Feasel 1 Caitlyn Feasel Professor Gonsior WRT 1010, Section 30 24 October 2013 Detroits Devastation Mayors, governors, and

other political figures have been taking the blame for the downfall of Detroit over recent years. The citizens of the city are sure that the fault lies in some type of political wrongdoing, but are the citizens the ones who are truly to blame? Robert B. Reich addresses this uncomfortable question in his commentary, Income Gap is Whats Tearing Cities like Detroit Apart, which was published in the Detroit Free Press. This article was printed on August 3rd, 2013 with the intent to affect the hearts and minds of the upper class citizens who reside in the Detroit suburbs. Detroits recent declaration of bankruptcy is the inspiration of Reichs article, allowing him to express his opinion that the more affluent Detroit suburbs have the responsibility to assist their neighbors in Detroit. Through the use of imagery, parallelism, and facts Reich makes a compelling argument in his article. Imagery is a device that Reich uses sparingly in this article, but its effect is great. Describing Detroit as an increasingly abandoned island in the midst of a sea of comparative affluence evokes a sense of pity for the drowning city. This choice of descriptive wording creates the feeling that as Detroit tries to stay afloat without sinking, its neighboring cities watch because drawing the relevant boundary to include just the poor inner city, and requiring those within that boundary to take care of their compounded problems by themselves, lets the whiter and more affluent suburbs off the hook. Reich uses this statement to insinuate that the residents of Detroits suburbs do not care about the city of Detroit or the people who live within that city. Reich claims

Feasel 2 that because the upper class citizens of Detroit fled the city, it is now filled with depressed property values, abandoned buildings, lousy schools, high crime and a dramatically shrinking tax base. This description causes the wealthy former citizens of Detroit to feel guilty for leaving their old home to fend for itself. Reich uses these rich suburbs as an example of what Detroit could be if the affluent residents return. Parallelism allows Reich to compare the rich suburbs to the low-income city of Detroit. He claims that cities filled with only one type of income group allow at one extreme, excellent schools, resplendent parks, rapid-response security, efficient transportation and other first-rate services; or, at the opposite extreme, terrible schools, dilapidated parks, high crime and third-rate services. While one city has more than enough money, the other has barely enough to provide any public services at all. Cities that are home to just one type of income are not ideal for poor Americans, according to Reich. This separation allows the affluent communities to thrive while the poor communities slowly fall into turmoil. Detroit, among other low-income cities, need their affluent residents to return in order to restore their public services and money intake. According to Reich, this is not an idea but a fact. Thought inspiring facts make up most of Reichs article, forcing the reader to realize the truth of his argument. One fact Reich uses is that, in Detroit, one out of three residents is in poverty; more than half of all children in the city are impoverished. This statement elicits emotion and instills the need to find a solution to the problem. Reich then surprises the reader with the statement that while the Detroit city population fell by 62% between 1950 and 2012, metro Detroit grew by 42% during the same period. This adds to Reichs belief that the solution involves the affluent residents of metro Detroit moving back into the city. Every fact that Reich presents serves the purpose of reinforcing the idea that Detroits problems stem from a lack of

Feasel 3 diverse incomes within the city. Reich also adds that Detroits population has fallen from a peak of 1.85 million in 1950 to about 700,000 today. This fact emphasizes Reichs view that as the population of Detroit decreases, the appearance of the city deteriorates and the public services for Detroit become less available. This is happening because the people who are staying in the city and therefore paying the citys taxes have a lower income and thus have less money to contribute. He provides the median incomes of all of the surrounding cities which range from fifty thousand dollars a year to one hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year. Compared to Detroits measly median income of twenty-six thousand dollars a year, the suburbs seem to be very well off. All of these facts add to Reichs argument that Detroit needs the wealthier residents to return in order to survive. Reichs use of imagery, parallelism, and facts in his article combine together to create a convincing essay. He successfully conveys the message that the rich Detroit suburbs are morally obligated to financially assist their neighboring city. Reichs compelling argument is reinforced with every device and every paragraph. Without the use of these three devices, Reichs message would have been less compelling. His ability to weave these devices into a cohesive article allows his purpose to be achieved, and the reader to be moved. By ending the article with the statement that in an era of widening inequality, this is how wealthier Americans are quietly writing off the poor, Reich elicits one last feeling of emotion that causes the reader to dwell on the overall meaning of the article.

Feasel 4 Works Cited Reich, Robert B. Income Gap Is Whats Tearing Cities like Detroit Apart. Detroit Free Press 3 Aug. 2013: 11A. Print.