> If you mean "moving to blue cities" no, I mean "moving to cities", period. > that is not the trend. Just the opposite, in fact. Source, please. > Detroit,

> If you mean "moving to blue cities" no, I mean "moving to cities", period. > that is not the trend. Just the opposite, in fact. Source, please. > Detroit, Cleveland, Newark, Camden, Baltimore, Akron, Hartford, Flint, Cairo, St. Louis, East St. Louis for starters? Don't have the time to debunk every single one of those, but the first three are absolutely not examples of the claims "The people running the cities run them into the ground by applying more and more gold plating to the services they provide" or even "People move out of cities because they do not feel safe, and the services suck." Those cities experienced decline due to deindustrialization: the over-reliance on certain manufacturing industries like steel and automotive to provide jobs, which were lost to international competition. People moved away because they could not find work. Nor are those cities examples of "it all collapses and is irretrievable" - the population of Newark and Cleveland has plateaued since the 1990s and is now seeing slight increases. And even Detroit has seen a continuous decrease of poverty and crime rates in the last 10 years.