What would Illinois look like if the state wasn't broke/corrupt?

[CCrest182]

Originally Posted by Maintainschaos

Yeah, these (Decatur, Peoria, Rockford) were all super industrial cities that have suffered from decades of manufacturing losses and population losses.

Springfield shouldn't be lumped with them, as it's now mostly white collar gov't and healthcare employment as the main job base and, up until very recently, was and has been growing 5-10% population every decade. It also doesn't help that so many state government jobs that should be located in the capital are located in Chicago...

Your description of Springfield would almost make it sound like it's on par with the likes of Madison or Des Moines.

I can assure you, that by in large, Springfield absolutely should be lumped in with Peoria, Rockford, and the Quad Cities.

[Maintainschaos]

Originally Posted by CCrest182

Your description of Springfield would almost make it sound like it's on par with the likes of Madison or Des Moines.

I can assure you, that by in large, Springfield absolutely should be lumped in with Peoria, Rockford, and the Quad Cities.

I lived in both Springfield and Madison for years. I have also spent a lot of time in Peoria, so I have a pretty good idea of the similarities and differences among them.

Although the employment stats and growth stats that I quoted are perfectly accurate (they are—Spfld is dominated by government, health care, and insurance as the major employers and had grown 5-10% decade over decade for most decades), Springfield is neither Madison nor Des Moines (it’s too small and it doesn’t have a flagship state university like Madison). It also doesn’t belong with Peoria or Rockford or the Quad Cities, because it was never strongly driven by manufacturing and is more corn belt than rust belt. If anything it’s a bit like a bigger Bloomington (IL) or more like an IL version of Topeka, and Springfield certainly hasn’t seen the major and sustained population loss of Peoria or even the wild population swings of Rockford. They’re just not the same dynamic and haven’t ever been.

Now Decatur absolutely does belong with Rockford, Peoria, and the Quad Cities.

[riffle]

Originally Posted by CCrest182

Right, but the *only* MSA in IL that saw growth was Champaign. The Chicago area, and every other small town lost population.

Compare that to surrounding states which have multiple growing smaller cities, and you again will see a difference.

Bloomington, IL was also positive, although far from booming at 1.3% growth over 8 years.

The multiple growing smaller cities in surrounding states have greater differences from the shrinking cities in Illinois than state government, which is why similar cities in other states are also losing population. Just my take. Agree that Springfield is an outlier, and probably most influenced by the state government.

These places do have their charms, and I'm not hating.. just calling it like I see it.

[Republic of Michigan]

Originally Posted by riffle

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/...html?src=bkmk#

Battle Creek, Bay City, Flint, Jackson, Midland, Monroe, Niles-Benton Harbor, Saginaw metros all lost population in Michigan. As did Kokomo, Michigan City, Muncie, Terre Haute in Indiana.

The toxic political climate and financial problems in Illinois can't help - but I doubt if Decatur, Peoria, Rockford, etc. would look all that different with improved state government. Economic and demographic birds of a feather flock together (which is why it's a pleasant surprise to see someplace like Fort Wayne buck the trend!)

I don't know if I agree if those cities you mentioned above in Illinois would not be that different with improved state government. It can only help in promoting investments.

Michigan has vigorously made its state goverment much more efficient and has seen a growth in population in its major metropolitan areas such as Detroit, Grand Rapids, Lansing, Ann Arbor, Kalamazoo, and Muskegon.

Flint and Saginaw are lost causes not worth doing anything except population transfer.

[Tall Traveler]

Originally Posted by CCrest182

So obviously Illinois is a very unfavorable place to live outside of the Chicago area (and for some people, even within the Chicago area). We have one of the worst pension crises in U.S. history, Chicago is on the verge of declaring bankruptcy (like Detroit did), and overall people are very pessimistic about this state's financial future.

Our roads also suck, schools in some places are underfunded, and COL is very high even downstate, making this not a very business friendly state compared to neighboring states in all directions.

And of course, this state has also become famous for spawning some of the most corrupt politicians in the country.

But what if Illinois was fiscally responsible? What if we weren't as corrupt as we are? What if we had politicians who actually balanced the state's budget? What would the state look like? What would the infrastructure from Chicago all the way down to Springfield look like? Would other Illinois cities be economic engines instead of only Chicagoland (and to a lesser extent, Champaign-Urbana)? Would we be a growing population state?

Corruption always leads to wealth concentration and lots and lots of poor.

[Jon998877]

Originally Posted by CCrest182

The only "booming" metro outside of Chicago in Illinois is Champaign (which, considering Chicago is losing population, that actually makes it the only metro gaining population)

Bloomington- Normal economy is much stronger than Champaign….