>> Detroit’s population dropped nearly a quarter over the decade: I don’t think Chicago has problems of the same magnitude.
Comparing post-apocalypse and pre-apocalypse cities on such statistics does not bolster the case that Chicago isn’t on the road to ruin.
>> if you look at flaglady’s home page, you’ll note that she is from the Chicago burbs, and the observations of someone with common sense on the ground may be worth taking into account
Yeah, sure. On the other hand, there may be home-team bias clouding the judgment. My own common sense, and the financial FACTS, point me in that latter direction.
You are good at asking for links and capitalizing FACTS—why don’t you try bringing some additional facts of your own to the ball-game.
Yeah, if Chicago hits the apocalypse, things will be bad, but if you want to back up someone who says that Chicago is NEXT, why don’t you produce some statistics showing that the apocalypse has actually begun.
You seem to be counting a great deal on common sense and “FACTS” (meaning, so far as I can tell, that the person who wrote the article is dead on the money).
Have you been to both of these great cities? I have. That metropolitan Chicago has 275% of the Detroit metropolitan area’s GDP (from the story posted by flag-lady) doesn’t begin to tell the picture. The Detroit metropolitan area, both form what I have read and what I have seen, is a big donut—there is a worthless hole in the middle which doesn’t have much value—and that is where the city debt must be paid from. I am sure that a much higher percentage of the metropolitan area’s GDP may be found within Chicago’s city limits.