3 ms·

A very complex problem the deeper you investigate this, the less you seem to know. I've done it :) If you look at who is doing it super well, like perhaps Japa

A very complex problem the deeper you investigate this, the less you seem to know. I've done it :) If you look at who is doing it super well, like perhaps Japan? It's largely due to a 99.99% conviction rate on all crime accusations, which I take as a kangaroo court system, into penal labour. I don't think there's much to learn from there. Japan should stop their penal labour. Switzerland, norway do a good job? Which came down to largely speaking a change about 10 years ago where people may live in the war fallout shelters but also a huge difference in labour laws. Mainly being no minimum wage. There's some brilliance to this, but not the entire answer. North america doesnt have these equivalent policies which isolate the squalid issues to another place. So often the social nets are located downtown and so they isolate these issues to their downtown. Moving the problem, isnt necessarily solving the problem. You look at countries which have universal mental health care AND universal parental leave and supports. There's a huge correlation to solving these sorts of problems. Early childhood abuse reductions have huge impact toward criminality in general, including frivolous crimes like speeding and littering. But then you look at the 'who is even responsible for cleaning up the mess' and generally speaking its the municipalities. >But NYC’s problems only seem to be getting worse, especially for those who have the least. I never researched NYC specifically back in the day but I am aware of what's happening there. If you research Coleman Young's failures with detroit. NYC is basically following lockstep with how he failed detroit and caused the city of detroit's decline. Hows the saying go? Don't learn history and repeat it? Thousands of years ago the political class figured out that the more control you apply to your populous, the more powerful you feel but the less actual control you have. I cant point to any specific year for NYC but they've been in decline for at least a decade or more. Basically what happens, the political class increases control, pushes out those who oppose and end up with increased support. They claim success. They rinse repeat. After a number of these cycles, the richer people who can afford to flee, have fled. Then you start getting tax hikes because they don't quite have the same tax base anymore.They dont blame themselves for the problem they caused. So later on, you really struggle with your budget. NYC recentlyish announced deep cuts to police, education, libraries. So NYC is deeply reducing the services they provide for what exactly? They take a percentage and have had many tax hikes. Obviously, cleaning the squalor has already been cut. How many people just look at the tremendously high taxes and regulations, but then compare it to the now greatly reduced services. Where's all the money going? So you leave as well. The only way NYC prevents their collapse is a huge reduction is their control. But politically that will never happen, so the squalor will increasingly get worse.

tetromino_ 3y ago
> If you research Coleman Young's failures with detroit. NYC is basically following lockstep with how he failed detroit and caused the city of detroit's decline. Could you explain how Coleman Young caused Detroit's decline? My understanding - but maybe I am wrong - was that the decline was caused by the auto industry gradually moving production out of Detroit and into suburbs in the 1950s, causing massive unemployment among low-mobility black workers in Detroit proper in the 1960s, causing the 1967 riot, causing white and wealthy black families to flee the city, and by the time Coleman Young was elected in 1973, the city was doomed to spiral into economic and social failure.
- incomingpain 3y ago
  >Could you explain how Coleman Young caused Detroit's decline? My understanding - but maybe I am wrong - was that the decline was caused by the auto industry gradually moving production out of Detroit and into suburbs in the 1950s, causing massive unemployment among low-mobility black workers in Detroit proper in the 1960s, causing the 1967 riot, causing white and wealthy black families to flee the city, and by the time Coleman Young was elected in 1973, the city was doomed to spiral into economic and social failure. This subject could be a book. It probably is a book but I dont have any recommendations on hand sorry. Much of your understanding is correct, if not all. But it's a matter of timing. Worse yet, it's impossible to disconnect the racism factor for sure. But also makes understanding the situation so much worse. The huge missing factor here is the 'interstate blame' but you cant move the packard plant down the road. That's too costly, businesses will stay as long as they can tolerate. If you look at metro detroit, it didn't decline until Kwame. But the big question, why move to the burbs? Why not move to another city? That's the depth which is missing from a wiki page that matters. Poor unemployed workers is a godsend to businesses. Businesses move in to gain access to high unemployment and cheap labour. Basically Chinese coast 101 and globalism. Even outside detroit, the flint michigan strikes had lasting major consequences for detroit. The riots only lasted a few days and were insignificant compared to the BLM riots or the Seattle insurrection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Detroit_riot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Detroit_riot These obviously being heavily influenced by MLK and Rosa Parks; but also the underground railroad which saved so many slaves and deposited them in detroit or windsor. But they were only isolated to the black ghetto, white people really didnt care here. The riots never really left the black neighbourhood. The looting was of their own community. Why would white people necessarily be upset to any large degree about 5 days of unrest? At the time of these riots, unemployment of black people was the same as white people. Roughly around 2-3%. The high unemployment occurred after. It had everything to do with taxation policies, but you can get away with taxing successful businesses for a long time. If you increase taxes, the army of accountants will crunch the numbers. They figure out the number of years of ROI vs amortization of moving. when coleman young got into power, 1973. The city was still pretty much white people, but blacks were extremely high turnout to vote and whites were busy in the burbs and didnt vote, voting was heavily down racial lines, and businesses hadnt yet fled to major significance. The interstates allowed commuters to drive into the city. I believe in terms of actual census, blacks didnt get parity with whites until the early 80s. But the writing was on the wall. Nobody would invest into the city of detroit at that point when they are actively looking at the burbs. No investment means decline, but not significant quick decline. Coleman right away had to deal with this and he knew it. You don't hear about racist 'affirmative action' stuff anymore, but that was him. He did that. He had tons of racist policies, taxes were largely speaking only spent on initiatives for black people. It was literally a sort of 'ill get back at you for segregation' which the civil rights act and desegregation had been as expected rocky at best before him. He had pools which were 'blacks only'. Imagine you're white, you pay increasing amounts of taxes. Your part of the city is declining and poor blacks who arent paying taxes are getting the benefits. Take from the rich, give to the poor. But you can simply leave and deprive the city of your taxes... that's the choice you make. You then have a competing suburbs who say your taxes will go to your needs. I dont care what skin colour you are, you leave when it's so imbalanced and hostile to your needs. So in coleman's term he went from a declining detroit into a bankrupt one and black unemployment went sky high because of his actions. To his credit, he was always great at balancing the budget after this. He learnt what bankruptcy meant. If I could take a Tardis to 1973, the decline of detroit was barely expected, and certainly not a set in stone reality. Later on, Coleman tried to attract white people back to the city, but that was so impossible. To make up for his first term and pull out of bankruptcy, his taxation largely speaking targeted white businesses. Making the problem worse. Detroit had a migrant crisis in exactly the same way NYC is experiencing today. https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/us/migrant-crisis-new-york-bus-company-lawsuit/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/us/migrant-crisis-new-york-bu... They blame texas and arizona...migrants leaving the south for the north. No idea if true, but NYC chose to be a sanctuary city? Do they not want that anymore? Also in exactly the same way, they have tried to control the populous and have pushed everyone who paid taxes out.

tetromino_ 3y ago

> If you research Coleman Young's failures with detroit. NYC is basically following lockstep with how he failed detroit and caused the city of detroit's decline. Could you explain how Coleman Young caused Detroit's decline? My understanding - but maybe I am wrong - was that the decline was caused by the auto industry gradually moving production out of Detroit and into suburbs in the 1950s, causing massive unemployment among low-mobility black workers in Detroit proper in the 1960s, causing the 1967 riot, causing white and wealthy black families to flee the city, and by the time Coleman Young was elected in 1973, the city was doomed to spiral into economic and social failure.

incomingpain 3y ago
>Could you explain how Coleman Young caused Detroit's decline? My understanding - but maybe I am wrong - was that the decline was caused by the auto industry gradually moving production out of Detroit and into suburbs in the 1950s, causing massive unemployment among low-mobility black workers in Detroit proper in the 1960s, causing the 1967 riot, causing white and wealthy black families to flee the city, and by the time Coleman Young was elected in 1973, the city was doomed to spiral into economic and social failure. This subject could be a book. It probably is a book but I dont have any recommendations on hand sorry. Much of your understanding is correct, if not all. But it's a matter of timing. Worse yet, it's impossible to disconnect the racism factor for sure. But also makes understanding the situation so much worse. The huge missing factor here is the 'interstate blame' but you cant move the packard plant down the road. That's too costly, businesses will stay as long as they can tolerate. If you look at metro detroit, it didn't decline until Kwame. But the big question, why move to the burbs? Why not move to another city? That's the depth which is missing from a wiki page that matters. Poor unemployed workers is a godsend to businesses. Businesses move in to gain access to high unemployment and cheap labour. Basically Chinese coast 101 and globalism. Even outside detroit, the flint michigan strikes had lasting major consequences for detroit. The riots only lasted a few days and were insignificant compared to the BLM riots or the Seattle insurrection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Detroit_riot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Detroit_riot These obviously being heavily influenced by MLK and Rosa Parks; but also the underground railroad which saved so many slaves and deposited them in detroit or windsor. But they were only isolated to the black ghetto, white people really didnt care here. The riots never really left the black neighbourhood. The looting was of their own community. Why would white people necessarily be upset to any large degree about 5 days of unrest? At the time of these riots, unemployment of black people was the same as white people. Roughly around 2-3%. The high unemployment occurred after. It had everything to do with taxation policies, but you can get away with taxing successful businesses for a long time. If you increase taxes, the army of accountants will crunch the numbers. They figure out the number of years of ROI vs amortization of moving. when coleman young got into power, 1973. The city was still pretty much white people, but blacks were extremely high turnout to vote and whites were busy in the burbs and didnt vote, voting was heavily down racial lines, and businesses hadnt yet fled to major significance. The interstates allowed commuters to drive into the city. I believe in terms of actual census, blacks didnt get parity with whites until the early 80s. But the writing was on the wall. Nobody would invest into the city of detroit at that point when they are actively looking at the burbs. No investment means decline, but not significant quick decline. Coleman right away had to deal with this and he knew it. You don't hear about racist 'affirmative action' stuff anymore, but that was him. He did that. He had tons of racist policies, taxes were largely speaking only spent on initiatives for black people. It was literally a sort of 'ill get back at you for segregation' which the civil rights act and desegregation had been as expected rocky at best before him. He had pools which were 'blacks only'. Imagine you're white, you pay increasing amounts of taxes. Your part of the city is declining and poor blacks who arent paying taxes are getting the benefits. Take from the rich, give to the poor. But you can simply leave and deprive the city of your taxes... that's the choice you make. You then have a competing suburbs who say your taxes will go to your needs. I dont care what skin colour you are, you leave when it's so imbalanced and hostile to your needs. So in coleman's term he went from a declining detroit into a bankrupt one and black unemployment went sky high because of his actions. To his credit, he was always great at balancing the budget after this. He learnt what bankruptcy meant. If I could take a Tardis to 1973, the decline of detroit was barely expected, and certainly not a set in stone reality. Later on, Coleman tried to attract white people back to the city, but that was so impossible. To make up for his first term and pull out of bankruptcy, his taxation largely speaking targeted white businesses. Making the problem worse. Detroit had a migrant crisis in exactly the same way NYC is experiencing today. https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/us/migrant-crisis-new-york-bus-company-lawsuit/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/us/migrant-crisis-new-york-bu... They blame texas and arizona...migrants leaving the south for the north. No idea if true, but NYC chose to be a sanctuary city? Do they not want that anymore? Also in exactly the same way, they have tried to control the populous and have pushed everyone who paid taxes out.