HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 7:08 PM
Emprise du Lion Emprise du Lion is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Saint Louis
Posts: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Yes, agreed. The major cities in the Midwest need to shut off the tap on sprawl, and make massive investments on transit infrastructure. But watching some of the decisions that political leaders have made in the Midwest over the past couple of decades has been like watching execs at zombie companies that are not able to adjust to new competition. It's a different political mindset than the northeast.
While I don't disagree with you, the issue becomes how. Here in St. Louis, for example, the more powerful St. Louis is suburban St. Louis County rather than the city. The city would love these things, but if the county says no then it's game over. The city is already thinking of going it alone for MetroLink light rail expansion due to the county's lack of interest, but God only knows if Covid has killed that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa View Post
Ironically, the only state that has done well in creating a modern business ecosystem (Illinois) is struggling demographically due to other issues (corruption, high taxes, local mismanagement, crime, pension liabilities, Downstate Republicans fleeing to Missouri or Indiana).
Considering downstate Illinois is getting redder with every passing year, I'm going to take a guess that it's not just the Republicans leaving.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 7:37 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post

The ND/SD/NE/MT/WY are able to experience boom cycles too, despite having winters that are harsher than the Great Lakes imo.
Those states are much sunnier than the Great Lakes states, and their appeal is more resource extraction (ND) or natural scenery (MT). And their aggregate growth isn't much.

Canada isn't a great comparison, because Canada doesn't have a Sunbelt, and the tax/regulatory environment doesn't differ as much between provinces. And there are really only two or three Canadian metros for skilled professionals.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 7:46 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
cle/west village/shaolin
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,586
^ yeah 168 sunny days per year in the cleve and 213 in north dakota.

hey, go for it!

***

anecdotally i hear a lot of retirement aged people from around nyc talk about retiring to delaware lately, which you never used to hear anything about before.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 7:53 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnyc View Post

anecdotally i hear a lot of retirement aged people from around nyc talk about retiring to delaware lately, which you never used to hear anything about before.
The Entire Delmarva Peninsula seems like an undeveloped area that could serve the same purpose of like Southern Jersey/ the Carolinas.

It has a mild maritime climate, flat open land, ocean and Chesapeake access and has proximity to huge major cities for convivence it has direct highway access via bridges to DC, Norfolk/ VA beach and Philly

Unless I am missing something Im surprised its as empty as it is.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 8:03 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnyc View Post
^ yeah 168 sunny days per year in the cleve and 213 in north dakota.
People aren't moving to North Dakota, obviously, unless it's for resource extraction. But fast-growing metros like Bozeman are indeed much sunnier than those back east.

I personally don't understand the mania for more sun, as if skin cancer and premature aging are where it's at, but many, many people chase the sun.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 9:28 PM
DCReid DCReid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
The Entire Delmarva Peninsula seems like an undeveloped area that could serve the same purpose of like Southern Jersey/ the Carolinas.

It has a mild maritime climate, flat open land, ocean and Chesapeake access and has proximity to huge major cities for convivence it has direct highway access via bridges to DC, Norfolk/ VA beach and Philly

Unless I am missing something Im surprised its as empty as it is.

Believe me, it's filling up. I used to drive through Delaware to NYC from DC to avoid some of the tolls, and the Delaware small cities like Middletown have filling up with new homes, retail and businesses (and adding new toll roads). The area is flat but is subject to flooding and parts of it have low water levels. Some new houses cannot have basements because of the water level. The Rehoboth beach area has been a big summer draw for DC for years, but you go a half a mile away from the water and there are farms and empty land that developers are building homes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 9:54 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa View Post
Michigan and Wisconsin do have lots of natural beauty they can leverage. Places like Door County, the Apostle Islands, and Traverse City should be leveraging their natural beauty to bring in more outdoorsy, work from home types.

The Upper Peninsula of Michigan is another area that has not been marketed well.

There's no denying that the Great Lakes is in trouble demographically. The oldest Baby Boomers started retiring in 2011, and the oldest Baby Boomers won't begin retiring until 2029. So we're in the middle point of an accelerating exodus of older folks to the South. Baby Boomers who stay in the region will start dying off en masse by 2040. So we're 20 years away from another demographic cliff, and the Great Lakes (and Northeast) are disproportionally impacted.

But that trend is inescapable and the only solutions are: (a) international immigration (which the region has an aversion to) or (b) attract young people, which requires providing something of value, most likely high-paying corporate jobs.

The Northeast has figured this out (look at Boston's biosciences, New York's financials and entertainment, Philadelphia's telecoms and chemicals, Pittsburgh's healthcare or Washington's tech/defense sectors). The Great Lakes needs to copy. It seems the Rust Belt keeps waiting for de-industrialization or de-globalization to hit, and it never arrives. Even Trump's work to destroy the supply chain dependence on China has simply shifted manufacturing to Southeast Asia. Reshoring and repatriation have been duds (look at all those promised plants like Foxconn Wisconsin that always fall through).

The Midwest needs to stop waiting for industry to come back. It won't. They need to reinvent themselves.

Ironically, the only state that has done well in creating a modern business ecosystem (Illinois) is struggling demographically due to other issues (corruption, high taxes, local mismanagement, crime, pension liabilities, Downstate Republicans fleeing to Missouri or Indiana).

Weather is absolutely a factor. But Minnesota shows that weather is not determinative if a State can provide a good, affordable life with high-paying jobs to young people.
Pittsburgh keeps falling. I don't think their economy diversification is enough to stop it: https://www.recenter.tamu.edu/data/population/; 22k births, 27k deaths.

The US as a whole is set to shrink by the 2030's anyway, when nearly 4 million will be dying every year.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 9:58 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
Pittsburgh keeps falling. I don't think their economy diversification is enough to stop it: https://www.recenter.tamu.edu/data/population/; 22k births, 27k deaths.

The US as a whole is set to shrink by the 2030's anyway, when nearly 4 million will be dying every year.
No demographers expect the USA to shrink anytime before the end of this century.

Between immigration, a more religious population and relatively low population density compared to literally all other developed nations Americans still have enough kids and import enough people to keep steadily growing.

Unless people stop having children and immigration halts right now the USA will keep growing right through 2100 https://www.populationpyramid.net/un...-america/2019/

Dont worry, the UK is expected to keep slowly growing as well, unlike most of Europe and Asia and even places like Brazil.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 10:03 PM
Handro Handro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa View Post
Michigan and Wisconsin do have lots of natural beauty they can leverage. Places like Door County, the Apostle Islands, and Traverse City should be leveraging their natural beauty to bring in more outdoorsy, work from home types.

The Upper Peninsula of Michigan is another area that has not been marketed well.

There's no denying that the Great Lakes is in trouble demographically. The oldest Baby Boomers started retiring in 2011, and the oldest Baby Boomers won't begin retiring until 2029. So we're in the middle point of an accelerating exodus of older folks to the South. Baby Boomers who stay in the region will start dying off en masse by 2040. So we're 20 years away from another demographic cliff, and the Great Lakes (and Northeast) are disproportionally impacted.

But that trend is inescapable and the only solutions are: (a) international immigration (which the region has an aversion to) or (b) attract young people, which requires providing something of value, most likely high-paying corporate jobs.

The Northeast has figured this out (look at Boston's biosciences, New York's financials and entertainment, Philadelphia's telecoms and chemicals, Pittsburgh's healthcare or Washington's tech/defense sectors). The Great Lakes needs to copy. It seems the Rust Belt keeps waiting for de-industrialization or de-globalization to hit, and it never arrives. Even Trump's work to destroy the supply chain dependence on China has simply shifted manufacturing to Southeast Asia. Reshoring and repatriation have been duds (look at all those promised plants like Foxconn Wisconsin that always fall through).

The Midwest needs to stop waiting for industry to come back. It won't. They need to reinvent themselves.

Ironically, the only state that has done well in creating a modern business ecosystem (Illinois) is struggling demographically due to other issues (corruption, high taxes, local mismanagement, crime, pension liabilities, Downstate Republicans fleeing to Missouri or Indiana).

Weather is absolutely a factor. But Minnesota shows that weather is not determinative if a State can provide a good, affordable life with high-paying jobs to young people.
The ironic thing about IL is that we are gaining population in the areas you mention (high paying corporate jobs and the young people who are attracted by them)--what we're losing are the lower and lower middle class people who aren't going after a job at Google or Aon or whatever. I think Chicago is in the top 3-5 cities by measures of new jobs earning over 100K and more households earning over 150K (or some numbers along those lines, I'm I'm referencing posts by Marithasou-- a poster on the Chicago-centric boards that is a master of demographic crunching). Downtown, north, and northwest sides Chicago have been gaining population like crazy. That's unfortunately offset by similarly crazy losses on the South and West sides and lower income southern suburbs (lack of access, high crime, etc.) It's really a shame because a healthy metro would have jobs and access for all income levels, but Chicago and the state have done a good job of keeping us stuck in the late 20th century and even getting some damn bus lanes are met with opposition.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 10:11 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
No demographers expect the USA to shrink anytime before the end of this century.
With COVID-19 deaths plus no immigration, the US is set to decline between mid-2020 and mid-2021. By 2030, people born in 1950 (4 million) will start to die en masse (the US life expectancy is 78 y/o) and therefore there will be close to 4 million people dying every year by 2030. Births are decline steadily and will be around 3.5 million (optimisti) or below 3 million (pessimist).

1 million immigrants will be required to keep population stable. Much more to keep it growing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
Between immigration, a more religious population and relatively low population density compared to literally all other developed nations Americans still have enough kids and import enough people to keep steadily growing.
No, they haven't. It's at 1.69 and falling. And as life expectancy is very low for a developed country, earlier deaths make things more complicated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
Dont worry, the UK is expected to keep slowly growing as well, unlike most of Europe and Asia and even places like Brazil.
I don't understand why should I be worry about the UK or Brazil, nor how this has any implications on the US demographics challenges.

The UK is attracting not fewer immigrants than US, despite being an overcrowded island with 1/5 of the US population. In any case, as the whole world minus Africa and Middle East, is set to decline somewhere between 2020-2050.

Same for Brazil: population is younger than the US, life expectancy growing, but low TFR (1.70, like the US) will make the country to shrink between the late 2030's or early 2040's, few years after the US.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 10:14 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
With COVID-19 deaths plus no immigration, the US is set to decline between mid-2020 and mid-2021.
Possibly, but irrelevant. Both phenomena are temporary.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 10:30 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Possibly, but irrelevant. Both phenomena are temporary.
I know it is, but I was responding the remark saying the US is not set to decline for the next 80 years, when it is most likely declining as we speak.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 10:36 PM
Manitopiaaa Manitopiaaa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Alexandria, Royal Commonwealth of Virginia
Posts: 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
With COVID-19 deaths plus no immigration, the US is set to decline between mid-2020 and mid-2021. By 2030, people born in 1950 (4 million) will start to die en masse (the US life expectancy is 78 y/o) and therefore there will be close to 4 million people dying every year by 2030. Births are decline steadily and will be around 3.5 million (optimisti) or below 3 million (pessimist).

1 million immigrants will be required to keep population stable. Much more to keep it growing.

No, they haven't. It's at 1.69 and falling. And as life expectancy is very low for a developed country, earlier deaths make things more complicated.

I don't understand why should I be worry about the UK or Brazil, nor how this has any implications on the US demographics challenges.

The UK is attracting not fewer immigrants than US, despite being an overcrowded island with 1/5 of the US population. In any case, as the whole world minus Africa and Middle East, is set to decline somewhere between 2020-2050.

Same for Brazil: population is younger than the US, life expectancy growing, but low TFR (1.70, like the US) will make the country to shrink between the late 2030's or early 2040's, few years after the US.
This assumes there's no pendulum impact whatsoever.

Facially, yes, according to the Census Bureau (https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p25-1141.pdf), there were 71,263,000 Baby Boomers in 2020. By 2040, that will shrink to 39,381,000. By 2060, they'll be all but dead with 2,445,000 left.

So yes, there's a demographic cliff of a good 69,000,000 people dying in the next 40 years. So we'd need to increase immigration by a further 1.7 million, the 40-year average, to smooth out that decline.

But America's immigration conundrum isn't hard to resolve. It's essentially a political decision made by a nativist right-wing base that less migrants, even at the risk of demographic death, is "better" for the long-term "character" (we all know what this means) of the country.

Thankfully, it's that nativist right-wing base that will be disproportionately decimated by the Baby Boomers dying off. In other words, those 69 million deaths will remove the key political obstacle that prevents the U.S. from increasing immigration by 1.7 million.

I don't see a demographic decline at any point in the near term. This has Newton's Third Law of Motion written all over it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 10:51 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa View Post
This assumes there's no pendulum impact whatsoever.

Facially, yes, according to the Census Bureau (https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p25-1141.pdf), there were 71,263,000 Baby Boomers in 2020. By 2040, that will shrink to 39,381,000. By 2060, they'll be all but dead with 2,445,000 left.

So yes, there's a demographic cliff of a good 69,000,000 people dying in the next 40 years. So we'd need to increase immigration by a further 1.7 million, the 40-year average, to smooth out that decline.

But America's immigration conundrum isn't hard to resolve. It's essentially a political decision made by a nativist right-wing base that less migrants, even at the risk of demographic death, is "better" for the long-term "character" (we all know what this means) of the country.

Thankfully, it's that nativist right-wing base that will be disproportionately decimated by the Baby Boomerds dying off. In other words, those 69 million deaths will remove the key political obstacle that prevents the U.S. from increasing immigration by 1.7 million.

I don't see a demographic challenge at any point in the near term. This has Newton's Third Law of Motion written all over it.
I won't get into US politics with you as I don't live up there nor am I interested on it as you are. However I have the impression immigration is not a partisan issue anymore and Trump made even its opponents to become hostile or at least neutral to immigration. Few people are left calling for more and more immigrants. I don't see Biden leaving doors wide open. He will probably be very cautious on this respect.

Demographics are indeed not set on stone, but we have some hard facts. The US natural growth plunged from 2 million as recent as 2007 to mere 900,000 in 2019, and even without Covid-19 would probably fell to 800,000 or less in 2020. Births are falling, deaths are always rising, and few immigrants get in.

By 2030, with 3.5 million-4 million deaths every year, will be challenging to keep population growing.

In fact, I don't think any country should have this as a target. This ship has sailed. I believe they should focus on changing their economic system far from the ad aeternum growth model and preventing a hard decline which would be harder to manage.

The US should look to Pittsburgh metro area, that has been shrinking for the past 60 years, but made the decline to become much smoother and reinvented themselves economically.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 10:54 PM
Manitopiaaa Manitopiaaa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Alexandria, Royal Commonwealth of Virginia
Posts: 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
Pittsburgh keeps falling. I don't think their economy diversification is enough to stop it: https://www.recenter.tamu.edu/data/population/; 22k births, 27k deaths.

The US as a whole is set to shrink by the 2030's anyway, when nearly 4 million will be dying every year.
Oh, I meant just the city proper. The rest of the metro area is still stuck in 'bring back industry' fantasies. Allegheny County is moving in the right direction (aka, it's declining by less), but every county surrounding it is essentially old people waiting to die and unemployed youth who can't afford to flee.

Allegheny County has stemmed the bleeding to -0.6% this decade, but it will get dragged down by its neighbors:
  • Armstrong County: -3,678 people (-5.3%)
  • Beaver County: -6,610 people (-3.9%)
  • Butler County: 3,391 people (2.2%)
  • Fayette County: -7,332 people (-5.4%)
  • Washington County: -955 people (-0.5%)
  • Westmoreland County: -16,270 people (-4.5%)

As the Baby Boomer die off reaches exponential growth in the next 10-15 years, the 6 counties above are all going to see eye-popping declines.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 11:03 PM
Manitopiaaa Manitopiaaa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Alexandria, Royal Commonwealth of Virginia
Posts: 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
I won't get into US politics with you as I don't live up there nor am I interested on it as you are. However I have the impression immigration is not a partisan issue anymore and Trump made even its opponents to become hostile or at least neutral to immigration. Few people are left calling for more and more immigrants. I don't see Biden leaving doors wide open. He will probably be very cautious on this respect.

Demographics are indeed not set on stone, but we have some hard facts. The US natural growth plunged from 2 million as recent as 2007 to mere 900,000 in 2019, and even without Covid-19 would probably fell to 800,000 or less in 2020. Births are falling, deaths are always rising, and few immigrants get in.

By 2030, with 3.5 million-4 million deaths every year, will be challenging to keep population growing.

In fact, I don't think any country should have this as a target. This ship has sailed. I believe they should focus on changing their economic system far from the ad aeternum growth model and preventing a hard decline which would be harder to manage.

The US should look to Pittsburgh metro area, that has been shrinking for the past 60 years, but made the decline to become much smoother and reinvented themselves economically.
Immigration has collapsed under Trump, after increasing every year under Obama. Of course, the GOP is paying lip service to the Hispanic community (which helped them in 2020), but that doesn't change the institutional fervor by which they've targeted a decrease in immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers.



Biden will re-baseline back to the Obama years, but yes, I don't see him going for increasing immigration either. There are 71,263,000 Baby Boomers still alive after all, and he needs Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin just like the GOP.

It will be easy to bring immigration back to the Obama baseline (those numbers are statutory, after all). But having 1.3+ million immigrants will require a statutory fix, and I don't see there being the political will under Biden to tackle that on given the country is still growing demographically, and the unemployment rate will still be disproportionately high throughout his tenure due to the botched COVID-19 response.

I think there will be a political tipping point where the Baby Boomer collapse is (a) enough to shift the political calculus within the GOP (aka, they realize they need to go Canadian Tory and appeal to migrants to have any shot of winning elections moving forward), (b) healthcare/pension liabilities are breaking the bank and the dependency ratio is out of control, and (c) corporations are clamoring for specialized talent (select visas) to address acute shortages in national security-related industries (semiconductors, nanotech, biotech, engineering, health, etc.).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 11:09 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa View Post
Oh, I meant just the city proper. The rest of the metro area is still stuck in 'bring back industry' fantasies. Allegheny County is moving in the right direction (aka, it's declining by less), but every county surrounding it is essentially old people waiting to die and unemployed youth who can't afford to flee.

Allegheny County has stemmed the bleeding to -0.6% this decade, but it will get dragged down by its neighbors:
  • Armstrong County: -3,678 people (-5.3%)
  • Beaver County: -6,610 people (-3.9%)
  • Butler County: 3,391 people (2.2%)
  • Fayette County: -7,332 people (-5.4%)
  • Washington County: -955 people (-0.5%)
  • Westmoreland County: -16,270 people (-4.5%)

As the Baby Boomer die off reaches exponential growth in the next 10-15 years, the 6 counties above are all going to see eye-popping declines.
Arguably, as many people have moved from Pittsburgh MSA for so long, the bulk of them will be dying elsewhere, in Florida, California or somewhere in the Sunbelt. For this reason, I don't think they will see deaths soaring, but slowly increasing. Births, however, will keep falling.

The brightside is, Pittsburgh MSA has pretty much neutralized migration and it's only falling due births minus deaths. I didn't check Allengheny County, but it's probably doing even better.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 11:17 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa View Post
Immigration has collapsed under Trump, after increasing every year under Obama. Of course, the GOP is paying lip service to the Hispanic community (which helped them in 2020), but that doesn't change the institutional fervor by which they've targeted a decrease in immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers.



Biden will re-baseline back to the Obama years, but yes, I don't see him going for increasing immigration either. There are 71,263,000 Baby Boomers still alive after all, and he needs Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin just like the GOP.

It will be easy to bring immigration back to the Obama baseline (those numbers are statutory, after all). But having 1.3+ million immigrants will require a statutory fix, and I don't see there being the political will under Biden to tackle that on given the country is still growing, and the unemployment rate will still be disproportionately high throughout his tenure due to the botched COVID-19 response.
And that's the problem. Obama numbers are not even that impressive and Biden probably won't pursue them in any case, as we've seen, Trump made advances over the Hispanics despite (or maybe because) it's anti-immigration rhetoric.

So, you have the US politics hostile to immigration; you have the main source of immigrants, Mexico plus Central America, following South America steps and having their own demographic issues as well.

That's why I said, if the US be stuck at those 500k immigrants/year, I think it will be almost impossible to prevent negative growth by the early 2030's.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 11:35 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
cle/west village/shaolin
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post


No, they haven't. It's at 1.69 and falling. And as life expectancy is very low for a developed country, earlier deaths make things more complicated.

no. covid aside, deaths are poor lately because the current leading baby boomer generation is dying off. down the line there are more millenials than boomers, so even with zero immigration in the future that eras day in the setting sun will be within a larger population than today.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...by-generation/

as for population, of course when the trump value on immigration is reopened ... next month ... immigration levels could be anything. more than 1 million immigrants typically legally arrive in the usa each year, with china, india, mexico and phillipines in that order having the most lately. the usa has by far the most foreign born and accepts the most immigrants of any nation, there is no reason to think that would not continue as we move forward.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2020, 11:47 PM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Those states are much sunnier than the Great Lakes states, and their appeal is more resource extraction (ND) or natural scenery (MT). And their aggregate growth isn't much.

Canada isn't a great comparison, because Canada doesn't have a Sunbelt, and the tax/regulatory environment doesn't differ as much between provinces. And there are really only two or three Canadian metros for skilled professionals.
While Canada doesn't have anywhere as warm or sunny as the US Sunbelt, the difference between the colder parts of Canada that are inhabited, and the warmer parts that are inhabited, is comparable.

Average winter temperature (Dec-Feb)

Fort McMurray: -15.3C
Winnipeg: -14.3C
Saskatoon: -12.6C
Edmonton: -8.9C
St. John's: -3.6C
Halifax: -2.8C
Toronto: -2.3C
Kelowna: -2.0C
Vancouver: 4.2C

Buffalo: -2.7C
Chicago: -2.5C
Detroit: -2.3C
Indianapolis: -0.8C
Columbus: 0.0C
Nashville: 4.4C
Charlotte: 5.6C
Raleigh: 6.1C
Greenville: 6.7C
Atlanta: 7.4C

So the difference in the winter temperature between the colder parts of the Great Lakes (Upstate NY, Chicago/Milwaukee) and the warmer parts of the Sunbelt boom towns (ex Atlanta) is about 10C, same as the difference between the milder parts of Eastern Canada (ex Halifax, Toronto) and the colder parts of the Prairies, and that doesn't even take into account coastal BC which is 6-7C warmer still.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:42 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.