Detroit's Decline in Perspective (Warren, Flint: loans, new home, neighborhoods)

[one is lonely]

People, if Detroit's decline really was the fault of freeways, unions, racism, politics, and etc., riddle me this: Why is it that Detroit, Pontiac, Flint, and Saginaw all saw almost identical rises and declines?

The answer, of course, is simple. The auto industry. Yes, it was the auto industry that brought Michigan's eastern cities such outsized industrial success. It's also the reason why the decline was similarly outsized. The automobile creates unsustainable booms, and Michigan just happened to be at ground zero.

The truth is that riots, the unions, the corrupt politicians were all byproducts of the auto industry, that its constant ups and downs and gross excesses almost necessitated those happenstances. The riots happened because of discriminatory human resource practices at auto places. The unions developed to deal with the massive ups and downs of the early auto industry, where you made a good wage one day and then were laid off for months or years the next. The corruption inevitably happened as quick money flooded the region.

If Detroit had done something uniquely wrong, it would be noticeably worse off than Pontiac, Flint, and Saginaw. But on the ground level, all look about the same. And all of those cities except Saginaw have had emergency managers, and with Saginaw schools currently facing the threat of an EM, it appears to be heading down the same financial road as its brothers.

The truth is the auto industry creates quick economic growth, then makes a mess of things, and then moves on to the next pasture to get away from the wreckage. To say the mess is avoidable is to say that human nature can be changed. Detroit, Pontiac, Flint, and Saginaw aren't coincidences. The only way the auto industry can mitigate its negative effects is through extreme decentralization. And I mean EXTREME. Even suburbs like Warren appear to be at the auto industry's mercy.

It's scary.

[313 TUxedo]

Originally Posted by one is lonely

People, if Detroit's decline really was the fault of freeways, unions, racism, politics, and etc., riddle me this: Why is it that Detroit, Pontiac, Flint, and Saginaw all saw almost identical rises and declines?

The answer, of course, is simple. The auto industry. Yes, it was the auto industry that brought Michigan's eastern cities such outsized industrial success. It's also the reason why the decline was similarly outsized. The automobile creates unsustainable booms, and Michigan just happened to be at ground zero.

The truth is that riots, the unions, the corrupt politicians were all byproducts of the auto industry, that its constant ups and downs and gross excesses almost necessitated those happenstances. The riots happened because of discriminatory human resource practices at auto places. The unions developed to deal with the massive ups and downs of the early auto industry, where you made a good wage one day and then were laid off for months or years the next. The corruption inevitably happened as quick money flooded the region.

If Detroit had done something uniquely wrong, it would be noticeably worse off than Pontiac, Flint, and Saginaw. But on the ground level, all look about the same. And all of those cities except Saginaw have had emergency managers, and with Saginaw schools currently facing the threat of an EM, it appears to be heading down the same financial road as its brothers.

The truth is the auto industry creates quick economic growth, then makes a mess of things, and then moves on to the next pasture to get away from the wreckage. To say the mess is avoidable is to say that human nature can be changed. Detroit, Pontiac, Flint, and Saginaw aren't coincidences. The only way the auto industry can mitigate its negative effects is through extreme decentralization. And I mean EXTREME. Even suburbs like Warren appear to be at the auto industry's mercy.

It's scary.

While the auto industry set the stage for a "boom and bust" cycle - any fast-growing industry will do this when the market for a new industry finds its limit and competition from other cities, and other countries, begins to take hold. Seattle was devastated in the 1970s as airlines finished replacing their propeller-engined aircraft with jets. Las Vegas has declined as the USA as a whole is overrun with gambling.

What Detroit, Pontiac, Flint and Saginaw have in common is that they are all older cities that could not annex new territory as it developed, got surrounded by suburbs with larger, more comfortable new homes on larger lots, became the domain of lower income groups, and got caught in the vicious circles of urban decay (falling revenue=>higher taxes=>abandonment=>further falling revenue... and higher crime=>business flight=>less income opportunity=>higher crime...)

[leroythelion]

Originally Posted by one is lonely

People, if Detroit's decline really was the fault of freeways, unions, racism, politics, and etc., riddle me this: Why is it that Detroit, Pontiac, Flint, and Saginaw all saw almost identical rises and declines?

The answer, of course, is simple. The auto industry. Yes, it was the auto industry that brought Michigan's eastern cities such outsized industrial success. It's also the reason why the decline was similarly outsized. The automobile creates unsustainable booms, and Michigan just happened to be at ground zero.

When I first moved here 5 years ago, all the talk was about how to replace the auto industry with something else as the main employer. Good plan. Yet, when the Big 3 started hiring again, everybody applauded and the plan was forgotten, or at least put on the back burner. Every time there is a hire back, it is fewer in numbers than before. The purchasing of vehicles is always the first to suffer during a recession, and recessions are inevitable, so this will happen again.

[viktor77]

I was born and raised in Saginaw, MI and I agree with the original poster. I've done a lot of research on Detroit in particular and one thing is clear, the Auto Industry is at the heart of what Detroit did right, and what Detroit did wrong.

Before Henry Ford debuted his automobile, Detroit was a city of a smaller population but a high concentration of wealth. It had many amazing homes and mansions along many main streets which today are near 100% industry (at one time even Fort St was lined with villas on the river, and Woodward was THE place to live, think of the Hecker and Whitney houses times about 300, even Boeing grew up there in a house that would leave you breathless). Anyway, Detroit at this time had a diverse economy akin to many others of its day (Chicago, Cleveland, etc.) There was tobacco, lumber, cartmaking, stovemaking, and a large port. What Detroit did wrong was Detroit puts all of its eggs in one basket as soon as the automobile debuted. It abandoned its diverse economy in favor of one. This brought the ultimate rise of the city, and then the ultimate fall of the city. Had Detroit remained diversified, we might be seeing a city more like Chicago with a dense downtown filled with various industries.

In typical Michigan fashion, Detroit and Saginaw (and I believe Flint, too) are now switching over to a new single industry, healthcare. Although, I will say Detroit is seeing a small renaissance in its downtown and midtown thanks to urban pioneers who are gentrifying many of the city's older neighborhoods, as well as business owners bring their businesses and employees to the city, ie. Quicken Loans. Rents are skyrocketing as supply can't meet demand. This could be the rise of a new Detroit, or at least a new Downtown Detroit, hopefully this one will have a diversified economy.

[Retroit]

There's almost enough truth in the Original Post to prove the point, but riddle me this: if the auto industry is the cause of the demise of cities, then how do you explain the demise of hundreds of cities that were not dependent on the auto industry?

The answer, of course, is a lot more complex than simply pointing to one factor. And it has been discussed in 100s of threads.

[313Weather]

Originally Posted by Retroit

There's almost enough truth in the Original Post to prove the point, but riddle me this: if the auto industry is the cause of the demise of cities, then how do you explain the demise of hundreds of cities that were not dependent on the auto industry?

The answer, of course, is a lot more complex than simply pointing to one factor. And it has been discussed in 100s of threads.

Not only that, but why was Detroit the only city of its size to decline to the extent it has...

[detwahDJ]

Originally Posted by Retroit

There's almost enough truth in the Original Post to prove the point, but riddle me this: if the auto industry is the cause of the demise of cities, then how do you explain the demise of hundreds of cities that were not dependent on the auto industry?

The answer, of course, is a lot more complex than simply pointing to one factor. And it has been discussed in 100s of threads.

Not real complex. It is the demise of all manufacturing due to lower labor costs and politically sticky protectionism practiced by third-world countries - child labor, indentured servitude, sweatshops, less corporate regulation.
Outsourcing has also hit service industries like telephone and online customer service. Anything that can be outsourced will be outsourced.

Technology - like robots, self-serve gas pumps, automated checkouts, home improvement warehouse stores needing minimal employees - will continually find ways to lower payroll costs by reducing workforces and that will never stop.

We once had dirt-cheap slave labor in this country, decided morally to ban it, and now corporations have discovered it in other countries - in other words we outsourced it.
Henry Ford paid a wage which allowed his workers to purchase their own American-made product. Since worker/consumer spending drives the economy, how is reducing their income or bodily displacing them beneficial in the long run? Barely affordable goods from poverty-level third-world workers sold back to a declining American middle class may create a temporary bubble of perceived prosperity, but for America it is actually detrimental to growth.

[animatedmartian]

Originally Posted by 313Weather

Not only that, but why was Detroit the only city of its size to decline to the extent it has...

There's not too many other cities in the US that had multiple factories that would employ upwards of hundreds of thousands of people.

[313Weather]

Originally Posted by detwahDJ

Since worker/consumer spending drives the economy, how is reducing their income or bodily displacing them beneficial in the long run? Barely affordable goods from poverty-level third-world workers sold back to a declining American middle class may create a temporary bubble of perceived prosperity, but for America it is actually detrimental to growth.

It won't matter once those whose soul goal is to make as much money as possible hold all of the world's wealth to themselves.

And when they finally control all of the world's wealth and still have a craving for more money, they can simply make more money through the Federal Reserve.

[313Weather]

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

There's not too many other cities in the US that had multiple factories that would employ upwards of hundreds of thousands of people.

Well even then, why haven't Detroit's suburbs declined to the extent of the city proper?