Detroit is an odd example. You have the cornerstone industry up and leaving the area, followed by race riots which led to white flight and the middle class leaving the city. This led to a vacuum in support and jobs leaving the new majority black population and poor to fend for themselves. Two historically oppressed groups now yolked to a dying city.

It's more an example of how racism and reliance on singular industry can quickly create pits that are largely insurmountable. Similar cases can be found in coal country in Appalachia. The lesson isn't to prop up local industry to maintain job and economic stability. The lesson is to stage out disruption. ILA recently took this on with automation in shipping. The goal isn't to prevent automation but to not give companies a blank check to mass fire workers and replace them with automation.

So ignore Detroit, pick a city that based their economy on literally any manufacturing industry that up and left. What was the replacement work that maintained middle class families at the same numbers?

> You can’t just keep automating every non-knowledge job away and just hope people find something else to do.

[citation needed]

We've been at it for more than a century now and it seems to be working pretty well for nearly everyone!

Our goal is not to preserve jobs. Our goal is to be more productive for fewer resources.

Jobs in Detroit went away - but so did the people, who found new jobs in other cities. There has been no lasting unemployment from automation, ever.

Human beings are good for more than pulling levers and carrying heavy objects and we do each other a disservice by pretending otherwise.

> Jobs in Detroit went away - but so did the people, who found new jobs in other cities. There has been no lasting unemployment from automation, ever.

Do you have some citations? There’s absolutely no indication they “found new jobs in other cities” but there is plenty of proof they just never found another well paying job and moved into welfare or became homeless.

The population of Detroit declined from >1M in 1995 to 630k today.

That would not be the case if they "moved into welfare" or became homeless.

You seem to have the idea that welfare systems in US cities can handle 40% of the city becoming jobless. I assure you this is not the case.

Unless you're trying to convince me that several hundred thousand people just died, they very obviously moved out.

I can't prove that Detroiters specifically all found better paying jobs, but there is ample evidence online that shows that the real factor crushing the middle class is the sheer number of Americans being catapulted upwards.

Judging from efforts in the US to make health care harder and harder to obtain, I'm betting on the former, especially if other countries follow suit. Slowly letting people die from untreated chronic diseases may be seen as more humane than outright mass slaughter.

I don’t understand the endgame. If everyone is poor and dying who is buying all the useless/social credit shit until there are 100m “wealthy” people left? And if “they” (whoever they are, I think we all give “wealthy” people far too much credit, many that I’ve known are pretty empty, insecure people lacking any real self awareness) want everyone else dead, why are all “developed” countries pushing for higher birthrates and encouraging immigration from less developed countries?

The rich wants maximum survival, the poor less so, or that's how "their" world model looks to me.

Most cutting edge technologies like advanced rocketry are not requirements for a century- to millenium-scale survival at all-around medieval technology level.