Talent May Be Shifting Away From Superstar Cities

[dc_denizen]

we could probably double the urban population by developing all downtown surface parking lots in small to mid size cities. or adding more mid and highrises to underutilized shopping centers / malls

no sprawl required

[liat91]

Originally Posted by Obadno

I would still argue that the USA is largely undeveloped.

100 years ago we were just barely leaving the "wild west" there were still saloons, cowboys and Indian Wars right up through WW1. Most people today dont realize how close that seemingly mythical era really is to us because in Europe things were already very modern and mechanized.

The growth of the sunbelt and inter-mountain west is just the natural progression of money from developed areas chasing new opportunity.

This Is why I still expect that flushing out this century we will see more of the inter Mountain west like Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming etc. There is still a ton of land that can and will be developed as technology and wealth from earlier developed areas can suddenly make harsh areas more livable and productive.

What I think is interesting is what will happen with communication technology on where people choose to live. Just like we are seeing people actively choose to live in urban areas when they dont actually have too I think you will see people move to smaller quieter areas if that appeals to them.

You dont really need to be anywhere specific in most cases anymore. Analysts and bankers dont need to be within shouting distance of each other in NYC like its 1880.

I think we will really see some surprising developments as people become more able to live wherever they want.

I still expect the cities to grow immensely however, but it doesn't take a lot of high wealth guys with an internet connection moving to Bozeman or Lincoln Nebraska to change how that town operates and the services/products that will be needed to support them.

Context is also a factor. The old west days where at the very cusp of the greatest population expansion in all of human history by far. That hiccup in human history will end in most of our lifetimes. Your romanticizing old homestead mentality. The only place on this planet where that development marches on is Africa and to a lesser extent the Middle East.

The US may benefit from high levels of immigration, but that heyday is coming to a close. As soon as China and Latin America start their immigrant binge, it’s over.

I’m happy with just slightly more people then we already have actually. Build up central LA, rebuild Detroit, rehab our older cities and fill in some of our newer cities; Dallas, Atlanta, Houston, Charlotte and Nashville. Not to leave out others, but slow positive smart growth would be fine. Personal dream being DC raising it’s height limit to 500, 400, and 300 ft zones x 40 buildings.

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

we could probably double the urban population by developing all downtown surface parking lots in small to mid size cities. or adding more mid and highrises to underutilized shopping centers / malls

no sprawl required

Yeah, in a place like Phoenix, with a rigid grid of arterials spaced 1-mile apart throughout the metro, there are over-parked shopping centers on almost every major arterial intersection. You could probably throw up hundreds of those wood construction, 4 stories of apartments over 1 story of parking apartment complexes on shopping center parking lots without having to fully redevelop the shopping centers or massively change the infrastructure. I can think of a couple examples in Phoenix that have done this, and I hope there are more in future. For instance, this old '50s grocery store:

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4850.../data=!3m1!1e3

Gets apartments as part of its refresh:

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4862...7i16384!8i8192

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mhays

If the topic is sprawl, of COURSE we can do something. Many cities (including several in the US) have significantly slowed sprawl. My city sprawled like hell until we made counties and cities plan and limit outward growth, and accept infill. It's difficult but can be done.

It helps when everyone is more or less on the same wave link which I'm sure King/Seattle and the surrounding counties are. Here in Houston and Harris county, this concept could fly but the county just north of us, Montgomery, just declared itself a "gun sanctuary" and the two could not be anymore diametrically opposed.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by liat91

Context is also a factor. The old west days where at the very cusp of the greatest population expansion in all of human history by far. That hiccup in human history will end in most of our lifetimes. Your romanticizing old homestead mentality. The only place on this planet where that development marches on is Africa and to a lesser extent the Middle East.

The US may benefit from high levels of immigration, but that heyday is coming to a close. As soon as China and Latin America start their immigrant binge, it’s over.

I’m happy with just slightly more people then we already have actually. Build up central LA, rebuild Detroit, rehab our older cities and fill in some of our newer cities; Dallas, Atlanta, Houston, Charlotte and Nashville. Not to leave out others, but slow positive smart growth would be fine. Personal dream being DC raising it’s height limit to 500, 400, and 300 ft zones x 40 buildings.

The demographic changes on the horizon are not certain, we dont know how countries or people are going to react or culturally what will change as it comes to children.

The Baby Bust in most of the world is as surprising and drastic a change in behavior as any we've seen and its only been for about 50 years that can turn around quickly. Even if our immigration begins to slow drastically the USA will have a growing population right on through 2100 so I am not sure what you expect here.

Many cities that were nothing 80 years ago have millions today and that change will be just as drastic in 80 years. The demographic bomb coming in mid century to Europe and actually much of the world is not nearly so drastic here.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Obadno

The demographic changes on the horizon are not certain, we dont know how countries or people are going to react or culturally what will change as it comes to children.

The Baby Bust in most of the world is as surprising and drastic a change in behavior as any we've seen and its only been for about 50 years that can turn around quickly. Even if our immigration begins to slow drastically the USA will have a growing population right on through 2100 so I am not sure what you expect here.

Many cities that were nothing 80 years ago have millions today and that change will be just as drastic in 80 years. The demographic bomb coming in mid century to Europe and actually much of the world is not nearly so drastic here.

This is flat out not true. The Baby Bust has been a mostly steady predictable decline in the fertility rate since the 1600s that correlates directly with urbanization, and is one of the few phenomena that is almost universal across human cultures. Even ancient civilizations like the Roman Empire experienced similar population busts in their urban areas.

Children are financial assets on a farm and financial liabilities in a city, and culture can only stave off that reality for so long. There are temporary high and low blips like the 1950s baby boom or Soviet baby busts that revert to the mean within a generation. In the grand scheme of things, birth rates in even the baby boom era were nothing compared to historical highs and didn't last long.

The U.S. population will grow through 2100 but that is mostly due to longevity and inertia. The only population that economies and growing cities concerned about immigration really care about is the working age population which will be in decline well before that point.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

This is flat out not true. The Baby Bust has been a mostly steady predictable decline in the fertility rate since the 1600s that correlates directly with urbanization, and is one of the few phenomena that is almost universal across human cultures. Even ancient civilizations like the Roman Empire experienced similar population busts in their urban areas.

Children are financial assets on a farm and financial liabilities in a city, and culture can only stave off that reality for so long. There are temporary high and low blips like the 1950s baby boom or Soviet baby busts that revert to the mean within a generation. In the grand scheme of things, birth rates in even the baby boom era were nothing compared to historical highs and didn't last long.

The U.S. population will grow through 2100 but that is mostly due to longevity and inertia. The only population that economies and growing cities concerned about immigration really care about is the working age population which will be in decline well before that point.

We have observed declines in urban areas yes but the population of earth has been on a tear the most ever in the last 75 years.

If you honestly think we will all just slowly die out you are crazy. As you concede the USA wont have to deal with babay-bust issues until the end of the century and by then you have no idea how culture or economic pressures may or may not allow for more births or not.

Generally speaking urban populations have less kids, we live in a very urban period but that changes as well, if there is anything you can actually derive from history its that extrapolation of current trends never turns out and long range projections are almost always wrong.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

Children are financial assets on a farm and financial liabilities in a city

not only that, but in our species past, children died ALL. THE. FREAKING. TIME. it was totally normal and expected for children to die.

historically, the long-term average chance of a live-born baby making it to 15 years of age was about 50%.

however, today in the US, >95% of live-born babies make it to age 15.

back in the bad old days it was not at all unreasonable for a family to have 7 - 8 children in the hopes that 3 or 4 of them might survive to adulthood.

these days, in developed nations, the thought of childhood mortality doesn't even factor into family planning.

if you want two kids, you have two kids. nobody makes extra "insurance policy" kids anymore.

[Yuri]

US non-Hispanic White population has already declining and Baby Boomer generation hasn't even started to die out.

When that happen, the US White population will experience a sharp decline and even in a very unlikely event of a recovering TFR, that will not be enough as the generation dying will be bigger than the generation in the child bearing age.

Other racial groups will soon follow suit and immigration will be scarce as the main sources will be also experiencing decline.

There's nothing rosy about US demographics.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

There's nothing rosy about US demographics.

This is true, assuming nothing changes with immigration policy. I think the current madness is a temporary aberration, however, and the U.S. will eventually be more welcoming to immigrants.

The U.S., in theory, is in better demographic shape than any developed country, because it's the most desirable place for skilled immigrants. The challenge is political, not structural.

But, yes, globally, increased secularization and wealth will lead to even lower birth rates. And the non-wealthy countries will empty out. Places like Eastern Europe are demographic time bombs. I could see vast biospheres in currently settled regions.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

US non-Hispanic White population has already declining and Baby Boomer generation hasn't even started to die out.

When that happen, the US White population will experience a sharp decline and even in a very unlikely event of a recovering TFR, that will not be enough as the generation dying will be bigger than the generation in the child bearing age.

Other racial groups will soon follow suit and immigration will be scarce as the main sources will be also experiencing decline.

There's nothing rosy about US demographics.

The U.S. has thrived off of immigration for more than half a century. The geographic origin of American Baby Boomers is more diverse than any generation that preceded it because the U.S. opened up paths to immigration for non-Europeans in the 1960s. Subsequent generations just continued that trend. I don't think much has really changed other than the current political climate. Most of the factors that has made the U.S. the most sought migrant destination will be for the foreseeable future.

Originally Posted by Crawford

The U.S., in theory, is in better demographic shape than any developed country, because it's the most desirable place for skilled immigrants. The challenge is political, not structural.

I agree with this and I think the current situation will ultimately just be a blip.

[IrishIllini]

Doesn’t the baby boom generation end in the early/mid 1960s? Gen X would be the start of a more diverse native population.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

Doesn’t the baby boom generation end in the early/mid 1960s? Gen X would be the start of a more diverse native population.

Young adult immigrants in the 1960s would be Baby Boomers.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This is true, assuming nothing changes with immigration policy. I think the current madness is a temporary aberration, however, and the U.S. will eventually be more welcoming to immigrants.

The U.S., in theory, is in better demographic shape than any developed country, because it's the most desirable place for skilled immigrants. The challenge is political, not structural.

But, yes, globally, increased secularization and wealth will lead to even lower birth rates. And the non-wealthy countries will empty out. Places like Eastern Europe are demographic time bombs. I could see vast biospheres in currently settled regions.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The U.S. has thrived off of immigration for more than half a century. The geographic origin of American Baby Boomers is more diverse than any generation that preceded it because the U.S. opened up paths to immigration for non-Europeans in the 1960s. Subsequent generations just continued that trend. I don't think much has really changed other than the current political climate. Most of the factors that has made the U.S. the most sought migrant destination will be for the foreseeable future.

There's a big difference there. European population grew quite fast creating surpluses that was sent to the US, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, etc. Later, it was Latin America/Asia with fast grow rates and young populations.

Europe hasn't be a meaningful source of migration for decades now. Latin America/East Asia will be in this situation very soon.

The US will continue to attract immigrants, no doubt. The thing is the poll will be much smaller than it was in the previous decades. And worse: as the US natural growth enters in the negative terrain for the first time in history, more immigrants will be needed to offset it but fewer of them will be available.

Current politics is not the only problem.

[toddguy]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Young adult immigrants in the 1960s would be Baby Boomers.

True "baby boomers" were born between 1947 and 1964. Anyone who was born here in that time period or arrived here having been born in that time period somewhere else would be a baby boomer.

Someone who was born in 1945 and arrived here in 1968 at the age of 23 would not be a baby boomer, for example. The oldest official baby boomer in 1969 would have only been 22 years old.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

There's a big difference there. European population grew quite fast creating surpluses that was sent to the US, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, etc. Later, it was Latin America/Asia with fast grow rates and young populations.

Europe hasn't be a source of migration for decades now. Latin America/East Asia will be in this situation very soon.

There are billions of people in Asia and Latin America. They'll come to the U.S., if they're allowed to.

It has little to do with "surplus population" nowadays; immigrants to the U.S. are often highly educated and taking advantage of better pay and opportunities. There's no better place on the planet for professionals.

I don't see what birth rates have to do with anything. Eastern Europe has a small, declining population, yet still provides enough people to fuel Western European growth. Germany would be declining absent Eastern Europe. China won't be a demographic Hungary or Romania till we're all dead.

[toddguy]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

Doesn’t the baby boom generation end in the early/mid 1960s? Gen X would be the start of a more diverse native population.

Yes it lasted from 1947-1964.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by toddguy

True "baby boomers" were born between 1947 and 1964.

i don't know where you came up with 1947.

my parents were both born in '46 and they would consider themselves textbook baby boomers as they were both born within 12 months of their fathers coming home from the war.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

There's a big difference there. European population grew quite fast creating surpluses that was sent to the US, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, etc. Later, it was Latin America/Asia with fast grow rates and young populations.

Europe hasn't be a meaningful source of migration for decades now. Latin America/East Asia will be in this situation very soon.

The US will continue to attract immigrants, no doubt. The thing is the poll will be much smaller than it was in the previous decades. And worse: as the US natural growth enters in the negative terrain for the first time in history, more immigrants will be needed to offset it but fewer of them will be available.

Current politics is not the only problem.

1 - Europe has been mostly a non-factor for U.S. immigration since immediately after WW2. Post-WW2 western Europe is the best its ever been in history for the people there, which has led to relatively little European migration to other parts of the world.

2 - Asia and Latin America have been the biggest sources of immigration in the post-war era. There will probably be some pullback from Asia, particularly China, as the standard of living improves there. But 1) it's not going to go to zero anytime soon, and 2) there are still many areas of the world that have many people wanting to get here, such as Africa. Latin America immigration is a question mark as it will depend on political stability, which could be complicated by climate situations.

3 - There are still far more people who want to come to the U.S. than actually make it here. The U.S. has the luxury of adjusting how many people it allows in to suit its demographic needs.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by toddguy

Yes it lasted from 1947-1964.

1946 - 1964. 1946 was within 9 months of many soldiers returning home from the war.