too broke to bury their dead - Page 6

DaemonSeid · #76 10-05-2009, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigkid

The racism and pro-union postings kind of gave it away, didn't they?

I'm wondering why he/she is posting under all these different usernames.

attention

UGAalum94 · #77 10-06-2009, 06:55 PM

I don't have anything in particular to say about Detroit or its problems, but I had thought at one time we thought of cemeteries and funding paupers' funerals as being something municipalities had to provide for. Is the problem here simply that Detroit is so especially broke right now or did they never budget at all to address this?

It seems to me that if people's remains had previously just stayed in at the morgue freezer they'd have a heck of a lot more than the number mentioned in the article. What did they do previously?

And this might sound really icky, but are there laws that would prevent whole human remains from being destroyed in the same incinerators that are used for medical waste? I don't see leaving them in the city morgue freezer as a particularly more dignified solution.

ETA: maybe I should try reading all of the linked article before I post:

"The number of unclaimed corpses at the Wayne County morgue is at a record high, having tripled since 2000. The reason for the pile-up is twofold: One, unemployment in the area is approaching 28%, and many people, like the Vickers, can't afford last rites; two, the county's $21,000 annual budget to bury unclaimed bodies ran out in June. . . .

The state, however, does have some funds available to assist with burial costs. For fiscal year 2009, Michigan allocated $4.9 million for assistance, and of that, approximately $135,500 remains. Those in need of assistance can find grant applications at Michigan Department of Human Services offices, most funeral homes, and at Michigan.gov/dhs.

The Vickers did not know about the funds until CNNMoney notified them. But, fortunately, they were eventually able to scrape together the $695 and will be able to cremate their aunt with help from Social Security, social services and their aunt's church."

It seems to me that what we have here is a bureaucratic failure more than anything else. The state has more than enough money to cremate all 67 if people apply for the aid. (On the other hand if we can conclude they had 20+ bodies in 2000, a 21,000 dollar budget may never have been enough, even when times were relatively good in Detroit.)

This is the kind of article that annoys me because it seems to written with pity as its agenda. Let's write a human interest article that reflects the dire nature of poverty in Detroit, rather than simply do our part to spread the word about state aid available that if properly allocated could diminish or erase the particular problem that we've identified.

DaemonSeid · #78 10-08-2009, 12:56 PM

whoa...was this cut down?

It looks like a few posts are missing...hmm

Kevin · #79 10-08-2009, 01:56 PM

Racist union guy was banned, all his posts deleted.

KSig RC · #80 10-08-2009, 03:46 PM

As an aside, Time Magazine is doing an interesting series on the decline and fall of Detroit - it's probably a worthy read for all involved, as it looks like they're doing a pretty good job.

Starts here.

And an interesting way to look at growth, from a blog post outlining the most recent unemployment figures:

Quote:

In 2000 the total private sector employment in the United States was 110,798,000; by August 2009 this number had dropped to 109,540,000 -- a net loss of 1,258,000 jobs nation-wide. This is a 1.1% drop. In 2000 the number of private sector jobs in Michigan was 3,996,000; this number dropped to 3,213,000 by August 2009 -- a drop of 783,000 jobs (19.6%). This is a shocking number -- one out of five jobs in Michigan has disappeared since 2000.

Additionally, you can look at it like this: since 2000, about 60% of all job loss has been concentrated in Michigan. Of course, this ignores the large amounts of job growth that took place from 2000-2006ish around most of the country - but it's still a useful exercise. In many ways, this is a single-state depression amidst a nation-wide recession.

We can go around and around about why it happened, but that's a pretty stark number - again, though, that number happened for a reason, because of decisions that were made and trends that were ignored, mismanaged or misread. It's sad all around, and important to look at seriously and objectively, to keep it from happening in other places/industries.

AGDee · #81 10-08-2009, 05:15 PM

They have actually moved the reporter from that story to the city to live for a year while they proceed with this story. I saw an interview with him on a local "meet the press" type show that is shown on Sunday mornings here. Interesting guy.

There's an old saying.. It's a recession when your neighbor loses his job. It's a depression when you lose your job.

It is most definitely important to look at what happened to avoid it happening again elsewhere. It's an important study for economists and businessmen.

UGAalum94 · #82 10-08-2009, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSig RC

As an aside, Time Magazine is doing an interesting series on the decline and fall of Detroit - it's probably a worthy read for all involved, as it looks like they're doing a pretty good job.

Starts here.

And an interesting way to look at growth, from a blog post outlining the most recent unemployment figures:

Additionally, you can look at it like this: since 2000, about 60% of all job loss has been concentrated in Michigan. Of course, this ignores the large amounts of job growth that took place from 2000-2006ish around most of the country - but it's still a useful exercise. In many ways, this is a single-state depression amidst a nation-wide recession.

We can go around and around about why it happened, but that's a pretty stark number - again, though, that number happened for a reason, because of decisions that were made and trends that were ignored, mismanaged or misread. It's sad all around, and important to look at seriously and objectively, to keep it from happening in other places/industries.

But can it be stopped from happening other places?

It seems to me that it would be very hard to externally impose restrictions that would protect a state or city from what happened here. (Or maybe just that if that level of restriction were imposed it might be hard for companies to be profitable.)

I certainly hope that industries or individual companies would learn from this, but we expect them to act in self-interested ways and I'm not sure the ways a region could protect itself will be all that compatible with how a company can protect itself.

For example, a region might want to make sure it wasn't almost exclusively dependent on one industry. But individual companies might seem benefit in clustering geographically. It wouldn't make that much sense to me to limit the presence of a potential employer. Sure, you could create incentives for other industries to come in, but that's probably easier said than done. Certainly, it's important to attempt it.

Kevin · #83 10-08-2009, 09:49 PM

I'm not sure the 'all the eggs in one basket' problem is the real problem here. At the heart of the issue was a conspiracy between the unions, the companies and the state resultant from a fear of all three of saying 'no' to any of the other two which resulted in an industry which was unhealthy.

If the Big 3 had actually decided to compete with foreign automakers, if the Unions hadn't sucked their companies dry and if the state hadn't been complicit in all of that, Detroit would have probably still been a decent place to be.

This was just groupthink on a massive scale.

UGAalum94 · #84 10-08-2009, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

I'm not sure the 'all the eggs in one basket' problem is the real problem here. At the heart of the issue was a conspiracy between the unions, the companies and the state resultant from a fear of all three of saying 'no' to any of the other two which resulted in an industry which was unhealthy.

If the Big 3 had actually decided to compete with foreign automakers, if the Unions hadn't sucked their companies dry and if the state hadn't been complicit in all of that, Detroit would have probably still been a decent place to be.

This was just groupthink on a massive scale.

Okay, so how do you make it preventable?

Kevin · #85 10-08-2009, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Okay, so how do you make it preventable?

Get the state to realize that ultimately, for it to succeed, businesses and wealth producing engines which produce something have to succeed. The state shouldn't get involved in propping up the various entities which hinder business, they should support business (of course at the same time, making sure business isn't out there actively hurting people or the environment).

In short, if everyone had voted Republican, Michigan wouldn't be in this mess.

KSig RC · #86 10-09-2009, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

But can it be stopped from happening other places?

It seems to me that it would be very hard to externally impose restrictions that would protect a state or city from what happened here. (Or maybe just that if that level of restriction were imposed it might be hard for companies to be profitable.)

I certainly hope that industries or individual companies would learn from this, but we expect them to act in self-interested ways and I'm not sure the ways a region could protect itself will be all that compatible with how a company can protect itself.

For example, a region might want to make sure it wasn't almost exclusively dependent on one industry. But individual companies might seem benefit in clustering geographically. It wouldn't make that much sense to me to limit the presence of a potential employer. Sure, you could create incentives for other industries to come in, but that's probably easier said than done. Certainly, it's important to attempt it.

This shouldn't be about "imposing restrictions" - it should be about not being idiots.

UGAalum94 · #87 10-09-2009, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This shouldn't be about "imposing restrictions" - it should be about not being idiots.

Well, sure. But I'm surprised you hold out so much hope that people will be able to pull that off.

UGAalum94 · #88 10-09-2009, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

Get the state to realize that ultimately, for it to succeed, businesses and wealth producing engines which produce something have to succeed. The state shouldn't get involved in propping up the various entities which hinder business, they should support business (of course at the same time, making sure business isn't out there actively hurting people or the environment).

In short, if everyone had voted Republican, Michigan wouldn't be in this mess.

Is this a joke?

Kevin · #89 10-09-2009, 11:50 PM

Sort of.

You do have to admit that single-party rule of certain parts of the state has had its consequences.

KSig RC · #90 10-10-2009, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Well, sure. But I'm surprised you hold out so much hope that people will be able to pull that off.

Cynicism has always been worse than pragmatism, in literally every implementation.

Look, I feel what you're saying, but there is still a lesson in Detroit - will it be learned? That's borderline irrelevant to this discussion, and certainly irrelevant for people who consider themselves smart.