in the factories and low wage jobs that were located in the cities that you talk about. When those jobs closed or relocated, those who were able to move did so. Those who couldn't...well you're well aware of the effects. Crime is the easy way to make money while schooling takes a bit longer and more effort. Also, fragmented families make the process even harder when kids are in the crucial development stages subsequently making even that much harder for the cycle to break.

So in short, the more jobs there are, the less crime there is.

You are side stepping the issue. If jobs are a problem or an issue, how could the minorities afford to move into these cities to begin with?

[canudigit]

Originally Posted by TheIntrepidNobody

You are side stepping the issue. If jobs are a problem or an issue, how could the minorities afford to move into these cities to begin with?

Many of them move to the large, Northern cities in the early and mid-20th century to find work in the expanding manufacturing trade and escape the dead end life of being a sharecropper in the South. How could they afford to move to cities like Detroit and Chicago to work in the factories there? Probably with less than $10 in their pocket and a promise from a friend or family member who was already there that they could stay with them until they started working and got on their feet. The more pertinent question here seems to be, how could they afford NOT to move to these cities when jobs here were plentiful and all they had to look forward to at home was years of backbreaking work tending crops to make someone else rich?

[animatedmartian]

Originally Posted by TheIntrepidNobody

You are side stepping the issue. If jobs are a problem or an issue, how could the minorities afford to move into these cities to begin with?

There are a few percentage of minorities who are able to get higher paying jobs than statically common among their group. They then move to were they would like to live.

Now in the cities you listed, I'm only aware of crime in Pontiac and Detroit. Southfield seems to get a bad rep for crime, but it's statistically no higher than any other suburb along 8 mile. Yet it's minority population is far higher than the others. To me, I don't see a correlation.

[TheIntrepidNobody]

Originally Posted by canudigit

Many of them move to the large, Northern cities in the early and mid-20th century to find work in the expanding manufacturing trade and escape the dead end life of being a sharecropper in the South. How could they afford to move to cities like Detroit and Chicago to work in the factories there? Probably with less than $10 in their pocket and a promise from a friend or family member who was already there that they could stay with them until they started working and got on their feet. The more pertinent question here seems to be, how could they afford NOT to move to these cities when jobs here were plentiful and all they had to look forward to at home was years of backbreaking work tending crops to make someone else rich?

Again, you are missing the point. I am not refering to the beginning of the century. I am referring to right now. You start with a city doing great, the minority population influx occurrs from nieghboring larger, or more densly minority populated cities nearby, and the city then goes to the dogs. This has NOTHING to do with jobs. I want to know why there is such a devaluation of the area POST their presence in these communities.

Detroit, Pontiac, Southfield....why?

[TheIntrepidNobody]

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

There are a few percentage of minorities who are able to get higher paying jobs than statically common among their group. They then move to were they would like to live.

Now in the cities you listed, I'm only aware of crime in Pontiac and Detroit. Southfield seems to get a bad rep for crime, but it's statistically no higher than any other suburb along 8 mile. Yet it's minority population is far higher than the others. To me, I don't see a correlation.

Southfield has a GREAT deal more crime than it did 25 years ago. Are you kidding me? 25 years ago it did not have the minority populous it does now. The correlation is extremely strong.

[zthatzmanz28]

Originally Posted by TheIntrepidNobody

All "discussion" that does not provide an answer to the question is irrelevant. What is the answer?

There is NO one answer. There were / are several factors that influenced and continue ti influence the situation.