The Great Lakes state, graying: Demographic reality hits Michigan

Detroit demolitions

A recent Bridge article describes the unique challenges posed by Michigan’s aging population – in transportation, healthcare, education, and economic development. Alcona County has the state’s highest median age at 56.9, joined by 12 other counties with a median age of 50 years or more, and five more over 49 years of age. Five of the 13 are in the Upper Peninsula, with eight are in the northern Lower Peninsula.

I have been studying and writing about Michigan’s demographics for many years, and this article moved me to look further into county population changes across the state. Population changes, at any geographic level, are the result of two major phenomena:

Natural increase, or the difference between the number of births in an area and the number of deaths.

Net migration, or the difference between the number of people moving into an area and the number moving out. Migration is broken into two categories – immigration from other countries, and domestic migration, or those who move from elsewhere in the U.S. (or within the state).

So let’s look at the numbers and see what patterns we can discern across the state. The source of our data is the 2014 county population estimates released by the Census Bureau on last month.

Population change, 2010-2014

Between 2010 and 2014, 57 of Michigan’s 83 counties lost population. While the losses are concentrated in the Upper and northern Lower peninsulas, clear patterns of loss also followed the Lake Huron shoreline and the southern tier of counties abutting Ohio and Indiana.

Wayne County led all counties in Michigan, and the country, with a loss of 55,780 residents. Genesee followed with a loss of 12,895, and Saginaw, St. Clair and Monroe comprised the remainder of the bottom five. Oakland County led all gainers with an increase of 35,506 residents. Kent followed with a gain of 26,615, and Macomb, Ottawa and Washtenaw rounded out the top 5.

Now that we have a picture of the overall population trends, let’s look at the components of change to understand the role that each played.

Natural increase, 2010-2014

The data show that 41 counties experienced more deaths than births between 2010 and 2014. Putting a picture to the Bridge article, our second map shows this phenomenon occurring in all but three U.P. counties – the university-based counties of Houghton and Marquette, and Chippewa County. In each case, the birth advantage was very small. The few net increase counties in the northern Lower Peninsula also tended to have small birth advantages, with the exception of the strong tourist county of Grand Traverse. The entire southern third of Michigan counties, with the exception of Cass, showed a pattern of natural increase.

Net migration, 2010-2014

Our third map looks at net migration by county. As stated earlier, the immigration component of migration is always positive. However, outside of the somewhat rural counties with universities – Houghton, Marquette, and Isabella – immigration is concentrated in the urban counties to the south.

The pattern that one sees in the net migration map is really no pattern at all. What becomes clear is that natural increase or decrease is the force that is driving population change in the northern two thirds of the state. This is why the graying of the population is such an important story. As the population continues to age, the number of deaths will continue to increase while births continue to decrease. Since migration will never make up the difference, the forecast is one of continuing population loss for most of the region.

The bottom third of the state is a mixed bag to say the least. Again, natural increase is the primary component driving population change. However, the counties that are also adding migrants will prove to be the big winners over time. While the major metropolitan counties that contain major cities are all adding immigrants, the ones growing fastest are those that are also drawing domestic migrants from outside and within the state.

[caption]Much of the state is still losing population to other counties or to other states, with Wayne County continuing to see residents move to neighboring Macomb and Oakland counties.

Net migration, 2010-14

Much of the state is still losing population to other counties or to other states, with Wayne County continuing to see residents move to neighboring Macomb and Oakland counties.[/caption]

Unfortunately, Michigan is not a strong attractor of residents from other states (in fact it is a consistent out-migrant state), and thus the counties that are winners in domestic migration tend to be attracting them from neighboring counties.

What does it all mean?

In 2000, Michigan was the 22nd youngest state in the country based on the median age of its population – 35.5 years. Florida's median age was 3.2 years higher. In 2013, Michigan was the 42nd youngest population with a median age of 39.6 years. Florida is now only 1.9 years higher.

Michigan ranked fourth, behind Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, in its rate of aging between 2000 and 2013 – both in numerical and percentage increase.

While I love Baby Boomers as much as the next guy, we are really only serving as the "new face" of retirement and health care. Michigan must start appealing to youth at rates far higher than what downtown Detroit and Grand Rapids can handle. While I doubt that two-thirds of our state will bring much to the table in that regard, we have a number of communities across our metropolitan areas that can, if they, supported by legislation and programming, follow the known best practices.

We know what we need to do to attract the young. The question is, do we have the political will to make it happen?

Bridge welcomes guest columns from a diverse range of people on issues relating to Michigan and its future. The views and assertions of these writers do not necessarily reflect those of Bridge or The Center for Michigan. Bridge does not endorse any individual guest commentary submission.

If you are interested in submitting a guest commentary, please contact Ron FrenchClick here for details and submission guidelines.

Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Dear Reader: We value your thoughts and criticism on the articles, but insist on civility. Criticizing comments or ideas is welcome, but Bridge won’t tolerate comments that are false or defamatory or that demean, personally attack, spread hate or harmful stereotypes. Violating these standards could result in a ban.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


Sat, 04/11/2015 - 7:35am
It is also a serious problem in Japan, in the past 30 years the elderly population has increased substantially while births are down. They also do not like immigration from other countries and that adds to the problem.
Sat, 04/11/2015 - 9:25am
“We know what we need to do to attract the young.” And from the context, we realize that our author advocates the New Urbanism, aka Placemaking and similar nonsense as a cure for depopulation, if only we had “the political will.” No data supports this fantasy. It is promulgated by our academic betters ( MSU, I understand.) There are maybe 50 trust fund kids, ivy league grads, who where taught that they have to live in downtown Grand Rapids and seek this housing. Since there is none, and the demand infinite, price skyrockets and makes headlines. But it’s still only 50 and none of these guys will ever start a business; it would be beneath them. And there is no political action that will bring my three kids (Caltech, U of M, MTU and Geo Mason, 2 national merit scholars, a Fulbright, 3 master’s) back from the East Coast. They each developed their own work and expertise, creating jobs not even contemplated in Michigan. The smart ones, the ones with a future, leave and along with them, jobs and youth bleed away, as detailed. I can tell you where the jobs went. Texas is growing like crazy. There is a substructure of owners of small businesses, managers, skilled professionals that runs that state. All are from the northeast, the Great Lakes states and nearby Canada. The entire nursing staff of an ICU in Victoria were Quebecois. The chemists who captained a major oil- New Yorkers, the medical subspecialists from Michigan and Pennsylvania.... They left us 25 or 30 years ago, found less regulated and taxed wide open spaces to use their energy, stayed and prospered. Businesses and jobs center around them. I spent a lot of time in Houston, a pleasant prosperous city that famously rejects the charade of zoning and planning and is therefore really growing (see last week’s Economist Mag.) Enron in Houston ( our own Consumer’s Power invested also-but they got lucky toward the end) speculated in energy derivatives and went bust. They laid off maybe 10,000 young, very smart folks one day. They all stayed and many started businesses. As was stated in the newspapers, opportunities were present, the costs of living and the burn rate through investment capital were low and gave these businesses the time to become established and to prosper. Our author here is buttering his parsnips. The job creators left decades ago. The gene pool in Michigan and the rest of the rust belt is getting deeper at the shallow end. Young people blessed with plain ordinary greed and plans to make something of themselves find no reason to stay and will continue to leave. The gullible swells who want to live in “walkable cities” and use public transit hate capitalism and will find themselves taxed and regulated into a penurious dotage in inner cities built to look like the broken down tourist traps up north. The only viable public policy to stabilize the populations in Michigan is to decapitate public policy.
John Q. Public
Sat, 04/11/2015 - 9:38am
We don't have the political will--it's that simple. The conservatives are true to their name--they work just to conserve what we have. The progressives don't have an ounce of fight in them--when the going gets tough, they capitulate. And so, the die has been cast.
Sun, 04/12/2015 - 1:23am
I always thought that being ‘old’ was a worthwhile goal. But it seems to Mr. Metzger the value is in the ‘young’, I wonder why. Why wouldn’t Mr. Metzger look at the ‘old’ as a source of revenue, source of knowledge, source of stability, a source of caring support for others, a source of ideas and action, a resource to be tapped? The ‘old’ have a record of change and success, breaking long standing barriers, breakouts in technologies and business, knowing how to be creative, to innovate, and to work smarter. I wonder why with such proven successes that Mr. Metzger and others are so quick to dismiss the ‘old’. I suggest that the ‘old’ be drawn in and challenged to address problems, to contribute to change, to be part of the future. I wonder why people such as Mr. Metzger are so eager to exclude and discourage the ‘old. Why not use the ‘old’? Is it their economic impact? If not for the spending on medical care by the 'old' would there be the employment for the ‘young’ and educatedin such care? Mr. Metzger mustn’t see that as a benefit to Michigan. Is it the 'young' or 'old' that creates the most effort from law enforcement?. Still Mr. Metzger dismisses the ‘old’ for the ‘young’. What does Mr. Metzger see as important to Michigan, if it isn’t intellectual and economic value? Maybe it is what I have heard from those who are not ‘old’, the 'old' are frail, not reliable, and they feel the 'old' can only do the most mundane [this from people at not-for-profit organizations]. I have heard similar from government agencies. It seems only for-profit companies are interest in the ‘old’. Is Mr. Metzger also dismissive the for-profits like he is of the ‘old’? To help Mr. Metzger and others shrink the ‘old’ as a percentage of the population should it be time for the ‘old’ to begin moving to Texas and Florida where they want what the ‘old’ have to offer?
Sun, 04/12/2015 - 11:13am
Duane, to understand the economic impact of demographics and aging, I recommend that you read one of Harry S. Dent's books. I was amazed at how closely my own spending patterns followed his spending waves theory. You can't change the population generations that are in place. The solution to population decline is a political and economic environment that creates demand for good paying jobs and helps support family formation. You also need to address migration, but far too many Baby Boomers head south to retire in warrmer climates. My cardiologist son-in-law probably figured this out when he decided to move his family to Florida a few years ago.
Sun, 04/12/2015 - 12:46pm
Bud, You seem to be locked into 'conventional wisdom' and not willing to see that patterns/habits can be changed. You seem to ignore that many of the 'old' choose where they want to live because you show no interest how they decide on where to live. You seem to ignore that people are healthier and more active then ever for more years (I presume your sons practice has patiences for longer then his predicessors). You seem to ignore that what was learn about thinking and making change happen does not disappear the day one becomes 'old'. I don't expect to change the generations that has already been done (you and I are different from our parents and so are our children), I say learn what they want and provide it. The reality is the 'old' are like any other group they have their likes and dislikes, their interests and disinterests, their pride and their shyness, and like all others they always will be precieved as the stereotypes expects them too. Just because the spending patterns as in a certain way don't presume it is because they are 'old' consider it may be because the demands on them have changed. You play to the stereotype by telling me what I should think rather then asking why I don't think your way. If you are 'old' do you feel you have nothing to offer intellectually, that you don't feel you could contribute to addressing community problems, that you could doings such research and summurize your finding so others could use it? Has your mind been relagate to the 'rocking chair' because you are 'old'? If not, then why do you think that of all of us who are 'old'. I don't have the physical strength and stamina I had when I was 'young', but I have lerned to work smarter and have more mental stamina then when I was 'young'', Mr. Metzger and you may not see any value you in me now that I am 'old', but I see value in the 'old' as well as the 'young' because I know how wasteful and damaging stereotyping and prejuside is. Let's use Mr. Power as an example, I have to admit I am presuming he fits Mr.Metzger's defintion of 'old'. He seems to have chosen to live in MIchigan, to create an electronic news/opinion magazine that draws in thousands of readers and financial supporters, he regularly shares his views on various issues that elicit many readers and commentors. Do you think he fits Mr. Metzger's view of the 'old' and should be ignored and expected to leave the State? Do you think he is the exception or is it possible that there are thousands of 'old' people that are just as capable of contributing to our State and its dialoge? I feel that by stereotyping the 'old', relagating them to some less then benefiticial part of our community people are being wasteful even distructive of a proven resources. By all appearance it is the people who are locked into such 'conventional wisdom' that with that justification of their prejudice are preventing Michigan benefiting from an ever changing and expanding resource. What I learned a long time ago, it isn't who a person is, 'old' or 'young', male or female, or whatever ethnicity, it is what they offer. You see prejudice comes in all forms, idiologic prejudice is the most difficult to challenge because you can't force people to listen. You may want me to run off to Florida to fit your and Mr. Metzger's stereotype, but the reality like every other stereotype it is only true until you listen to the individual. Rather then pigeon hole the 'old' I wonder why Mr. Metzger and even you do describe what is it that the young offer that the 'old' can't or won't provide to our State.
Sun, 04/12/2015 - 10:10am
One thing the old are not doing is reproducing and without an infuse of young children there are all kinds of economic implications for an area.
Sun, 04/12/2015 - 1:13pm
***, It seems you feel that procreation is the only value that the 'young' provide since it seems it is the only complaint you have about the 'old'. Your logic seems to be based on capacity rather then reality. If you feel my lack of current procreation is what I am to be condemned for then you should have been making that complaint when I was 'young' since that was when I chose to stop procreating. I suspect there are many 'young' who are making similar choices, why aren't you or Mr. Metzger focusing on them and their capacities rather then complaining about the 'old'. For it seems if you want a faster growing population that they are much more capable of achieving it if they so choose. If issue of procreation is drive econmic demand then the flaw in that arguement is that the 'old' have a greater amount of the fiscal wealth then the 'young' and it they have much more discreation in how they spend it. If the moeny is in the hands of the 'old' and what they don't spend of it will be passed on to their children when they are 'old' (at least that is when my children will be getting it). So the 'old' gets even more of the wealth and yet neither you nor Mr. Metzger seem to grasp what Willy Sutton recognize nearly 100 years ago, to go where the money is. If you want me to spend my money then figure out what I want and get me to spend on it in Michigan.
Sun, 04/12/2015 - 1:30pm
It seems you feel that procreation is the only value that the ‘young’ provide since it seems it is the only complaint you have about the ‘old’. Your logic seems to be based on capacity rather then reality. If you feel my lack of current procreation is what I am to be condemned for then you should have been making that complaint when I was ‘young’ since that was when I chose to stop procreating. Cut it out Duane, I never said that was the only value the young provide. As usual you go over the top in how you look at things.
Sun, 04/12/2015 - 5:24pm
***, Though the only thing you mentioned was procreation so why not presume that is the only point you are considering? What other things do you feel that the 'young' have to offer to displace the 'old' as a desired part of Michigan's population? In these comments if you don't take toward the top seldom do people get engaged. Have you noticed that the only time article authors respond to reader's comments is when the are thanking for a complement or acknowledging a 'spelling' error? They seem to remain aloof from any topic related comments. In all seriousness, why not encourage a migration of the 'old' to Michigan? Don't pay them to move here as they do the businesses, but make it a place they want to live. Mr. Metzger seems to want them to leave and hope for the 'old' to be repaced by the 'young' and yet he has no ideas how that might happen. Why not start a conversation with the 'old' to see why they might want to move here?
Sun, 04/12/2015 - 7:38pm
Duane, I'm sorry that you are too closed minded to understand my point on demographics. You probably haven't had a chance to read any of Harry's research. I'm an older Baby Boomer who will stay in Michigan because my wife and I are avid cross country skiers and cyclists. Accordingly, our financial planning assumes that one or both of us will live to 100. Not all of our friends like the cold weather as much as we do. With our five children out of college and no mortgage or car payments, we only spend about 35% of my former income. That's tough on the Michigan economy. As a couple, we also try to stay active by holding three non-profit Board seats plus my work as financial consultant for troubled manufacturing companies. As you noted, I guess that I' just too old to understand your point of view. PS I see that other readers have your number. I suggest that you replace your bias with some research.
Mon, 04/13/2015 - 1:29am
Bud, You are probably right about me, but I wonder what is it about the demographics that I don’t understand. Which of Harry S. Dent's books do you want me to read first, a search of the west Michigan [including G.R.] library catalog failed to find his books? Do you want to talk about the impact of demographics after I have read the book(s)? Or do you want to talk about how our cultures have changed and why, how our affluence has changed and why, do you want to talk about the social and economic changes we experience as we progress through in life and why? As best I can tell demographics are history not the future. Do you think the future is a repeat of history or is it about change? I can understand how demographics can be expected to predict the future if nothing changes, but now when everyday includes change why should we be locked in by it? My view is that the 'old' is a resource that should be utilized not dismissed. The 'old' have had too much invested in them to not draw them into addressing Michigan problems. When Mr. Metzger talks about needing more of the 'young' to fix Michigan, it give the impression he is dismissing the 'old' and what they have to offer. For example, with all you offer Michigan why shouldn’t you be consider a part of the solution rather than as Mr. Metzger views it, 'old' are not a resource for Michigan's future? I see no reason, except by choice, why the ‘old’ can’t contribute to Michigan for 30 or more years. With that belief I challenge Mr. Metzger’s approach to the 'old' and Michigan needs. You say I am ‘closed minded’, I won’t challenge that, but have you noticed I don’t claim to have THE answer for any of the issues, I encourage conversations, encourage drawing people into the conversation, and I challenge ‘conventional wisdom’, I even challenge what people, I agree with, say if they seem to lack supportive thinking. You mention population decline and the impact it has and yet isn’t that simply a local issue that could be changed with a change in how the locale serves people? Don’t you think that migration was the driver in Michigan’s population growth a hundred years? Why could it be again, why not make it the ‘old’ migrating to Michigan rather than giving up and only considering the ‘young’? Which is easier to recruit, businesses from elsewhere to create jobs for the ‘young’ or fulfilling the wants of the ‘old’ and letting locals create the businesses that draw the ‘young’ for jobs? I believe the demographics show that the fastest growing population is the over 100, even in rural counties. You may want to rethink your investment planning.
Mon, 04/13/2015 - 1:51pm
While I can't disagree that older people in most ways constitute a valuable resource (I'd much rather hire a 55 year old than a 25 year old!). The thing that troubles me is that I can't come up with any great civilizations and cultures that arouse or even maintained themselves long term with a negative fertility rates or falling populations, and is this not true then on a micro/regional level? Further for these counties in UP, the mortality situation seems to gain speed over the years as the population skews older. Now I will concede that the UP and most of the north counties have been the victims of the long term urban migration and our more collaborative economy verse the old Ag and resource economy of 100 years ago, so maybe a panic isn't really justified. But none the less without change soon (doubtful) these places likely will see a very different world and strains over the next 25 years. But good or bad, who knows?
Mon, 04/13/2015 - 10:38pm
Matt, What if the future is different from the past? If you are looking for a model from history don't you risk overlooking how the world is changing and how what is avialable today and tomorrow changes what impacts society? Another consideration is that what was necessary for a person to contribute to the economic aspects of society were less to do with individual knowledge and skills and more driven by physical effort and the directions of an elite few. I offer that today the individual impact is driven more by the knowledge and skills and how they are applied by the indvidual that any time in our past. If that is the case then the individual's that have the knowledge and skills and how to best apply it are more valuable to the creation of society's economic future than the low knowledge and skill and inexperienced. There is a point of deminishing return for each of us, but which is reached earlier the physical worker or the knowledge worker. Is it the one who workers smarter or the one who works longer and harder? Is it the one that has more experieince/success applying their knowledge and skills or the one that needs direction, that needs expereince? History doesn't have the cultural examples you look for but it does have the individual examples of who were successful. History (as far back as is recored) was controlled more by the application of human strength and leveraging that strength, however, in the past 50 year the application of thougth, of knowledge and skills, has been leverage to have more impact on cultures locally and globally. To only use history to try to infleunce the future is to ignore the most recent history and how its impact is far great then all of prior history on the impact of society. One last thing about history, the model you look for never could have existed for the 'old' (in the numbers) of today have never existed in history. Even the 55 year 'old' was the exception rather then the rule until the last hundred years and even then it has only been in the last few decades that the 'old' have begun to become the larges part of the population. In the past twenty years the fast part of the population in many of Michigan's counties the fastest grwoing part of the population is the over 100, and a significant number are living in their own homes on their own (check with your local 'Meals on Wheels'). Do be tied to history, look to today and project that into the future.
Sun, 04/12/2015 - 11:57am
In a developed economy, population growth is a tremendous help in fostering economic growth. Sustained population growth is one of the major reasons for the economic growth of Texas. In the absence of population growth, you need other means to promote economic growth. This is an important topic to discuss. There appear to be no easy measures to stimulate population growth. I do not mean to be pessimistic but the economic future of slow growing states is not so bright.
Sun, 04/12/2015 - 12:15pm
Few people in Mi. know where our young people in Northeast Mi. go and why, than I do. For 35 years I followed by phone well over 15000 high school grads and nongrads after1, 3, 5,and 6 years after leaving high school. One very common denominator is jobs. Just keep beating up on the unions, and laws like at will employment and it will continue to worsen nation wide. Welcome comments. R.L..
Sun, 04/12/2015 - 3:15pm
R.L., I have only worked for at will employers, what is it that makes at will employment so deterimental to job growth? With all those students you follow how many are working for at will and how many for unionized employers? If employers have to compete in a global economy, what does a unoin do to make an employer more competetive in the world?
Mon, 04/13/2015 - 12:57pm
R.L., I question your assertion that Unions have anything to do with job growth and potential in any area. Seems other than government employment most heavily unionized industries are those that have had the longest hardest time. While at the same time those that have the least are those that have the most growth. Tell me where I'm wrong here.
David Donovan
Sun, 04/12/2015 - 12:56pm
I may be oversimplifying, but it seems to me there are only three reasons anyone decides to move to or from anywhere: Economy, Family and Environment. All three motivations, however, are grounded in the first: the economy. Michigan lost more jobs than it generated over the past decade, and without an income, family and lifestyle considerations take a back seat. A great many retiring baby boomer offspring have moved away seeking better jobs. Add to that the fact that Michigan winters seem to feel worse with age, and it is easy to understand why Michigan’s population growth is being challenged. Lifestyle and “place-making” investments are important. But ultimately what Michigan needs is more well-paying jobs. We have lost jobs by the thousands and added them by the dozens. I commend Mr. Metzger for his analysis, but to his conclusion that we know how to proceed and just need the courage to act, I suggest that the answer is not nearly so clear-cut. "Attracting the young" is not the end in itself.
Mon, 04/13/2015 - 1:36am
David, HAve you consider satifying or worthwhile activities, local involvement, usefulness? Why are you so sure that it is the winters for the 'old' when they don't have to go out when it is bad? What about having to hibernate, stay in the A?C when it is over 90 or 95? I think there may be more that people want then just your three things. If people want more well paying jobs maybe they need to be prepared/educated to provide good value for that pay.
Sun, 04/12/2015 - 7:48pm
Duane I am happy for you and your success working for employers at will. You are probably right that it does nothing to help or hurt job development. My point is that what if any advantage is there for the employee. As long as it isn't illegal an employer can cut you free at any time. There a hundred reasons to terminate you that are not illegal. I have seen first hand how it can and does work to employers advantage. With my own family twice. Continued success with your employer. R.L.
Mon, 04/13/2015 - 1:47am
R.L., I have found that as long as you are providing good value you will have a good paying job. The better educated/more skilled the more likely you will be recieving good pay and have a job for a long time. It is much like when I go to spend my money, I am looking for good value and I am willing tp pay for it. I realize that a job termination can be capricious, but when that happens it is you and other should want to work there. Because no matter if you have a contract or not the environment will wear you down. I have work in organized and salaried operations, I have seen both work and both fail. The one thing I never found was how the union and the contract ever gave the employer a compatetive advantage with the other companies. I have ask about this of others and all I ever get is silence. Why shouldn't that be a consideration for employees and employers?
Mon, 04/13/2015 - 11:41am
If opportunity means following mining/oil extraction and infrastructure, "development" of land and all the other non-sustainable activities that go with it, then let them go elsewhere. This state depended way too much on one industry - vehicle manufacturing - with little investment by the people that benefited the most from it. We have the basis for a more savvy approach from the resourceful people that remain and would do well to avoid past mistakes.
Mon, 04/13/2015 - 1:06pm
"We know what we need to do to attract the young. The question is, do we have the political will to make it happen?" Really what is that that we all know??? The only answer I have is jobs, but given that number of areas that are crying for bodies without getting them and lack of interest in nut and bolts fields leading to these careers, I'm not even so sure that this isn't just my Baby boomer/Calvinist work ethic mindset clouding my judgment. Please fill me in.
Mon, 04/13/2015 - 6:54pm
Matt, I would offer that jobs happen where there is a demand for the value the job holder provides and there is a supply of job candidates that want and have the skills to fulfill the expectations of the jobs. It seems Michigan has a demand for jobs with special skills such as welders, and STEM graduates, Michigan seems to lack the supply [people interested enough to learn the necessary knowledge and skills]. What I wonder, is why nobody is talking about the lack of interest by Michigan students in learning the knowledge and skills that are in demand. Mr. Metzger talks about wanting the 'youung', but he never talks about the 'young' needing in demand knowledge and skills. Do you think that discussing the problem of lack of interest in learning the in demand knowledge and skills is a worthwhile conversation for Bridge readers to have?
Mon, 04/13/2015 - 3:13pm
No wonder pensions are now taxed in Michigan!
Bill McKnight
Mon, 04/13/2015 - 7:27pm
Looks like Michiganders love their state too much to leave. Unlike New York State retirees who depart in droves because their taxes are so high. Say what you will, our tax hit is moderate. Which is why our roads are returning to gravel...or mud.
kathy mayo
Mon, 04/13/2015 - 9:30pm
When you elect a snake for a governor like Snyder, there is no reason to stay in a state that has no concern for your well being, education or future. No jobs or job training. There is nothing left in this state, for our youth.