Did Chicago really lose population?

So I just got finished replying to Qwerty's little sellout peacemaking crap on the LA forum, and something came to mind: Chicago has gone from about 3.6 million people in 1950 to roughly 2.9 million now. Sure, it's a population loss. But I propose that Chicago's tax base has actually increased, and the city actually has more money to work with than it used to. Think about it--in 1950, most of Chicago consisted of reasonably large families, with wives who mostly didn't work and had lots of children. Wives and children had no income and thus paid no taxes. Now, at 2.9 million, a very large proportion of these people are tax-paying adults. Come to think of it, one could really argue that Chicago's tax base actually increased, right? Whaddya guys think? (Note to Qwerty--just joking, BTW. You're one of my favorite forumers, but I had to hate on you for selling out back there--dawg, you can't be sayin that shit in front of peop's like Vice City and Silverlake! )>