- Centurion Member
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:25 am
- Location: TX
Is there a particular reason why the federal government would encourage jobs to move to Detroit to offset their loss, versus, say, Pittsburgh or Cleveland or one of many other places in decline? Isn't that the job of Detroit itself to recognize, "We're hemmorhaging jobs; perhaps we shouldn't be totally dependent on a single industry; perhaps we should make ourselves attractive to other sorts of manufacturing? Hmm, what's keeping other businesses from coming here?"
I live in a small, rural town. The average household income around here is about $32,000--- it's gone up about $5k since we came here. (Median household income in the US is about $53k.) Our town's economy is totally dependent on two employers; we would vanish from the map if one or both of them were to relocate. We take walks through town and look at the empty buildings, the damaged houses, the poverty, and we wonder what sort of industry we could bring to an uneducated, unskilled pool of workers. I can't imagine that no one has ever done the same thing in Detroit-- whether they attribute the source of the problems to NAFTA, unions, the EPA, government mismanagement, whatever, everyone sees the results of decline. What has made Detroit unattractive to new industries to move in and reclaim the preexisting infrastructure? A city/state/country/empire can be propped up, but unless the root causes that caused its original decay are addressed, it's only a delay of the inevitable.