Skyrocketing Chicago crime has small businesses, corporations pack their bags: 'Enough is enough'

[Conservative]

I never said I lived in utopia, I don’t. But I’ve lived in Chicago my whole life and that qualifies me to be able to call out a “sensationalized hit piece” from Fox News. Worry about your own backyard and go for a walk..

It is more about the failure of liberalism and what has become of a once great Democrat Party. Cost of living, quality of life, and entertainment mentality generating embarrassing results like those in Chicago

 

[HenryChinaski]

It is more about the failure of liberalism and what has become of a once great Democrat Party. Cost of living, quality of life, and entertainment mentality generating embarrassing results like those in Chicago

You come across as an old man yelling at a cloud. Pay attention to your own backyard and enjoy your weekend.

 

[ElChupacabra]

High crime compared to the Blue cities? you have zero credibility, why is it high cost of living cities have such high crime? there is your answer, high cost of living due to liberal economics. You ever going to tell me why anyone would want the country to be like your state, NY, or California? Keep ignoring the results in your own state diverting to other problems so people won't focus on your state results.

Ah, more of your flailing and asking daft questions again.

 

[ElChupacabra]

How many business owners did Fox interview?
I can go down Clark Street right now and walk in 30 businesses and ask the same 10 questions. A couple of them, I’m going to get the answers I want for my news story. I told you, I live here on the northside in Rogers Park, not the best neighborhood but not the worst. New businesses are opening here from Foster to Howard Street. Fox is feeding sensationalism and half truths to keep you angry about liberals in cities. What’s your address? I’m gonna send you some fruit

This kind of thing from the OP always cracks me up. He's made the same comments about NYC and how it's a hell hole or whatever based on what his favorite news source tells him to parrot. Based on his perception, one would think NYC is in utter chaos with gangs roaming the streets pillaging. I was there last week, and no chaos or gangs pillaging.

 

[Northern Light]

I don't understand the claim that the Dems have not tried to stop the violence problem. Of course they have. They tried to go after guns. You may not agree with that approach and that's fine, but to pretend like they never tried is a complete lie. Chicago has made many attempts to curb the violence problem but political interference always comes into play before crucial pilot projects can get off the ground. So... things just revert back to violence. Same old, same old.

I am not a member of the left but I don't see how you can blame this on liberal ideology. There are other cities in the U.S. way more left-wing than Chicago that don't have nearly its level of violence. I think you are all being overly simplistic in your assessment of the situation.

 

[ElChupacabra]

I don't understand the claim that the Dems have not tried to stop the violence problem. Of course they have. They tried to go after guns. You may not agree with that approach and that's fine, but to pretend like they never tried is a complete lie. Chicago has made many attempts to curb the violence problem but political interference always comes into play before crucial pilot projects can get off the ground. So... things just revert back to violence. Same old, same old.

I am not a member of the left but I don't see how you can blame this on liberal ideology. There are other cities in the U.S. way more left-wing than Chicago that don't have nearly its level of violence. I think you are all being overly simplistic in your assessment of the situation.

Yep, especially when on considers this type of crime isn't specific to Democratic run cities, as other have pointed out. The scale is certainly different, but the problems are still the same. That over simplistic assessment is due to just wanting to blame one party for the ills of urban centers, but you'll notice all of the deflections when it's pointed out that crime rates in GOP led cities don't support the idea that party is managing it any better.

 

[Northern Light]

Yep, especially when on considers this type of crime isn't specific to Democratic run cities, as other have pointed out. The scale is certainly different, but the problems are still the same. That over simplistic assessment is due to just wanting to blame one party for the ills of urban centers, but you'll notice all of the deflections when it's pointed out that crime rates in GOP led cities don't support the idea that party is managing it any better.

The GOP's human rights record on this matter is appalling. They run interference on every sensible policy measure meant to curb the problem, even if it's a temporary measure, and then they turn around and say that Chicago is failing because of liberalism. It's disgusting. Human life doesn't matter to them whatsoever so long as that life exists in a blue state or blue city. It's sociopathic, really.

 

[Maidenrules29]

Crime rates across the board are lower than they were 30-50 years ago.

Thanks. That makes us feel so much better. I'm sure all the victims of recent crime love that news too.

 

[Maidenrules29]

Chicago has made many attempts to curb the violence problem

Citation?

There are other cities in the U.S. way more left-wing than Chicago that don't have nearly its level of violence.

So what is Chicago's problem then if not for horrible policies and governance?

 

[PeteEU]

American right wingers love to moan, but rarely come with actual alternatives...

So time to put up or shut up.

How would you, as a right winger. "fix" big city problems like Chicago or St. Louis?

 

[Conservative]

Ah, more of your flailing and asking daft questions again.

Yep and will continue to do that until you and anyone else on the left addresses the posts and the data, not going to happen. Very short memories and loyalty to the D regardless of the results

 

[Conservative]

American right wingers love to moan, but rarely come with actual alternatives...

So time to put up or shut up.

How would you, as a right winger. "fix" big city problems like Chicago or St. Louis?

ROLMAO, another clueless foreigner out of touch with reality and civics challenged. Change starts with no electing the same ideology over and over again expecting different results. Chicago and St. Louis have been under Democrat control for years and the results remain the same, time for a change just like it is time for California and NY to make change too. You cannot spend to change people's behavior but can spend to make them dependent which is what the liberal ideology does. Always loved Chicago and St. Louis to visit but could never live there day to day with the high cost of living especially Chicago, Love the Miracle Mile, Rush Street,, Wrigley Field but Chicago politics has created a cost of living that many cannot afford and never generates the promised results.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Yep and will continue to do that until you and anyone else on the left addresses the posts and the data, not going to happen. Very short memories and loyalty to the D regardless of the results

That's happened numerous times, but the result is you'll flail in the face of data contradicting your one sided view and you'll ask the same questions all over again. In some other thread where we had this very same discussion where it was NYC and not Chicago that was you focus, I provided all sorts of data around GOP led cities and the violent crime that exists in those cities, which you bent over backward to dodge. In the case of Jacksonville I pointed out how it had been GOP led during times of high crime as well just as an example of how overly simplistic your conclusions are.

 

[Mina]

NM is definitely NOT a red state.

No. I didn't intend to suggest it was. Of the ten worst, eight were red states and two wee blue: New Mexico and Michigan.

New Mexico is one of the "consistent outlier" states. Most states have social and economic stats that track their left/right voting patterns pretty closely. But New Mexico has a blue voting record while most of its stats are more like those of the red states. Utah is the other way, with a red voting record while most of its stats are like those of the blue states.

Take educational attainment, for instance. If you list the states by what proportion of residents have college degrees, the least educated half is almost all red states, with only three outliers: Nevada, New Mexico, and Michigan. Meanwhile, Utah is the other way, with the 15th-most educated population (all 14 ahead of it are blue states).

I suspect with NM a lot of what's happening with the socioeconomic stats is the result of the high Native American population. Plenty of them are living on fairly poor reservations. With UT, presumably it has something to do with Mormonism.

We are in a tight race with MS to be 50th. Changes place from year to year. Our education is consistently 49 or 50, although our education expenditures are mid-pack. Might have something to do with a legislature dominated by lawyers, and educators with a strong aversion to school choice. Practically every time we see a news story of some kid getting an academic award, he is either private schooled or home schooled.

I'm not sure what's going on there, but in school I studied the Massachusetts education system for a research paper. Massachusetts pretty consistently ranks first in the nation for education, almost without regard to how you measure it -- like it has the best NAEP scores, the highest share of residents with undergrad degrees, and the highest with advanced degrees. There's a fair amount of private school use in the state (as with many states that have high Catholic populations), but even if you just look at public school stats, the state dominates. I think with Massachusetts, a lot of it comes down to cultural attitudes about education. It's simply expected that people will take their educations seriously, and there's little of the anti-intellectualism you seen in other states (where too often ignorance is confused for authenticity, and knowledge is dismissed as elitism). Kids pick up on signals from the culture about how valued an education is.

 

[Conservative]

That's happened numerous times, but the result is you'll flail in the face of data contradicting your one sided view and you'll ask the same questions all over again. In some other thread where we had this very same discussion where it was NYC and not Chicago that was you focus, I provided all sorts of data around GOP led cities and the violent crime that exists in those cities, which you bent over backward to dodge. In the case of Jacksonville I pointed out how it had been GOP led during times of high crime as well just as an example of how overly simplistic your conclusions are.

I posted an OP that has a message from a messenger that has been totally ignored, Is that messenger lying? Is the Chicago paper posting record murders lying? You will always defend the indefensible and dodge the OP creating a diversion, what a waste of time the left is as nothing changes the mind of a zealot. Cannot believe this is the same party I was part of for years.

Yes, you provided data for GOP cities one of which was in the top ten most dangerous in the country. What you continue to ignore is how population skews the data and how cost of living impacts that data.

 

[Conservative]

No. I didn't intend to suggest it was. Of the ten worst, eight were red states and two wee blue: New Mexico and Michigan.

New Mexico is one of the "consistent outlier" states. Most states have social and economic stats that track their left/right voting patterns pretty closely. But New Mexico has a blue voting record while most of its stats are more like those of the red states. Utah is the other way, with a red voting record while most of its stats are like those of the blue states.

Take educational attainment, for instance. If you list the states by what proportion of residents have college degrees, the least educated half is almost all red states, with only three outliers: Nevada, New Mexico, and Michigan. Meanwhile, Utah is the other way, with the 15th-most educated population (all 14 ahead of it are blue states).

I suspect with NM a lot of what's happening with the socioeconomic stats is the result of the high Native American population. Plenty of them are living on fairly poor reservations. With UT, presumably it has something to do with Mormonism.



I'm not sure what's going on there, but in school I studied the Massachusetts education system for a research paper. Massachusetts pretty consistently ranks first in the nation for education, almost without regard to how you measure it -- like it has the best NAEP scores, the highest share of residents with undergrad degrees, and the highest with advanced degrees. There's a fair amount of private school use in the state (as with many states that have high Catholic populations), but even if you just look at public school stats, the state dominates. I think with Massachusetts, a lot of it comes down to cultural attitudes about education. It's simply expected that people will take their educations seriously, and there's little of the anti-intellectualism you seen in other states (where too often ignorance is confused for authenticity, and knowledge is dismissed as elitism). Kids pick up on signals from the culture about how valued an education is.

You put a lot of effort in posting data that supports your position but never context or what makes up that data. For example cost of living and its impact on those in poverty. Poverty levels and education statistics are the same for every state but cost of living isn't thus the results are going to be different. With regards to education, what is the context of that education, degrees and education in what? High test scores mean very little when it comes to actual economic and social policy results. The best educated people can still live in California and NY which leads the nation in poverty, homelessness and high cost of living making me ask what are the people in those states getting for their dollars in state and local taxes?

Anyway just another response that has nothing to do with the OP but rather an attempt to hijack a thread by diversion to results that don't matter. If you live in a high crime city does education really matter when the results are so poor? I am waiting someone to explain to us all what relevance GDP, Education data has on individual finances and individual city crime, economic results and debt

 

[ElChupacabra]

I posted an OP that has a message from a messenger that has been totally ignored, Is that messenger lying? Is the Chicago paper posting record murders lying? You will always defend the indefensible and dodge the OP creating a diversion, what a waste of time the left is as nothing changes the mind of a zealot. Cannot believe this is the same party I was part of for years.

I've never made any claims of the information being incorrect, so you should address that with those who make those claims. Crime is rising across a variety of cities, but what you got were responses from someone on the ground providing that context you often talk about. That context was directed at the claims made in the article about businesses leaving due to crime, and @HenryChinaski mentioned that at the same time new businesses are coming in. As usual, you think that my challenging your often narrow focus is me defending anything, but given your hyper partisan perspective and intentions, I can't say I'm surprised.

Yes, you provided data for GOP cities one of which was in the top ten most dangerous in the country. What you continue to ignore is how population skews the data and how cost of living impacts that data.

You should define this better because this borders on not making sense. The cost of living in Jacksonville is considerably lower than some of the larger cities you've mentioned, yet violent crime is quite high. Population is not going to skew the data if one uses per capita data.

 

[Conservative]

I've never made any claims of the information being incorrect, so you should address that with those who make those claims. Crime is rising across a variety of cities, but what you got were responses from someone on the ground providing that context you often talk about. That context was directed at the claims made in the article about businesses leaving due to crime, and @HenryChinaski mentioned that at the same time new businesses are coming in. As usual, you think that my challenging your often narrow focus is me defending anything, but given your hyper partisan perspective and intentions, I can't say I'm surprised.

So if the information is correct say so and stop diverting from that reality. What you continue to ignore is the fact that you cannot change human behavior by throwing money at it or creating gov't dependence. the project areas of New Orleans and Chicago mirror each other, massive gov't spending for housing and social and crime cesspools. That is the result of liberal economic policies where the left never accepts any responsibility for failures and will continue to throw money at the issue never addressing that human behavior issue

You should define this better because this borders on not making sense. The cost of living in Jacksonville is considerably lower than some of the larger cities you've mentioned, yet violent crime is quite high. Population is not going to skew the data if one uses per capita data.

Per capita means exactly what in relationship to crime. Rich people live Chicago and other blue cities with high crime. There are 900,000 people in Jacksonville, Florida, almost 3 million in Chicago. Can you give me a liberal success story in Chicago regarding crime, cost of living, quality of life and if not why doesn't that matter? Why would anyone want the country to be like Chicago, LA or blue states like yours?

 

[PeteEU]

ROLMAO, another clueless foreigner out of touch with reality and civics challenged. Change starts with no electing the same ideology over and over again expecting different results. Chicago and St. Louis have been under Democrat control for years and the results remain the same, time for a change just like it is time for California and NY to make change too. You cannot spend to change people's behavior but can spend to make them dependent which is what the liberal ideology does. Always loved Chicago and St. Louis to visit but could never live there day to day with the high cost of living especially Chicago, Love the Miracle Mile, Rush Street,, Wrigley Field but Chicago politics has created a cost of living that many cannot afford and never generates the promised results.

How about answering the question instead of attacking me?

GOP gets a mayor in Chicago...what will change due this?

 

[Conservative]

How about answering the question instead of attacking me?

GOP gets a mayor in Chicago...what will change due this?

A GOP mayor will support the police and properly fund it, criminals will be prosecuted and city budgets will serve the people not the politicians.

 

[BlueTex]

Did we ever learn if Gary Rabine was moving his company out of Illinois? Seems weird to run for governor of a state you are leaving...

 

[Conservative]

Did we ever learn if Gary Rabine was moving his company out of Illinois? Seems weird to run for governor of a state you are leaving...

Wonder why there hasn't been any discussion on Caterpillar leaving Illinois, they aren't Gary Rabine

 

[Mina]

Reagan won 49 states in 1984 why?

He was a charismatic guy with the good fortune of having the election at a moment when the Fed and deficit spending had created a pretty rapid recovery.

Not sure where you got your data but bls.gov shows 99 million jobs when Reagan took office and almost 117 million when he left, please learn how to do proper research

See here:

Employment Situation Summary - 2024 M02 Results

www.bls.gov

Payrolls rose 390,000 in May, better than expected as companies keep hiring

Nonfarm payrolls were expected to increase 328,000 in May, according to Dow Jones estimates.

www.cnbc.com

See how, that month, both the BLS and CNBC say 390,000 jobs were created? Yet, if you followed your BLS link and looked at employment level, you'd see 321,000 jobs created that month. So why are the BLS and all the financial press reports saying 390,000? That's because you're looking at the wrong report -- the CPS report, which isn't used for calculating jobs gains. You need to look at the establishment survey:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

data.bls.gov

That can be found here if you click the "total nonfarm employment" item:

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

data.bls.gov

You'll see there that we rose from 151.292 million to 151.682 million that month, which is exactly the 390,000 jobs reported by the Labor Department and the press.

So, why do they all use the establishment survey and not the CPS survey, for purposes of calculating job gains? The CPS only surveys 60,000 households and then extrapolates from that to the full country. By comparison, the "establishment survey" (also known as the CES survey or PAYEMS) covers 131,000 businesses, 670,000 individual worksites, and well over 100 million jobs.

Because of that, CPS is very "noisy" -- it can look like hundreds of thousand of jobs are created one month, and hundreds of thousands destroyed the next month, back and forth. Those are just statistical artifacts from the sampling method, and don't tell you anything meaningful about the actual economy. That's why neither the BLS nor the financial press highlight those figures when talking about job creation. They go with the CES survey numbers, which are far more reliable -- showing real trends month after month, rather than just noise picked up by way of extrapolation.

So, please learn how to do proper research. If you look at the CES survey, you'll see the numbers are exactly what I said.

Wow, what a waste of time dealing with someone so poorly informed and educated who claims not to be a Democrat.

As you now see, the problem is YOU were poorly informed and educated. Feeling a bit embarrassed yet?

You really have no idea what you are talking about do you?

As you now see, I know just what I'm talking about. And the nice thing is that you're a little less ignorant than you were before. Now you know about the CES and CPS surveys, which is used for what purpose, and why. You're welcome.

 

[BlueTex]

Wonder why there hasn't been any discussion on Caterpillar leaving Illinois, they aren't Gary Rabine

So he isn't taking personal responsibility for being unable to compete in Chicago? I'm sure plenty of paving companies took that business..

 

[Mina]

And on the topic of Cost of Living:

Conservative said:
"Yes but cost of living plays a major role, poverty is a dollar amount that is for all 50 stats, cost of living factored in gives people in Miss for example better buying power at a 7.25 million wage than those living in California"

That way of looking at things is odd. Think, for example, of two hypothetical people. One lives in a ramshackle studio apartment in a bad neighborhood of the Bronx. One lives in a luxury apartment on the edge of Central Park. The first guy earns $30k per year and spends $10k per year on his apartment. The second earns $1 million per year and spends $981,000 on that apartment. Who is poorer?

By any sensible reading, you'd say that person living in a horrible hovel in the Bronx is poorer. Yet what if, rather than counting that luxury apartment in Manhattan as an asset, we only looked at it as a cost? Well, then, the second person has slightly less money left over after accounting for housing, and so he'd be poorer.

That's what people do when they try to home-brew an alt-poverty stat by way of discounting for the cost of housing. We have a reality check on that, by way of measuring other indicators that correlate with poverty. Like rich people tend to live longer than poor people. So, who lives longer, on average: people in Mississippi or people in California? The answer to that is exactly what we'd expect it to be if we were judging by the official poverty rate in each place. Mississippi is dirt poor and people tend to die young. California is rich, and has the nation's second-longest life expectancies. But if, instead, we do an alt-poverty stat that treats homes as expenses and not assets, we'd say California is poorer, and we'd be puzzled why it has higher life expectancies (and lower infant and maternal mortality, and countless other proxies for wealth).

Ironically, right-wingers get this any time someone tries to argue welfare eligibility, or tax brackets, etc., should take local housing costs in mind (which would flow more money towards California and less towards Mississippi). Then they immediately spot the problem with that mode of analysis, and rightly point out Mississippi is much poorer. But they pretend not to understand that when it's convenient.