meatrace wrote:
That's all well and good, but what I'm saying is that's NOT what happened in Detroit. Or rather that's not solely or primarily what happened in Detroit.
Economics is a bugger (I should know, it's my major) and complex, and to lay the blame on the victims of this whole affair, the public sector workers who worked for years paying into their pensions to have the city turn around and tell them to eff off, is unfair.
The one thing I took away from the Krugman column is that this is what the market has brought. And that those that promote the concept of creative destruction don't think it's a good thing when they're creatively destroyed.
I'm not so sure about that. Those that promoted it don't usually get "creatively destroyed". Pensions and medical benefits will get slashed. Creditors will get mostly paid off. Plenty of property will go on the market at cut-rate prices. There's plenty of money to be made in the destruction of Detroit and they've got an unaccountable appointee in position to make all the big decisions.
First: thanks Comrade Anklebiter for the link to the website on Harriet Jacobs. I read excerpts from "Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl" in college and am pleased to see new information and biographies being published.
Second: I will argue that consent can only be given, not taken. A master could coerce or command, but couldn't provide a slave's consent (because to consent is to voluntarily yield or comply). No person can "consent" for another. A slave cannot act of her own volition because her actions are owned by her master; therefore, she cannot consent, and what the master did was sexual coercion, ergo, under most definitions, rape.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: LazarX wrote: Sissyl wrote: meatrace wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Well, don't get me wrong, the Founding Fathers, as far as slave-raping 18th-century plutocrats go,
At the risk of being flamed and/or flagged:
You can't rape your own slave. Rape is sex against one's consent, and as their legal owner it was left to him to provide consent.
Which, for the record, is an indictment of the evils of slavery not a defense of rape. Woooo, I love the sheer political incorrectness of this post. It is, I assume, factually correct, but having the sheer nerve to write this? Priceless. In a venue without identity or consequences, nerve is fairly cheap. Emphasis added.
Comrade Meatrace is correct, in a narrow and legalistic way.
Zeugma wrote: Second: I will argue that consent can only be given, not taken. A master could coerce or command, but couldn't provide a slave's consent (because to consent is to voluntarily yield or comply). No person can "consent" for another. Except they can. A parent can consent for their child, someone with power of attorney can consent for anyone else, and so on.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
meatrace wrote: Zeugma wrote: Second: I will argue that consent can only be given, not taken. A master could coerce or command, but couldn't provide a slave's consent (because to consent is to voluntarily yield or comply). No person can "consent" for another. Except they can. A parent can consent for their child, someone with power of attorney can consent for anyone else, and so on. Not in the case of sex:
A parent cannot give consent for their child to have sex with someone else (or with the parent for that matter).
I don't think power of attorney allows that either.
meatrace wrote: Zeugma wrote: Second: I will argue that consent can only be given, not taken. A master could coerce or command, but couldn't provide a slave's consent (because to consent is to voluntarily yield or comply). No person can "consent" for another. Except they can. A parent can consent for their child, someone with power of attorney can consent for anyone else, and so on. This will probably boil down to semantics and legal definitions, but I think a distinction can be made. Power of attorney is different in that the grantor gives consent for a person he voluntarily designates to make decisions for him under conditions of his own choosing.
Children are more like slaves in that they have limited rights and less legal standing than adults; if a parent "consents" for a child, and the child feels it is against his best interest, the only remedy is to become an emancipated child. If the court chooses not to emancipate the child and he is compelled to go along with the parent's action, I would argue that is not in the spirit of consent, which is a voluntary action, but is a form of coercion. The court may call it consent, but it isn't voluntary.
And that's enough for now, since this off-topic thread is getting even more off-topic.
Rape is rape. I couldn't give a crap what the legal definition is. Forcing yourself on a person against there wishes is rape. Having a little bit of paper saying they're your property doesn't change that. It just makes you an even bigger ass, which is impressive.
As for Detroit...well, I've been there a few times. My wife lived near there. So this is kinda weird to see. Even when I was there a few years ago, it was noticeable how few people were actually in some parts.
I have the strange and slightly fantastic mental picture of the city being abandoned completely as the officials get locked in a battle as to whether they're actually allowed to declare bankruptcy, and the city turns into one of those scenes from a post apocalyptic movie.
I honestly can't see what can be done. There's no money to save the city. It's not important enough, especially give it's population is probably made up mostly of those too poor to leave, and it's not making enough money.
I'll probably get heat for asking this, but I'm genuinely curious to hear your guy's (and gal's) thoughts on this:
Do the public workers losing their pensions hold any kind of culpability to assumedly repeatedly voting for the people who have administrated the decline of Detroit over the last few decades?
Could this be just a consequence of voting?
I'm in no way suggesting it doesn't suck hardcore that this is happeneing to them, or they don't deserve sympathy.
Kryzbyn wrote: I'll probably get heat for asking this, but I'm genuinely curious to hear your guy's (and gal's) thoughts on this:
Do the public workers losing their pensions hold any kind of culpability to assumedly repeatedly voting for the people who have administrated the decline of Detroit over the last few decades?
Could this be just a consequence of voting?
I'm in no way suggesting it doesn't suck hardcore that this is happeneing to them, or they don't deserve sympathy.
Some perhaps.
Of course, first you'd have to determine if public workers did in fact support the adminstrators of the decline. In what percentage and how instrumental were they in keeping them in office. Since we're talking a period of decades, I'd assume there were multiple adminstrations with different approaches to the problem.
Then you'd have to determine to what extent those adminstrators were in fact responsible for the decline. White flight, the general decline of manufacturing, the specific decline in the auto industry and many other factors were beyond the control of Detroit's administration.
You also need to consider if any sort of viable alternative they COULD have voted for would have done anything differently.
You'd also have to determine whether Detroit public sector jobs have a residency requirement and whether they were even Detroit voters.
Zeugma wrote: First: thanks Comrade Anklebiter for the link to the website on Harriet Jacobs. I read excerpts from "Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl" in college and am pleased to see new information and biographies being published. No problem, I love spreading communist propaganda.
If one were so inclined, one could go through my posts and discover that I read that article, Jacobs' book, bell hooks' Ain't I a Woman and saw Django Unchained all within a couple weeks of each other and promptly started an argument with Comrade Jeff about Thomas Jefferson.
As for the continuing slave-rape debate, we can all agree in 2013 (except for that troll, Comrade Meatrace) that doing your slaves is rape, but, alas, it wasn't in the antebellum South, and I think that's Comrade Meatrace's point.
Detroit Bankruptcy Takes Aim at Pensions by Jane Slaughter
Which, I think, is the coolest name of any of the journalists thus far linked.
Kryzbyn wrote: I'll probably get heat for asking this, but I'm genuinely curious to hear your guy's (and gal's) thoughts on this:
Do the public workers losing their pensions hold any kind of culpability to assumedly repeatedly voting for the people who have administrated the decline of Detroit over the last few decades?
Could this be just a consequence of voting?
Well, apart from the fact that any level of administrative competency can't change the winds of the free market, no.
Of the approximately 18 billion in debt that Detroit has, only $3.5bn is employee pensions. The average city pension is something like 19k a year. So let's distance ourselves from the idea that 19% of the debt is causing 100% of the problem.
Much Detroit's problem is obscene corporate tax breaks for the car companies in a (failed) attempt to entice them to bring jobs back to the area. Despite bankruptcy, the city has maintained its pledge to build a new $283 million stadium for the Red Wings. That seems pretty wrong to me.
Besides, the public employees don't make up any significant portion of the voter base.
Kryzbyn wrote: I'll probably get heat for asking this, but I'm genuinely curious to hear your guy's (and gal's) thoughts on this:
Do the public workers losing their pensions hold any kind of culpability to assumedly repeatedly voting for the people who have administrated the decline of Detroit over the last few decades?
Could this be just a consequence of voting?
I'm in no way suggesting it doesn't suck hardcore that this is happeneing to them, or they don't deserve sympathy.
No, because your voting doesn't change anything.
Kryzbyn wrote: I'm speaking of my aunts and uncles, they were born in the late 40's, 50's and 60's. They grew up around and with black folks. That wasn't the problem, not for them.
There were a lot of Italians and Irish who grew up with black people in Paterson too. Many of those who could afford to do so, left the city in the era of White Flight for adjoining suburbs. Two of those suburbs, East and West Paterson, eventually changed their names to disassociate themselves from a blighted city. Some whites relocated to areas of Paterson that were almost exclusively white such as Hilcrest, but the numbers are clear. Paterson went from a city that was 70 percent white to more than 80 percent non-white.
thejeff wrote: NPC Dave wrote: meatrace wrote: Paul Krugman's opinion on the matter. From Paul's conclusion...
"There are influential people out there who would like you to believe that Detroit’s demise is fundamentally a tale of fiscal irresponsibility and/or greedy public employees. It isn’t. "
-------------------
Wrong again Paul. That is exactly what it is.
Fiscal conservatives warned for decades what would happen to Detroit if the city did not change its ways. It was the epitome of bad government. But no, the city government didn't want to listen. The red ink could just flow forever. The city Democrats practically dared any naysayer to try and stop them.
Well, they just got stopped. Krugman's got a better track record than most economists. He's just a bit closer to Keynesianism than to the Chicago School nonsense, so why listen.
And as I said before, this is pure politics, rather than economic necessity. The city certainly has problems, but the bankruptcy decision was imposed on it from above by an appointee of the governor, who overrode the local elected officials. Even though the people of the state overturned the fiscal manager law in a referendum.
What ever happened to the conservative theories about local control? In April 2012 city officials went to the state government because they were desperate. Their choices were to stiff bond holders, stiff pension holders, stop paying for current city programs, or bankruptcy(stiff all three to some extent). The made the offer to let the state have more control over their finances in exchange for financial help(translation: hope for bailout).
The state agreed.
The economic necessity is either a) bailout or b) bankruptcy. The decision as to which choice will be made is, of course, pure politics. The governor is a Republican, the city is Democrat so the choice is b). If the governor were a Democrat the decision would be a).
If the city had not made the agreement with the state, then bankruptcy would still happen at some point.
As for Krugman, his quote...
"For the most part, it’s just one of those things that happens now and then in an ever-changing economy."
Completely sweeps under the rug that Detroit is just the first large city of many, many more bankruptcies coming down the pike.
Chicago, Los Angeles and Baltimore all have greater pension obligations per city resident than Detroit does. We can't blame all of these cities mismanagement on the "ever-changing economy".
LazarX wrote: There were a lot of Italians and Irish who grew up with black people in Paterson too. so much depends
upon
a red wheel
barrow
glazed with rain
water
beside the white
chickens.
NPC Dave wrote: As for Krugman, his quote...
"For the most part, it’s just one of those things that happens now and then in an ever-changing economy."
Completely sweeps under the rug that Detroit is just the first large city of many, many more bankruptcies coming down the pike.
getting this quote from the article "Detroit, the New Greece".
So now the deficit scolds have a new case to misinterpret. Never mind the repeated failure of the predicted U.S. fiscal crisis to materialize, the sharp fall in predicted U.S. debt levels and the way much of the research the scolds used to justify their scolding has been discredited; let’s obsess about municipal budgets and public pension obligations!
Or, actually, let’s not.
Are Detroit’s woes the leading edge of a national public pensions crisis? No. State and local pensions are indeed underfunded, with experts at Boston College putting the total shortfall at $1 trillion. But many governments are taking steps to address the shortfall. These steps aren’t yet sufficient; the Boston College estimates suggest that overall pension contributions this year will be about $25 billion less than they should be. But in a $16 trillion economy, that’s just not a big deal — and even if you make more pessimistic assumptions, as some but not all accountants say you should, it still isn’t a big deal.
So was Detroit just uniquely irresponsible? Again, no. Detroit does seem to have had especially bad governance, but for the most part the city was just an innocent victim of market forces.
What? Market forces have victims? Of course they do. After all, free-market enthusiasts love to quote Joseph Schumpeter about the inevitability of “creative destruction” — but they and their audiences invariably picture themselves as being the creative destroyers, not the creatively destroyed. Well, guess what: Someone always ends up being the modern equivalent of a buggy-whip producer, and it might be you.
Sometimes the losers from economic change are individuals whose skills have become redundant; sometimes they’re companies, serving a market niche that no longer exists; and sometimes they’re whole cities that lose their place in the economic ecosystem. Decline happens.
True, in Detroit’s case matters seem to have been made worse by political and social dysfunction. One consequence of this dysfunction has been a severe case of “job sprawl” within the metropolitan area, with jobs fleeing the urban core even when employment in greater Detroit was still rising, and even as other cities were seeing something of a city-center revival. Fewer than a quarter of the jobs on offer in the Detroit metropolitan area lie within 10 miles of the traditional central business district; in greater Pittsburgh, another former industrial giant whose glory days have passed, the corresponding figure is more than 50 percent. And the relative vitality of Pittsburgh’s core may explain why the former steel capital is showing signs of a renaissance, while Detroit just keeps sinking.
So by all means let’s have a serious discussion about how cities can best manage the transition when their traditional sources of competitive advantage go away. And let’s also have a serious discussion about our obligations, as a nation, to those of our fellow citizens who have the bad luck of finding themselves living and working in the wrong place at the wrong time — because, as I said, decline happens, and some regional economies will end up shrinking, perhaps drastically, no matter what we do.
The important thing is not to let the discussion get hijacked, Greek-style. There are influential people out there who would like you to believe that Detroit’s demise is fundamentally a tale of fiscal irresponsibility and/or greedy public employees. It isn’t. For the most part, it’s just one of those things that happens now and then in an ever-changing economy.
That's hardly just "sweeping things under the rug".
NPC Dave wrote: Chicago, Los Angeles and Baltimore all have greater pension obligations per city resident than Detroit does. We can't blame all of these cities mismanagement on the "ever-changing economy". And of course, pension obligations are the thing actually causing problems. They're the only proper measure of how a city is doing.
The thing that blows my mind is the average pension of one of these dudes is a meager $19k/year. That's f+%!ing pathetic! How do these pensioners scrape by?!?
Our guys are retiring at $3200/month. [Flexes Teamster muscles]
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: The thing that blows my mind is the average pension of one of these dudes is a meager $19k/year. That's f@&&ing pathetic! How do these pensioners scrape by?!? Indeed. And they're very likely to be screwed out of that in the name of fiscal responsibility.
If there is $3.5b owed to the public employees, the people who actually day in and day out make the city function, and the rest of it ($14.5b)is a structural deficit left by bending over backwards for big business, then I dare say we can see what type of fiscal malfeasance was perpetrated.
Although, and not to down play it, I guess it would depend on the age of the pensioners and how long ago they retired. I met a guy once who was 90 and had retired with a Boston Carmen's Union pension 30 years back.
But that's neither here nor there.
Dude there's a lot of waste in public sector pensions as well. I think mostly I object to the hacksaw proscription for dealing with the bloat.
A friend of mine just "retired" at like 36 from the Army with a 50k/year pension. No, he was not injured in any way.
LazarX wrote: That's hardly just "sweeping things under the rug". Which parts of the article are you paying attention to?
"Never mind the repeated failure of the predicted U.S. fiscal crisis to materialize,"
FYI to Krugman...Detroit going bankrupt is the latest materialization of the ongoing US fiscal crisis.
"the sharp fall in predicted U.S. debt levels"
The only reason it hasn't sharply fallen is the US govt extra borrowing to keep the level up and the Federal Reserve propping up the housing market with free money for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
" and the way much of the research the scolds used to justify their scolding has been discredited;"
Krugman ignoring a problem does not make the problem go away or discredit the problem.
"Are Detroit’s woes the leading edge of a national public pensions crisis? No."
Wrong, the correct answer is yes, and anyone counting on a public pension better start financial preparations so they don't have to count on it. If they don't, they are in for a world of hurt later like Detroit city pensioners are now.
"but for the most part the city was just an innocent victim of market forces."
False, I will quote someone else who has lived in Detroit and got to experience the whole thing first hand...
------------
In fact, in 1992 the city was, for the most part, a mega-s***hole under Marxist rule, with a serious decline in city services, rampant criminal activity, racial disunion, and the city was under siege to the point of making international headlines for its Devil’s Night chicanery. At about this time, Ze’ev Chafets published his book, Devil’s Night and other True Tales of Detroit. His book was an accurate portrayal of Detroit at the time. Also at this time, I was living in Detroit’s East English Village on the East Side. I had secured a house in that neighborhood when I was one day past the age of nineteen, hoping to figure out the city and its reputation by making my own tracks and forming my own opinions based on my experiences.
In December 1991, one block from my home, a man twice my size tried to stuff me into the back of a Chrysler New Yorker that was occupied by three other co-crazies blanked out on dope. Using my athletic prowess, I escaped the grasp of my attacker, and I immediately realized that had I not been able to throw off the attacker, I probably would have been just another number in the city morgue archives: gang-raped and dumped in an alley, only to be found several days later by someone cutting through the alley on the way to nowhere. My husband and I packed our bags and left the city the following spring. After ten years, we were done with The Experiment. The Marxism, crime, anti-white racism, tax rates, and lack of stable neighborhoods chased us out of town.
In reality, the city died in 1967, with the riot that changed the city for decades. The decomposition occurred immediately thereafter. My father, a firefighter, worked a 72+ hour shift during the riots, putting out fires while being shot at by rioting civilians. He told me stories about the lack of police protection, and thus having to fight off gangs of rioters and looters by pulling out what is know as the 2 1/2 inch handline, the ultimate firefighter tool.
-------------------
And of course, the final conclusion from Krugman, which I already quoted, as he sweeps it under the rug...until the next big city hits the wall.
"There are influential people out there who would like you to believe that Detroit’s demise is fundamentally a tale of fiscal irresponsibility and/or greedy public employees. It isn’t. For the most part, it’s just one of those things that happens now and then in an ever-changing economy."
Krugman's way of saying...nothing to see here folks, not to worry just move along.
thejeff wrote: NPC Dave wrote: Chicago, Los Angeles and Baltimore all have greater pension obligations per city resident than Detroit does. We can't blame all of these cities mismanagement on the "ever-changing economy". And of course, pension obligations are the thing actually causing problems. They're the only proper measure of how a city is doing.
Your words, not mine.
But those three cities can't meet their future obligations, so they will default or get a bailout, one way or another.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Wait, are we seriously all arguing that the city's decline is due 100% to either (a) racism (per Comrade Goblin), or (b) "Marxism" (per Citizen Dave's anonymous quote)? That it has nothing at all to do with the fact that Detroit's entire economy was based on a single industry (automotives), which crashed because they got out-competed by foreign competetors who offered better safety features, better mileage, and lower prices?
No, Kirth, in fact Paul Krugman is arguing your precise point. Which I happen to agree with. There are, of course, other factors, including wasteful public spending and misplaced tax dollars (they seem to have perennial fiascos involving sports arenas), but the primary factor to blame is what you suggest.
NPC Dave wrote:
"the sharp fall in predicted U.S. debt levels"
The only reason it hasn't sharply fallen is the US govt extra borrowing to keep the level up and the Federal Reserve propping up the housing market with free money for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
"but for the most part the city was just an innocent victim of market forces."
False, I will quote someone else who has lived in Detroit and got to experience the whole thing first hand...
------------
In fact, in 1992 the city was, for the most part, a mega-s***hole under Marxist rule, with a serious decline in city services,
Just to respond to two things: First, Krugman is saying and is correct in saying that US debt levels are below where they were predicted to be a few years ago and current predictions are lower than predictions were a few years ago. The horrible debt crisis that was going to destroy the country isn't materializing. Yes, we still owe a lot of money and are still running a deficit. No, it's not skyrocketing as all the fearmongers were predicting in the depths of the Recession.
Second, any description of Detroit that starts with "under Marxist rule" is so blatantly biased as to be not even worth reading.
meatrace wrote: No, Kirth, in fact Paul Krugman is arguing your precise point. Which I happen to agree with. There are, of course, other factors, including wasteful public spending and misplaced tax dollars (they seem to have perennial fiascos involving sports arenas), but the primary factor to blame is what you suggest. Oh. OK, then, thanks! Although I'm not much of an economist, so if Krugman agrees with me, he might want to re-evaluate his stance. Then again, a broken clock is right twice a day.
But only if it's an analog clock. A broken digital clock is just blank.
My broken digital clock flashes 88:88. But the point stands, it's never 88 o'clock.
I dislike Krugman personally (I think he's an arrogant twat) and disagree with him on the fundamentals of economics, but like you say, he's sometimes right, as I believe he is here.
P.S. I live near Pittsbugh now. They used to have one industry: steel. When it crashed, it was assumed that Pittsburgh would be where Detroit is, but now the city itself seems to be doing well, because they diversified into financial services, biochemical tech, Tom Cruise movies, and a few other things. (In all fairlness, the discovery of gas reserves in the nearby Marcellus Shale probably doesn't hurt, although none of the money from that seems to be making its way to the city itself.) The thing is, if Detroit was any worse-managed than Pittsburgh currently is, I'd be surprised -- you should see what passes for public streets here (I've driven on better roads in the Third World), despite the super-high taxes.
Kirth Gersen wrote: P.S. I live near Pittsbugh now. They used to have one industry: steel. When it crashed, it was assumed that Pittsburgh would be where Detroit is, but now the city itself seems to be doing well, because they diversified into financial services, biochemical tech, Tom Cruise movies, and a few other things. (In all fairlness, the discovery of gas reserves in the nearby Marcellus Shale probably doesn't hurt, although none of the money from that seems to be making its way to the city itself.) The thing is, if Detroit was any worse-managed than Pittsburgh currently is, I'd be surprised -- you should see what passes for public streets here (I've driven on better roads in the Third World), despite the super-high taxes. From what I've read, Detroit's management history makes Pittsburg seem European by comparison. At this time, about half the city's streetlights simply don't work, and the average emergency response time by police is about 56 minutes.
But as Krugman points out, one can't ignore that a large part of Detroit's decline is due to it's specialised reliance on an industry that has all but collapsed. When economic tides shift, someone is going to be left high and dry on the rocks.
Dude, Madison, Wisconsin only has two seasons: freezing and construction.
Right now the exit closest to me on the highway is going to be renovated to allow entry from both directions. The construction is slated to take some 5 years.
Some 20-30% of the city budget is spent every year on upkeep downtown because if we don't we will stop being the state capitol. How effed is that? And people wonder why property taxes are so high.
/old man
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
NPC Dave wrote: And of course, the final conclusion from Krugman, which I already quoted, as he sweeps it under the rug...until the next big city hits the wall.
"There are influential people out there who would like you to believe that Detroit’s demise is fundamentally a tale of fiscal irresponsibility and/or greedy public employees. It isn’t. For the most part, it’s just one of those things that happens now and then in an ever-changing economy."
Krugman's way of saying...nothing to see here folks, not to worry just move along.
Your built in bias is showing to the point where you are actually ignoring text that's in front of your face.
Krugman isn't saying that Detroit's collapse is something to be taken for granted, swept under the rug and not looked at in a serious way. He says as I quote.
So by all means let’s have a serious discussion about how cities can best manage the transition when their traditional sources of competitive advantage go away. And let’s also have a serious discussion about our obligations, as a nation, to those of our fellow citizens who have the bad luck of finding themselves living and working in the wrong place at the wrong time — because, as I said, decline happens, and some regional economies will end up shrinking, perhaps drastically, no matter what we do.
The important thing is not to let the discussion get hijacked, Greek-style. There are influential people out there who would like you to believe that Detroit’s demise is fundamentally a tale of fiscal irresponsibility and/or greedy public employees. It isn’t. For the most part, it’s just one of those things that happens now and then in an ever-changing economy.
Lumping this "Marxist misrule" or "Bad Unions" or "Mini-Greece" IS sweeping important facts under the rug. Krugman points out that Detroit IS a reminder that we DO have hard questions to ask about handling the transition of our cities in a changing economy, and that the world has tried some very bad ideas in Greece and Spain, and should not blindly in panic, resort to repeating those failed proscriptions here.
LazarX wrote: From what I've read, Detroit's management history makes Pittsburg seem European by comparison. At this time, about half the city's streetlights simply don't work, and the average emergency response time by police is about 56 minutes. This is as it should be, really. The population has declined by almost a quarter of a million since 2000, or more than 25%!
I'm generally against cutting public services, but it only makes sense when there's significantly less public to serve :)
meatrace wrote: Right now the exit closest to me on the highway is going to be renovated to allow entry from both directions. The construction is slated to take some 5 years. That sounds like a paradise. The Squirrel Hill Tunnel is the only way into Pittsburgh, or past it to the airport, from the eastern suburbs. It has two (2) lanes in each direction, but needs 4. It's closed most weekends for no apparent reason, which means that Pittsbugh (and the airport) might as well be in California. There are no plans to widen the tunnel. There are no plans to build a rail system connecting the city/airport/eastern suburbs. There are no plans to build a beltway around the city.
Kirth, I would argue the discovery of those resErves played the biggest role.
Freehold DM wrote: Kirth, I would argue the discovery of those resErves played the biggest role. You may know something I don't, then. I've worked for some of the companies profiteering from those reserves, and they've all pretty much just set up token offices near the airport so they don't ever have to go into Pittsburgh. They don't spend any time or money here, they focus on extracting and pipeline building in West Virginia where the taxes are lower, and they take all their profit home with them to Texas or wherever.
I can only speak for the ones I have direct experience with, though.
Kirth Gersen wrote: Wait, are we seriously all arguing that the city's decline is due 100% to either (a) racism (per Comrade Goblin), Not exactly an accurate summation of my various posts in this thread.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Not exactly an accurate summation of my various posts in this thread. Well, yeah, but a proper summation didn't set me up for such a pithy characterization of Citizen Dave's view, so your nuance was an unfortunate casualty of wit.
Fair enough. I'll be happy to take one for the team.
This guy hit it on the head, I think.
Kirth Gersen wrote: Wait, are we seriously all arguing that the city's decline is due 100% to either (a) racism (per Comrade Goblin), or (b) "Marxism" (per Citizen Dave's anonymous quote)? That it has nothing at all to do with the fact that Detroit's entire economy was based on a single industry (automotives), which crashed because they got out-competed by foreign competetors who offered better safety features, better mileage, and lower prices? You forgot the gutting of trade policies, but yeah. One of Detroit's major issues was an economic monoculture.
Kirth Gersen wrote: P.S. I live near Pittsbugh now. They used to have one industry: steel. When it crashed, it was assumed that Pittsburgh would be where Detroit is, but now the city itself seems to be doing well, because they diversified into financial services, biochemical tech, Tom Cruise movies, and a few other things. (In all fairlness, the discovery of gas reserves in the nearby Marcellus Shale probably doesn't hurt, although none of the money from that seems to be making its way to the city itself.) The thing is, if Detroit was any worse-managed than Pittsburgh currently is, I'd be surprised -- you should see what passes for public streets here (I've driven on better roads in the Third World), despite the super-high taxes. That has more to do with Harrisburg than Pittsburgh though. Philadelphia has similar issues.
Quote: One of Detroit's major issues was an economic monoculture Not between 1959 and 1972!
People moving out/People moving in/Why?/Because of the color of their skin
meatrace wrote: LazarX wrote: From what I've read, Detroit's management history makes Pittsburg seem European by comparison. At this time, about half the city's streetlights simply don't work, and the average emergency response time by police is about 56 minutes. This is as it should be, really. The population has declined by almost a quarter of a million since 2000, or more than 25%!
I'm generally against cutting public services, but it only makes sense when there's significantly less public to serve :) The problem is that those services still have the same area to cover though, and less help because large parts of the city are abandoned.
From a purely abstract perspective, one thing that could really have helped Detroit would have been relocating people from the outer, mostly empty neighborhoods to more central ones and razing the abandoned areas.
Great Ooga Booga/Can't you hear me talkin' to ya?!?
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Quote: One of Detroit's major issues was an economic monoculture Not between 1959 and 1972!
People moving out/People moving in/Why?/Because of the color of their skin Which ignores that the essentially was no other top tier auto manufacturer during that time other than the big three.
Also note I said one of, not the only.
There was white flight all over the country, and it's hurt all the cities. But no large city took the same kick to the jimmies as Detroit. So let's look at the other contributing factors rather than simply shouting racism and international socialist revolution, okay?
Actually, I was talking about Motown Records, Stooge.
(Started in '59, moved to LA in '72.)
|
