2nd Tier Cities: Toledo, Dayton, Akron, Canton, Youngstown (Columbus, Cleveland: crime, neighborhoods)

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by motorman

Although Toledo's and Cincinnati's "city-proper" populations are similar (around 300,000), their metropolitan populations ("MSAs") are quite different - Toledo, app. 610,000/Cincinnati, app 2,150,000.

The topic is ranking 2nd Tier Cities, not 2nd Tier Metros so, yes, asking why Cincinnati isn't ranked 2nd tier or Toledo 1st tier, is a legitimate question.

[Natural510]

Originally Posted by Kamms

The topic is ranking 2nd Tier Cities, not 2nd Tier Metros so, yes, asking why Cincinnati isn't ranked 2nd tier or Toledo 1st tier, is a legitimate question.

The "tiers" don't go strictly by city population numbers, but by power and influence. Seems fairly obvious, which is why the "three C's" are usually grouped together and don't include Dayton & Toledo.

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

That is essence is my point. What's a great way to resuscitate the steel industry, the manufacturing industry, tool-making and machining, and the vast passel of mechanical arts - a way that can't be outsourced? War. Not some brief adventurous engagement with a fanatical but underwhelming and inept enemy, but total, unrelenting, global war. WW2 brought the Midwest out of interminable stupor. Whatever we think of unions and progressive politics, capitalism and trickle-down economics, it was not ideology or even public policy that built the 20th century American middle class; it was WW2. Ultimately, one could argue that the very reason that even have "second tier cities" in proximity to primary cities, is the former's role as manufacturing-centers for the war-effort. Had it not been for WW2, quite likely the travails and declines of the 1970s and 1980s and so forth, that swept the Midwest and Ohio and in particular the secondary cities, would have transpired two generations earlier.

Cheery thought, no? As the saying goes, we have to destroy the village, in order to save it.

This is incorrect. War is a poor substitute for infrastructure or industrial development. Rather than build capital, war destroys both human and material capital.

If you were actually to study the Great Depression, you would learn that it was largely a manifestation of federal government incompetence. Read Milton Friedman or Ben Bernanke.

The Federal Reserve actually shrunk the money supply. There was so little liquidity that school boards and local governments sometimes were forced to pay employees in script.

The federal government actually at times raised taxes in order to balance the budget, rather than borrow to finance infrastructure development, as would be suggested by Keynesian economics. Roosevelt actually did manage to institute a recovery through public works programs, but promptly stifled it with a restrictive fiscal regime in reaction to federal deficits.

Contrast the Great Depression in the U.S. and much of Europe with the experience in Sweden.

Economic Recovery in Sweden, France, Italy and Britain, 1931 to 1936

World War II did force the federal government to engage in deficit spending. It also built up a massive demand for consumer goods which weren't available during the war, spurring the post-war consumer boom.

Our military expenditures since the 1960 have zapped American wealth. Since 1980, the U.S. has been transformed from the world's greatest creditor nation to the world's greatest debtor nation. We've hollowed out our industrial economy. We've created massive public debt, a portion of which has been monetized by the Federal Reserve, while accumulating massive unfunded liabilities.

Much of this liquidation of wealth took place to enable the U.S. to continue its role as world policeman.

Do you think the trillions that we've spend in the Middle East in the last 15 years have been worth it?

War is a fool's game. Much of America's relative wealth between 1865 and 1940 was the result of the avoidance of military expenditures compared to other world powers, especially in Europe.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by WRnative

This is incorrect. War is a poor substitute for infrastructure or industrial development. Rather than build capital, war destroys both human and material capital.

If you were actually to study the Great Depression, you would learn that it was largely a manifestation of federal government incompetence. Read Milton Friedman or Ben Bernanke.

The Federal Reserve actually shrunk the money supply. There was so little liquidity that school boards and local governments sometimes were forced to pay employees in script.

The federal government actually at times raised taxes in order to balance the budget, rather than borrow to finance infrastructure development, as would be suggested by Keynesian economics. Roosevelt actually did manage to institute a recovery through public works programs, but promptly stifled it with a restrictive fiscal regime in reaction to federal deficits.

Contrast the Great Depression in the U.S. and much of Europe with the experience in Sweden.

Economic Recovery in Sweden, France, Italy and Britain, 1931 to 1936

World War II did force the federal government to engage in deficit spending. It also built up a massive demand for consumer goods which weren't available during the war, spurring the post-war consumer boom.

Our military expenditures since the 1960 have zapped American wealth. Since 1980, the U.S. has been transformed from the world's greatest creditor nation to the world's greatest debtor nation. We've hollowed out our industrial economy. We've created massive public debt, a portion of which has been monetized by the Federal Reserve, while accumulating massive unfunded liabilities.

Much of this liquidation of wealth took place to enable the U.S. to continue its role as world policeman.

Do you think the trillions that we've spend in the Middle East in the last 15 years have been worth it?

War is a fool's game. Much of America's relative wealth between 1865 and 1940 was the result of the avoidance of military expenditures compared to other world powers, especially in Europe.

Excellent, someone with some historical knowledge and economic literacy.

[ohio_peasant]

Originally Posted by WRnative

...
Our military expenditures since the 1960 have zapped American wealth. Since 1980, the U.S. has been transformed from the world's greatest creditor nation to the world's greatest debtor nation. We've hollowed out our industrial economy. We've created massive public debt, a portion of which has been monetized by the Federal Reserve, while accumulating massive unfunded liabilities.

Much of this liquidation of wealth took place to enable the U.S. to continue its role as world policeman.

Do you think the trillions that we've spend in the Middle East in the last 15 years have been worth it?

War is a fool's game. Much of America's relative wealth between 1865 and 1940 was the result of the avoidance of military expenditures compared to other world powers, especially in Europe.

Waging warfare is indeed a fool's game. Building hardware-intense military systems that never actually get used (Cold War) is a much smarter game. Supplying distant belligerents with the material for destroying themselves is a brilliant game.

America's recent foray into military conflict has been economically deleterious, for a bevy of reasons. Most of the expenses have been in services (housing/feeding/supplying the troops, IT, and so forth). How many bombers, aircraft carriers or submarines were built to prosecute the War on Terror? Instead of lend-lease material for the meat-grinder of the Eastern Front (WW2, that is), it was America's own youth that came back with missing limbs and mangled minds. What sort of consumer-goods or domestic infrastructure improvements came from the War on Terror? Now compare what happened in WW2. How much concrete was poured in the Heartland in the 1950s and 1960s, for Strategic Air Command runways? And how much was poured post-1990?

My nominal city, Dayton Ohio, leveraged its cash-register heritage to build the calculation-machines that broke the Enigma code. How's that for secure, well-paying jobs? The business dried up in 1945.

It's true that the Reagan military buildup swelled the federal deficit. But it's even more true that deficits rise because of spending on entitlements, more so than on weapons. I'm not saying that we should relegate grandma to starvation, just so that we could build more tanks and missiles. But I am saying that what's causing our longstanding economic imbalance in the public-sector is less about missiles, and more about demographics.

Ultimately, there is no way to outsource defense-manufacturing. F22s will never be assembled in India or China. There just isn't a sound economic case to build Fords or Chevys in Ohio. But there is, perhaps, an economic case to build engines for fighter-jets.

[Kerby W-R]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klauRwJuqJg




Welcome To Youngstown | Visit Youngstown and Mahoning County, Ohio - Convention and Visitors Bureau


Defend Youngstown

[goofy328]

Originally Posted by Cleverfield

Just based on my own perceptions (having never been to Dayton), I'd rank them, in terms of overall desirability:

Akron
Toledo
Dayton
Youngstown
Canton

Interesting that you've never been to Dayton, but you're actually dead on. I was in Dayton for 10 years, and I'd say that is pretty close to the mark.

Even though Canton is smaller than Youngstown, North Canton is no slouch, at least in the shopping department so you might be able to switch places with Youngstown. I've only been through Youngstown, never lived there. Toledo I know absolutely nothing about; could be better than Akron for all that I know.

[goofy328]

Originally Posted by Cleverfield

Just based on my own perceptions (having never been to Dayton), I'd rank them, in terms of overall desirability:

Akron
Toledo
Dayton
Youngstown
Canton

Another note about Dayton; it has a larger metro than Akron. But Akron is in a larger CSA (with Cleveland and Canton). So it is a matter of personal preference. I look as it as, Dayton has a larger metro because it is further away from larger cities than Akron, so that metro is larger for a reason. That isn't necessarily a bad thing though.

[Mplsite]

I've only been to Toledo and Dayton and never had much interest in Ohio's 2nd tier cities: none can compare with the likes of Boulder, Madison, or Duluth which have far more than just a handful or so of walkable urban blocks. Old Orchard in Toledo was citied as "walkable" when all there is to walk to are a couple of stripmall clusters on the northern end of the neighborhood; hey, a Starbucks! Ohio's 2nd tier cities suffer because their inhabitants are largely wannabe suburbanites. Successful 2nd cities in other states owe it in no small part to embracing their urbanism and making it an economic asset. I will say that this talk about Toledo and Dayton is making me hungry for a great chili dog (tough to find out here) while listening to some GBV.

[goofy328]

Originally Posted by Mplsite

I've only been to Toledo and Dayton and never had much interest in Ohio's 2nd tier cities: none can compare with the likes of Boulder, Madison, or Duluth which have far more than just a handful or so of walkable urban blocks. Old Orchard in Toledo was citied as "walkable" when all there is to walk to are a couple of stripmall clusters on the northern end of the neighborhood; hey, a Starbucks! Ohio's 2nd tier cities suffer because their inhabitants are largely wannabe suburbanites. Successful 2nd cities in other states owe it in no small part to embracing their urbanism and making it an economic asset. I will say that this talk about Toledo and Dayton is making me hungry for a great chili dog (tough to find out here) while listening to some GBV.

Okay. Dayton is not suburban, by any measure. And the suburbs hate the inner city. (The animosity) Its almost worse than Detroit. Never been to Boulder. Madison is a beautiful city. But its no different than Akron. In fact, Akron is a lot rougher than Madison, so I have no idea what you're on about there. If Madison weren't lilly White I'd live there. The place is a dream, but the xenophobia runs deep. I was there back in '95. Hopefully its more diverse now.