[supplied_demand]

I am citing them as places that are not "failing inner cities with bad schools and high crime rates have been run by democrats for decades." as OP claimed. Chicago doesn't fall into that category either, but that is a discussion for another day. Bringing up cost-of-living or homelessness is simply moving the goalposts from the original claim.

The focus of my post was that it seems clear that economics is what forced those cities to crash. Look at Rust Belt cities (Milwaukee, Cleveland, Baltimore, Detroit, Buffalo, Gary) and you will find significant population decline and high crime rates. Trying to make it a political discussion brings in personal bias.

[sedtrader]

> The focus of my post was that it seems clear that economics is what forced those cities to crash.

Economic policies from politicians influence economics. If policies are bad for business, jobs will leave, crime will rise and populations will decline. Economics don't happen in a vacuum. Most if not all of those declining cities have been consistently run by democrats

[supplied_demand]

>Most if not all of those declining cities have been consistently run by democrats

And so have most of the growing, thriving cities. Individual cities have very little say in global economic shifts. We are seeing this same story play out in Republican-controlled rural areas.

First some jobs leave (outsource or automation), then laborforce participation declines, next we see drug use increase, which makes more people unemployable, as a result employers leave the area and more jobs are lost. Then you go back to step 1 and re-run.

Trying to cast everything in a partisan light may be blinding you to the similarities.