Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
The Detroit comparison is in some ways quite apt, I've actually been making it myself for a while now.
Detroit's major issues were twofold:
1. People emigrating from Detroit to local suburbs, earning their money in Detroit but paying their taxes to their local municipality. (See: Airdrie, Okotoks, Chestermere, Langdon, DeWinton, etc.)
And I hate to say this because I harp on this ton, but here goes anyways:
2. Public sector compensation/pensions.
All you really need to know. Technically they're both symbiotic of the real problem which was that the City of Detroit needed public officials to operate a City of ~2 million where only of fraction of that were paying into the City's operating budget.
It doesnt matter if you live in the Burbs but still use Detroit roads, Detroit infrastructure, Detroit transit, etc.
And in terms of pensions, Detroit was paying the same in pensions as they were to active duty workers. That system was always going to fail and its no surprise that the first thing on the chopping block when they entered into insolvency was public sector pensions.
|
#1 is a very minor effect if at all. I don't see this as comparable at all.
Edit: and your painting #2 as a pension/compensation problem when it's primarily a taxation problem.