Talk:Economy of metropolitan Detroit/Archive 1

Sorry, this still seems relentlessly positive to me. Relatedly:

• I don't think tourism is all that important to the regional economy right now -- michigan isn't on the way to anywhere by car (except canada, I guess), which is why we're somewhere close to dead last in the U.S. as far as number of out-of-state tourists. The U.S. census says that "Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation, and food services" combined only amount to 10% of the jobs in Detroit.

Which makes it the third largest sector behind manufacturing (16%)and "Educational services, health care, and social assistance", which are largely the doman of government. Add in the "Other Services (except public administration)" as 5%, your own statistics don't support your claim. For a city that has 31% of the people living below the poverty line, it's a remarkable achievement that you have such strong tourism dollars coming into Detroit. The mayor said in the last election that the city is transitioning to a "Casino" economy from a manufacturing economy, and the corporations that are expanding and operating the Casinos are in a growth business. --Mikerussell 23:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's a remarkable achievement -- but that doesn't mean that "tourism in metropolitan Detroit is a driving force for its economy". Maybe for the economy of downtown detroit, but for whole the metro area (roughly 1000 times the area of downtown)? No way. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 06:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• There's language about the auto industry that would never be tolerated in an article about the industry itself. Reading just this article, one gets the impression that the american auto industry has been (for example) leading the way on alternative fuels when the reverse is true -- there are american cars that can't be sold in china because they don't meet the emissions standards there (nevermind being sold in europe, japan, etc.).

Why not enter that into the article, as it seems useful to know, but maybe you haven't the proof in quotes like the other editor has.? Anyway, add it and not tag it--Mikerussell 00:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 14:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you try to add more info that helps shade the article more objectively in you opinion. This advertising tag is really hard to apply to such an article- strictly speaking what is the advocacy based on? Applying a POV tag seems likely more reasonable. Until you get specific about what 1 of the 3 consditions this fits, then I am taking them down as they are a lazy way to expresss personal displeasure. --Mikerussell 00:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

On emissions the reverse is true: Foreign auto makers have to modify their vehicles to meet U.S emission standards which are the highest in the world. GM and Ford are leaders in E-85 and alternative fuels and in hydrogen fuel cell vehicle development. On September 13, 2001, GM revealed that it had the world's most powerful fuel cell stack. Most of the research funding (about 80%), for fuel cell development came from GM, Ford, and Chrysler (20% came from the US department of Energy). China has some regulation regarding engine size, thats a political issue, not an emissions issue.

On tourism, Detroit area numbers are competitive with NYC area. Direct spending by Detroit area tourists was $4 to 5 billion in the 4+ million population area, direct spending by New York City area tourists was $15 billion on a population of 18+ million. Numbers of visitors reported are 15+ million for Detroit area and 40+ million for NYC area. On numbers of visitors per population the two are also roughly comparable. On percent of jobs to the region, even at 10 percent, again, its also comparable, NYC is claiming roughly 250,000 jobs supported by tourism (the Detroit region has a workforce of 2.8 million as noted in the article). (For NYC numbers see City Mayors/tourism). Let's be fair to the Detroit area. And by the way, 'driving force' for the for the Detroit economy is not necessarily overstating the case, when by comparison, NYC is the "most visited city." The casinos and new stadiums are having a growing positve impact on the city of Detroit revenues. Thomas Paine1776 22:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Advertising tag vs POV tag

In the fear that I am repeating myself here, I think this article needed a fuller mention of the housing market decline and some other changes I made to try to add balance. But I still think that if any tag should be added it is a POV tag, advertising tag requires that some advocacy is being intentionally made and the article itself list problems and issues. Positive attitude, and pointing out the many strengths of Detroit is not the same as trying to get someone to invest in the area by misleading the reader. --Mikerussell 04:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I overstepped. Sort of a nitpick: the advertising tag doesn't say "an ad firm wrote this"; it just says the language is advertising-esque. I think it was, but you've fixed a lot of it -- so if anything, my adding the tag achieved exactly its desired effect. :P Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 05:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Information is not advertising. The article is fair and balanced. And there is still work to be done yet, so be patient. Negativism is not typical of encyclopedia articles for cities. Negativism is typically the type of hysteria and faulty comparisons reported by the U.S. media. And polls show the people don't like it. Plus the media are often wrong on their predictions, including those for the auto industry, eg. many outside the establishment media knew GM's investment strategy to build up its pension fund was working, the media were late in reporting it. The media often lag behind on reporting automotive technology. Also, on housing, metro Detroit faired well comparatively in years following 2001 recession and housing bubble in comparison with Chicago, the Northeast, and the California coast. Remember its only played up in the news when its the US 'auto industry' and mainly when its negative news. Encyclopedia articles especially on cities should not pounce on every potential negative piece of information. It needs to be weighed. Some city articles are becoming too stale and too negative on that account. Thomas Paine1776 22:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

New Edits

I did some more editing to try to make the article a more cohesive view, as opposed to a ramble that tends to repeat itself and had a poor narrative flow. I think this is why it seems so 'relentless' at times. Almost the exact same wording is used twice in different sections and the end sections that just listed things seem/ed like an after thought. I think it could still improve its organization, but I cannot do more now, and i thought I would at least offer an explanation for the edits here, even if they piss someone off, I think they improve the tone and organization over all. Plus I think it makes more sense to incorporate in each section the "positive growth" potential instead of having a section solely dedicated to that topic, which leaves the article open to speculation as being a puff piece of POV instead of sourced fact.--Mikerussell 16:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, nice work. I really like it. You are on target with my thoughts. Wasn't really finished and thought about similiar approaches. Thomas Paine1776 18:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Good, it's mostly what was there before, re-organized. It certainly is a very well sourced article, especially compared to some articles on wikipedia, and for that reason alone it is worthwhile and interesting, and in my opinion, since I first moved to Windsor in the late 1990s and worked with employers on both sides of the border, and have seen Detroit grow and expand, it is a fair and accurate portrayal of the city and region. --Mikerussell 22:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, the misperceptions about metro Detroit, the auto industry, and the midwest in general seem curious. Some don't seem to grasp the sheer size and scope of the R&D that takes place there, let alone U-M medical complex is 6 million sq ft, the world's largest. Some of states struggle for tens of millions in biotech, U-M recently completed a $700 million biomedical-life sciences research complex and an endowment of several billions of dollars. Boston and Cambridge don't have that scope of facility. Your input is valuable since you're on the scene so to speak. I'm just the economist looking on. The Michigan economy is amazing, the creativity there is unbelievable, business start-ups, resilience, and the organic growth. California also has an amazing economy, as well does New York. There are underlying concerns about the U.S. economy, low savings, slow growth, and so on. Thomas Paine1776 00:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

From a definite non-economist's view, I really have just seen- and I do mean 'seen'- the downtown area really build up remarkably in what is a very short period of time, the comparison from 1999 to 2007 is, in my opinion quite stunning, all the more so b/c the US economy hasn't been unfettered. Metro Detroit has always struck me as a very wealthy area- again, just from a non-economists view. I kind of think that the Kilpatrick regime is pulling a version of the trickle-down urbancentric Reaganomics for the city, while still defending it agaionst the suburbs. It seems like it is the only way possible, to bring back the corporations, wealthy loft buyers and sports and gambling tourists. Bringing back the core downtown and spreading the wealth to the neighbourhoods I hope works in the future, but just walking around downtown Detroit after 5PM on a weekday now, compared to 1999, is really dramatically different. And I used to do that- I'm not just saying that- Detroit used to just evacuate after nightfall when I first got there. Any way- that's my opinion, not verifiable fact, but ancedotal observation in an ethnographic sort of way. --Mikerussell 00:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Your on target. The Mayor and city council acted wisely, they balanced the budget. They are leting the city's natural landscape and realestate value work for them. The city's move will boost Grosse Pointe. Down as the entertainmnet hub has proven to be a powerful concept there. The nighlife should light up. The reorganization was a brilliant move on Kilpatrick's part. The payoff and cash flow will amaze them once the new Casinos get rolling. Many of those who work downtown are going to be thinking of moving downtown, its can come together much faster than they think. Amazing thing is the size and make-up of the crowds going downtown for events and games, lots of people looking to spend. It looked ready for a major retail infusion. Taubman ought to jump on it. The Quicken Loan announcement would be a major boost. If Kilpatrick can pull that one off, he'll be a hero.

The major issues are Cobo expansion/replacement the Michigan Central Station. Kilpatrick will be much more able to solve them with the the more streamlined city budget. What they ought to do is lease property on Belle Isle to build a resort on the Island and the county should do the same at metopolitan beach. An example of what the city could do is convert Cobo into an upscale mall with glass atriums on the sides and luxury residential attached and move the convention center to the Michigan Central Station. Or the Station could become the new city hall and the city could sell its municipal building. Oakland County is moving in the right direction with the new medical school at OU. Thomas Paine1776 00:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Somerst main.jpg

The image Image:Somerst main.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No, they didn't declare bankruptcy or anything

Reading this article, you'd think the Big Three were healthy and prosperous. "The Big Three automakers are implementing their respective turnaround plans which present the prospects for renewed prosperity for the region." The reality presented here has very little in common with a reality where GM, Chrysler, and Ford increasingly lost market share to foreign companies and then declared bankruptcy.--Loodog (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Updating as clear information emerges. When the cases are completed, more relevant information will be available. ThanksThomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: it's amazing that the decline of the American auto industry and 2 of 3 automakers declaring bankruptcy hasn't impacted the economy of Detroit in any way relevant enough to mention in this article.--Loodog (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Key pillar unsupported

A citation to Detroit's regional chamber of commerce is not a sufficiently WP:NPOV or impartial source to support a claim that Detroit's economy is a "key pillar" of that of the United States. It's a somewhat subjective assertion regardless. jhawkinson (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)