http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntam...-not-liberal-politics-is-what-killed-detroit/ [stubborn old man reading something he doesn't understand]Forbes..lol [/stubborn]
So...the western world's transition from grossly industrial to strongly technological hurt Detroit and benefited Frisco. And this is profound how?
Quote from the article The sad truth in today’s world is that irrespective of political party affiliation, there’s a peculiar worship of manufacturing and the backbreaking jobs it allegedly creates." The very jobs he places so little value on were the middle class jobs that allowed one to raise a family on. This guy has little to offer and only seems to excuse the irresponsible behavior that Detroit fostered for decades.
Geez! This fellow can't see past his nose. The next Detroits are probably all in California. California is broke from years of liberal politics. The bay area has already lost the creators of Silcon Valley. The company that created the Hard drive doesn't do that any longer, The company that was the largest PC manufacturer doesn't do that anymore. The company that took over as the number one PC maker doesn't make anything in the valley anymore. They built a new plant in Hong Kong. The other Computer Manufactures that sprang up to compete in mainframes and PCs are all gone. The other Hard drive makers that sprang up to compete with the original are all gone, some still built but not in the valley. The State did raise taxes though to try and cover the shortfall. As for Detroit, who the hell does he think will go there to make what? They don't even make Chevys there anymore. The Democrats are still in charge though. The good part is they don't need a well equipped police force there to keep rioters from burning the town down. It's all been done.
Just as a side bar on liberal Politics. I think the first time it sent me into an all out rage was when Dianne Feinstein was the Mayor of San Fransisco during the time Reagan brought the five Missouri Class Battleships back into active duty. San Francisco had been selected as the home port for the Missouri and the Democrat Mayor was against the idea. Publicly she had several bull shit reasons why is was not good for the City to have the Missouri based in the Bay. None of her objection made a any sense to me. The unofficial story was she did not want the Navy personnel that would come with the Missouri to the Hunters Point area in her City. She still fries my ass to this day when I hear her speak on gun control in her efforts to ignore the 2nd amendment. She has armed body guards and she packs herself, but she does not want us riff raff ever to have a weapon.
1) Silicon Valley is just South of San Francisco and so the harmful policies of the loony left that ran the town were softened by the proximity to the booming tech sector. 2) San Francisco, being an extremely attractive location, and never having had a large ghetto, did not experience white flight and crashing housing prices, destroyed neighborhoods, exploding crime, etc., crashing tax base, and the downward spiral that comes with it. 3) Leftist policies and leadership alone are not enough to destroy a city. You also need extra thick doses of corruption and incompetence. That has tended to happen more often with Black leadership. For some reason, black voters stand by their leaders more often when it becomes obvious they are incompetent, corrupt, etc. 4) Bad leadership left in place long enough will destroy even a great city. That is Detroit. If you want a Bay Area example that is closer to Detroit than San Francisco why didn't they talk about Oakland?
Stockton, San Bernadino, and Mamoth Lakes are all cities in California that filed bankruptcy. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-budget-surplus-grows-nearly-80-million-3314439.php The current budget cycle will end with a $129.1 million surplus, $80 million more than previously anticipated, according to a new budget report released Monday by the Office of the Controller. "We're still not out of the woods, but it's very good news," said Kate Howard, the mayor's budget director. The new deficit for the fiscal year that starts July 1 is now $229 million, down from the earlier projection of $263 million. And that was whittled from an earlier assumption of $458 million. The new projected deficit for the fiscal year that starts July 1, 2013, is now $364 million, down from the $375 million estimate that came out two months ago, and far less than the original $619 million estimated shortfall. Driving the better-than-expected budget news is a bounce in revenue from the city's property, payroll, sales, hotel and parking taxes. The city's economy, mirroring the nation's, imploded in late 2008 and began a slow climb back starting last year, said City Controller Ben Rosenfield. The new numbers show continued recovery that is more robust than City Hall numbers crunchers expected. And while deficits still loom, the projected shortfalls are more manageable. "We won't have to rely as much on significant service reductions and fee increases as we have had to in recent years," said Board of Supervisors President David Chiu. The Municipal Transportation Agency, which is bracing for two more years - at least - of escalating deficits, is set to benefit from the stronger tax revenue, in the range of $13 million next year. Mayor Ed Leesaid that, while the economy is improving, there's still a lot of work to do. The city, with a $6.8 billion budget this year, faces continued increases in the cost of employee salaries and benefits.
http://www.sfbg.com/2014/03/25/boom-whom San Francisco's economy is booming these days, fueled by the latest dot-com bubble and a hot real estate market, sending more than expected tax revenue into city coffers. So why doesn't San Francisco have a big budget surplus to help address the gentrification and displacement triggered by the boom? The lack of satisfying answers to that question is adding to the populist political outrage that is now animating the city, from the regular street protests against evictions and rising income inequality to the corridors of City Hall, where labors leaders and progressive activists are calling for a repeal of the corporate welfare policies adopted by the Mayor's Office. The city's charter-mandated, biannual Five Year Financial Plan Update, released March 6, shows projected annual city budget deficits growing steadily from $66.7 million in 2014-15 to $339.4 million in 2017-18, demonstrating that even the hottest of economies can't overcome the city's structural budget deficit.
Detroit has been an economically failing city since the 80's when Reagan all but destroyed worker's unions in America. It has ALWAYS been one of the most dangerous cities in America. It's not like it was a desirable place to move to and raise a family, ever, in most of our lifetimes.
Reagan didn't destroy unions. They imploded on their own. Reagan was president of a rather large union himself. Here's thinkprogress.org of all people praising him: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/25/146460/flashback-reagan-union-right/ FLASHBACK: Ronald Reagan Called Union Membership ‘One Of The Most Elemental Human Rights’ As the Main Street Movement of students, workers, and other middle class Americans erupts across America, many conservatives have invoked the legacy of former president Ronald Reagan to demand that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) not back down from his push to end collective bargaining for his state’s public employees. In a prank call with the Buffalo Beast’s Ian Murphy, where Murphy pretended to be right-wing billionare David Koch, Walker himself even fantasized about being just like Reagan. Yet conservatives may be shocked to learn that their idol Reagan was once a union boss himself. Reagan was the only president in American history to have belonged to a union, the AFL-CIO affiliated Screen Actors Guild. And he even served six terms as president of the organized labor group. Additionally, Reagan was a staunch advocate for the collective bargaining rights of one of the world’s most famous and most influential trade unions, Poland’s Solidarity movement. Founded in September 1980, Solidarity was formed in Soviet-occupied Poland as the USSR’s first free and independent trade union. By 1981, the union had grown to 10 million people and became a powerful force for demanding economic and political reforms within the Soviet Union. Solidarity began to use strikes to demand these reforms, and the Soviets responded by jailing their leaders and cracking down on their right to organize. During his Christmas address to the nation on December 23, 1981, President Reagan condemned the Soviet-backed Polish crackdowns on labor unions, promoting the “basic right of free trade unions and to strike”: REAGAN: The Polish government has trampled underfoot to the UN Charter and Helsinki accords. It has even broken the Gdańsk Agreement of 1980 by which the Polish government recognized the basic right of free trade unions and to strike. In a radio address given the following October, the former president escalated his rhetoric. Reagan condemned the Polish government’s outlawing of Solidarity, and attacked it for making it “clear they never had any intention of restoring one of the most elemental human rights — the right to belong to a free trade union”: REAGAN: Ever since martial law was brutally imposed last December, Polish authorities have been assuring the world that they’re interested in a genuine reconciliation with the Polish people. But the Polish regime’s action yesterday reveals the hollowness of its promises. By outlawing Solidarity, a free trade organization to which an overwhelming majority of Polish workers and farmers belong, they have made it clear that they never had any intention of restoring one of the most elemental human rights—the right to belong to a free trade union.