Add time and you can claim anything.
Detroit debt per capita as of 2012 is $3223; Chicago isn’t far behind at $3116; http://online.wsj.com/news/interactive/CITIES2013?ref=SB10001424052702304799404579157780077670894
On the other hand, Detroit’s taxable real-estate per capita is a bit under $27,000 http://online.wsj.com/news/interactive/CITIES2013?ref=SB10001424052702304799404579157780077670894
Chicago doesn’t even make the bottom ten of that list, which indicates that whatever troubles it has, they aren’t nearly of the same magnitude as Detroit’s.
The WSJ article also makes the nice point that Detroit’s population dropped nearly a quarter over the decade: I don’t think Chicago has problems of the same magnitude.
I hope you enjoy the links—but 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, even if they don’t have links all over the place.
>> 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.