Detroit sees biggest population growth in Michigan
After decades of population loss, Detroit is now the Michigan city seeing the biggest growth.
The big picture: Mayor Mike Duggan and other leaders on Thursday attributed the growth to more people moving into neighborhoods outside downtown, new residential developments, crime reductions and the city's entertainment scene, among other things.
Plus, the U.S. Census Bureau is now accounting for newly occupied renovated older homes in its figures — a win for city leaders who challenged counting methods that they said didn't accurately reflect Detroit's growth.
The latest: Detroit's resident count grew 1.1% in 2024 — beating the U.S. rate of 0.98% — to 645,700, per the latest Census Bureau estimates.
Detroit's nearly 6,800-person increase is more than triple Grand Rapids' 1,800.
Plus, we passed the size of Portland, Oregon, and became the U.S.'s 26th biggest city, behind Boston.
Between the lines: Detroit challenged the Census Bureau in recent years over its counting methods. Now, the bureau has revised its past population estimates, adding nearly 5,700 residents that the bureau says it undercounted between 2021 and 2023.
In a press conference Thursday, Duggan attributed the undercount to the bureau including demolitions as population loss, and not counting reoccupied older homes that had previously been vacant but have been scooped up in the city's recent rehab boom.
The intrigue: The third-term mayor staked his success in office on growing the city's population, but then the 2020 Census showed Detroit lost residents.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
3 hours ago
- Forbes
Should AI And Robots Be Taxed To Protect Workers?
HAI'AN, CHINA - JUNE 29, 2020 - Tax officials in the robot industrial park to understand the ... More production status of enterprises. Hai'an City, Jiangsu Province, China, June 29, 2020.- (Photo credit should read Costfoto/Future Publishing via Getty Images) Detroit used to be the richest city in America, some said it was the wealthiest in the world (in the early 1950's). Within a period of fifty years, it became the USA's poorest city, ignominiously falling victim to the largest municipal bond default in 2013. I visited the city some eight years ago, to witness the kick-off of an ambitious plan to revive the city, led by Mayor Mike Duggan, with the support of local business leaders. For instance, Dan Gilbert, an insurance firm owner bought and then gave away inner-city apartments to encourage people to move back into the city. Having spent a couple of days in Detroit last week I am pleased to report that the renewal of the city centre is bearing fruit – it is a hive of construction activity, iconic buildings have been impressively scrubbed up and there are plenty of stylish restaurants and shops. My initial visit to Detroit sticks in my mind for two reasons. The first is that I did a speech there alongside JD Vance – my topic was how small European countries managed to achieve high growth rates and social cohesion (as an example to Detroit), and his emphasis was on the need to focus resources and policy on 'forgotten' parts of America like Michigan. Our double act was good enough that we were invited to do another event in the new World Trade Centre in New York. At the time, I recall he was anti-Trump, pro-innovation and very much an advocate of third level education. A lot has changed since, but his book 'Hillbilly Elegy' is still worth a read. My second memorable Detroit experience was a visit to the Ford factory in Dearborn, to witness the full power of a robot-based manufacturing line, which at times was quite intimidating. I am tempted to say that in the next ten years, robots will have a bigger impact on America's society and economy than JD. The rise and fall of Detroit, and its wide hinterland out to Michigan towns like Flint has been undercut by many factors – immigration, the exit of the wealthy to other America cities, a failure to renew skill sets and an industrial base, and the economic side-effect of the rise of China as a manufacturing zone. The issue worrying people in states like Michigan is whether AI and robotics will have the same effect on the local economy, as the model of globalization was perceived to do (by the likes of JD Vance) in recent years. Indeed, there has been a flurry of articles in the US press in recent days warning that AI will wipe out swathes of jobs (for example a pwc report on Agentic AI promises cost cuts of up to 40% in the software and legal sectors). My instinct is that new technologies do not necessarily 'kill' jobs but shift them to other sectors and value chains, a process that is usually contingent on the quality of education systems and government policy. Much of the research on the potential impact of AI on work (from McKinsey for instance and most notably David Autor at MIT and Carl Benedikt-Frey at Oxford) points to a nuanced view that sees AI and robotics helping less able workers participate in the workforce, and emphasises reskilling. The risk to this enlightened outlook is that AI is unique in the sense that its take-up is rapid, especially so within large services firms, and this may give corporations greater power over labour (and downward pressure on wages). Equally there is not enough commentary on the fact that the critical AI projects are owned by a small, connected set of investors. In the emerging world, AI will likely have the greatest positive impact on public administration and on healthcare (through better and broader diagnoses), though employment in service sectors (especially where those services are exported) may take a hit. With professional and specialised workers in mind, I would also like to re-state my 'One Man and His Dog' hypothesis as a model for how professionals can use AI. 'One Man and His Dog' was a cult British tv show based on sheepdog trials. In this context the sheepdog is an intelligent, non-human actor helping the human to solve a complex problem – which is what AI does. Like a dog, if mistreated or provoked, AI can bite back but in general the idea is that like the sheepdog, AI can make the professional (doctor, commando or researcher) do their job in a more effective way. Those who worry about the labour market should instead focus on debt, and the perilous finances of the developed world. The global financial crisis demonstrated that debt can kill millions of jobs when it provokes a deep recession. To that end, the Trump budget will prove increasingly controversial, and arguably what America needs is a very different fiscal approach. The lesson from Hillbilly Elegy is that the spoils of globalization went to the few – bankers in New York, scientists in Boston and tech firms in California. Arguably they should have paid much higher taxes and this then used to bolster education, training and infrastructure across America. The same logic is true with AI – its commercial benefits will accrue to a very small number of people, but millions will need help readjusting to the side-effects it has on labour markets. The debt outlook makes this doubly the case and the Trump budget, which will add USD 2.4 trillion to the national debt by 20234 (according to the Congressional Budget Office) will not only break the bank but break the labour market.
New York Times
8 hours ago
- New York Times
Can We Trust a Jobs Report From the Trump Administration? Yes, With Caveats.
Can we still trust the data coming out of the Trump administration? It's a question I get all the time — on social media, in comments on my stories, in conversations with friends and colleagues. That skepticism has only intensified in recent days, since the Bureau of Labor Statistics disclosed that it was cutting back collection of price data that feeds into the Consumer Price Index. Here's my answer: Yes, I still trust the data. But with some important caveats. Many of the people asking this question are worried about the possibility of political interference in the data-collection or analysis process. There is no evidence that is happening. Major economic reports on inflation, spending, trade and jobs have continued to come out as normal, even when the news has been potentially damaging to the president (such as when the Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that gross domestic product shrank in the first quarter). I have spoken to people inside these agencies, and to others who have recently left, and they consistently say they are confident that the numbers being released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Census Bureau and other agencies remain reliable. They also say that the longtime employees who oversee these statistics will blow the whistle if that changes. (Are you one of them? See our call-out at the end of this article.) But while there is no evidence of political interference, many economists and other experts have a different concern: the gradual erosion in the quality of government statistics. These concerns aren't entirely new. Much of our economic data relies on surveys of individuals and businesses; response rates to those surveys have fallen sharply in recent years, as they have for surveys and polls conducted in the private sector. Many statisticians believe the agencies need to adopt new methods that rely less on surveys and more on data from administrative records and private sources like credit card companies and payroll providers. But that transition would require substantial upfront investment, and the agencies have seen their budgets shrink in inflation-adjusted terms. A major report from the American Statistical Association last year warned that these long-running issues threatened the reliability of government statistics. Are you a current or former worker at a federal statistical agency? We want to hear from you. The New York Times would like to talk to current or recent workers at the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics and other federal statistical agencies about their experiences under the second Trump administration. We are also interested in talking to contractors for these agencies. We may reach out about your submission, but we will not publish any part of your response without contacting you first. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Forbes
20 hours ago
- Forbes
U.S. Imports, Deficit Plunge From March Surge, Affecting These Nations
U.S. imports into the United States plunged 19.42% in April, whipsawing from the 18.88% March surge, according to my analysis of the latest U.S. Census Bureau data. Because U.S. exports fell only 1.25%, the monthly deficit declined from $151.63 billion, the greatest monthly deficit in U.S. history, to $87.49 billion, the first deficit below $100 billion since President Trump's election and the two months prior. The March surge is largely believed to be an attempt to get shipments into the country prior to Trump's controversial and litigation imperiled 'Liberation Day' tariffs on the world, which he had said he would announce on April 2 and did. The legality of those tariffs is in the courts, possibly headed to the Supreme Court. On a year-to-date basis, U.S. trade was a record $1.94 trillion, a still-astounding 13.57% increase from the first four months of 2024. Exports were a record $711.20 billion, up 4.87%. Imports were a record $1.22 trillion, and that 19.32% gain can only mean one thing for a president who talked about eliminating the trade deficit in his firm term and saw it increase three of his four years and continues to talk about it: The U.S. trade deficit stands at a record $512.98 billion. No other U.S. deficit has even topped $400 billion in the first four months of the year. Importantly, but little discussed, the percentage of U.S. trade that is an export dropped to 36.75%. That's the lowest figure in almost two decades, since 2006. It's an important data point because, while the first four records are influenced by inflation, the last is not. All in all, April was a solid month, particularly considering the 'front-loading' of imports in March brought on by tariff anxiety. Why do I say this? Well, combining April exports and imports, the $464.68 billion total is the fourth-highest monthly total in the last 12 months. So, above average. It trails January and March of this year as well as October of last year, right before the election. What happens if you exclude January and March of this year, both outliers affected by tariff talk? The difference in the other 10 months – including April – was only 5.49%. So, in line with most months. But the gyrations in trade from month to month are not normal and certain to put strains up and down the supply chain. Some reports are suggesting that larger declines might come in the month of May, since orders are generally not immediate, particularly with ocean freight. The uncertainty in Trump's trade policies, and his inclination to pause them, alter them, increase them and decrease them, makes forecasting particularly challenging. Given the relative strength of U.S. exports in April, the declines in the countries below are, then, largely on the import side. Ireland's imports plummeted $19.86 billion in April from the previous month, a decline equal to 64.64%. Nevertheless, Ireland's imports remain up 19.47% from the previous April. Total trade – exports and imports – is up 102.67% when compared to the first four month of 2024. Ireland is a large supplier of medicines to the United States. This year, it is the nation's seventh-ranked trade partner, up from No. 12 last year this time. Switzerland's imports to the United States fell $12.93 billion in April from the previous month, equal to a 66.76% drop – but are up 51.57% from the previous April. On the year, Switzerland's U.S. trade is up – are you ready for this? – 244.48%. Almost all of that was gold and gold-related shipments coming to the United States from there, where the majority of the world's gold is processed. Gold increasing in price – which it is – and moving – which it was – it a sign of trepidation in the global economy. Switzerland is the United States fourth-largest trade partner, behind only Mexico, Canada and China. Mexico and Canada saw their imports decline $6.11 billion and $6.23 billion, respectively. The decreases from the previous month were also similar, down 12.74% and 12.47%, respectively. Both are also down from the previous April. Mexico is off 2.71% and Canada is off 14.39%, the latter largely due to decreasing oil prices. The drop in U.S. imports from China was, by way of comparison, a more moderate $4.01 billion. That was a decline of 13.63%, which would, in normal times, raise eyebrows. On this roller coaster ride, you don't even blink. But, when compared to the previous year – unlike Mexico, Canada, Ireland and Switzerland – U.S. trade with China is down even more, off 19.70%. Imports from China in April were the lowest since March of 2010 – 181 months ago. Another four countries saw imports fall in excess of $2 billion from March to April: Germany, South Korea, the United Kingdom and Australia. Australia is not a country normally subject to wild swings in its U.S. trade. But, like Switzerland, it was importing a great deal of gold to the United States in March – second only to Switzerland. In April, its U.S. trade fell 55.95%. For the year, it remains up 32.06% and ranks 20th, having bumped Belgium from the top 20 U.S. trade partners. Bottom line: April was a so-so month, with imports and the deficit taking a plunge from the highest total for either in March. It was all a reaction to Trump's erratic unpredictable trade 'policy.' The month of May remains anyone's guess. In April, exports were fairly stable. Countries with which the United States has large trade deficits – Mexico, China, Ireland, South Korea, for example – witnessed steep declines in imports from March, when they soared. Nevertheless, the U.S. deficit, total trade, total exports and total imports are all at record levels on the year.
