How will America be in 2050

[muon2]

1) It is impossible to project to 2050. Its like someone in 1904 trying to project 1950. By extrapolating growth "trends" of the past 10 years into ad infinitum, they would probably think that Austria-Hungary would be the greatest power in the Balkans, Argentina would be a world power, and the North's population continue to grow against the South's, until there was virtually nobody left and the South was just a farmland with 5% of the population!

I'm with you completely on this one, but I have the most concern over the political leanings in 2050. As Beet points out 1904 looked nothing like 1950. Politically the Republican and Democrat Parties underwent substantial change during two World Wars and the Great Depression. The platforms of 1950 would be unrecognizable to their 1904 parties.

To look more recently, consider the US in 1960 compared to today. Again the party coalitions were very different then compared to now. I have trouble guessing party affiliations in the next generation, 20 years from now, let alone moving two generations forward.

On the other hand, though difficult, there are some guideposts for population. The Census Bureau has the population at a little over 400 M by 2050. Immigrants and their first generation children continue to fuel much of the growth.

One thing to consider in projecting out to 2050, is how much external immigration will continue. Birthrates are declining world-wide, and the pressure to emigrate is likely to decline as well.

[muon2]

It seems that there are some pretty wild projections for EVs in 2050. GA at 23 comes to mind as an extreme example. Internal mobility just isn't that big. If external immigration abates, then the ability to see big changes further decreases. I've commented on the 2010 projections in the census, and with some reasonable assumptions the census figures might extend out to 2020 or 2030 at the state level. Beyond that there are too many variables. The situation is very similar to polling, you can construct a good national model to 2050, but state models break down with all sorts of biases.

The last US Census forecast for the states was in 1996 out to 2025. If I make some assumptions based on the 2003 US Census estimates, I can project the following changes in EVs by then:

CT, IL, IA, MA, MI, MN, MO, NJ, WV -1;
OH, PA -2
NY -4;

CA, FL, GA, ID, MT, NV, NM, OR, WA +1;
AZ, UT +2;
TX +4.

[muon2]

Like it or hate it, this is my story and I'm sticking to it.

Now, for my explination.

1) Why does New York lose so many?

I honestly believe that after Sept. 11th and the destruction of the WTC it will be easier for companies to move out of NYC.  The economy is changing, corperations don't need to be centralized in one city any mre and I think tht because of this, New York will lose out, as will Connecticut and New Jersey since they are really mostly suburbs of New York.  High taxes are also going to chase a lot of businesses and people away.

2) Why is Minnesota so big?

Minnesota is probably the most innovative non-southern state in the country.  They have managed to totally remake their economy into something that is, well, spectacular.  I think that around the year 2030 Minniapolis and St. Paul will finally combine into one city.  This will spur on the already tremendous growth.  I think by 2050 Minniapolis-St. Paul will top Chicago as the leading Mid-west City.  This boom will also help keep Wisconsin from losing big.  Wisconsin has a good economy as well and this will only benefit from the Minnesota boom.

3) Florida is growing so fast, why would it only have 32 EV's?

Simple, lack of building space.  I think Florida will finally top out between 2020 and 2030, but I could be wrong.  Florida is constricted by marshes and the soft ground doens't allow for tall high-rise.  Thus Florida tops at 32.

4) Georgia and North Carolina are huge!?!?

Well, that's not a question, but it cannot be denied that the two states are growing.  I believe that Atlanta, Raleigh-Durham (one city by 2050) and (to a lesser extent) Richmond will pick up a lot of the companies that New York sheds.  Both states also have incredible amounts of building space (something New York and Chicago lack).  By 2050, I expect that both Atlanta and Raleigh-Durham will be at least the size of present day Chicago.  Richmond will be as large as present day Cleveland (roughly double its current size).  Charlotte will also see substansial growth.

5) What stays the shrinking treand in PA, OH and IL?

The economy in western-Pennsylvania has already seen a massive shift.  I susspect that the shift will keep PA's population from shrinking, but it is probably not enough to sustain larger growth either.

Chicago will continue to keep Ill. afloat.  Ohio is in the process of growing pains right now, I think.  I will be ready to come around in about 10 years.  That and the presence of Honda and Protor & Gamble should keep the population from shrinking too badly before it can level out.

6) What happens to California?

Well, the question is acctually "what did happen to California"?  I think that California has reached it's zenith.  It has grown too far, too fast to grow any further.  Indeed I think it will lose an EV or two in 2010.  Too much urban sprawl, years of economic neglect (not even Arnold can turn all of that around) and the occational disaster will keep California's population growth well below the national average, I feel.

I'll take you up on the debate.

First I'll agree that CA is topping out.

It's GA and NC that I want to dispute. There are various models with real estimates that one can use to project into the future. As I suggested earlier, the Census can be used as a starting point and from that I see no evidence of more than a 2 seat gain for either GA or NC before 2025. That would imply a radical movement to those states after 2025 but before 2050. Unless you are forecasting an economic catastrophe like the Great Depression (with a Dust Bowl thrown in), I don't see any justification for that kind of growth.

[muon2]

Like it or hate it, this is my story and I'm sticking to it.

Now, for my explination.

1) Why does New York lose so many?

I honestly believe that after Sept. 11th and the destruction of the WTC it will be easier for companies to move out of NYC.  The economy is changing, corperations don't need to be centralized in one city any mre and I think tht because of this, New York will lose out, as will Connecticut and New Jersey since they are really mostly suburbs of New York.  High taxes are also going to chase a lot of businesses and people away.

2) Why is Minnesota so big?

Minnesota is probably the most innovative non-southern state in the country.  They have managed to totally remake their economy into something that is, well, spectacular.  I think that around the year 2030 Minniapolis and St. Paul will finally combine into one city.  This will spur on the already tremendous growth.  I think by 2050 Minniapolis-St. Paul will top Chicago as the leading Mid-west City.  This boom will also help keep Wisconsin from losing big.  Wisconsin has a good economy as well and this will only benefit from the Minnesota boom.

3) Florida is growing so fast, why would it only have 32 EV's?

Simple, lack of building space.  I think Florida will finally top out between 2020 and 2030, but I could be wrong.  Florida is constricted by marshes and the soft ground doens't allow for tall high-rise.  Thus Florida tops at 32.

4) Georgia and North Carolina are huge!?!?

Well, that's not a question, but it cannot be denied that the two states are growing.  I believe that Atlanta, Raleigh-Durham (one city by 2050) and (to a lesser extent) Richmond will pick up a lot of the companies that New York sheds.  Both states also have incredible amounts of building space (something New York and Chicago lack).  By 2050, I expect that both Atlanta and Raleigh-Durham will be at least the size of present day Chicago.  Richmond will be as large as present day Cleveland (roughly double its current size).  Charlotte will also see substansial growth.

5) What stays the shrinking treand in PA, OH and IL?

The economy in western-Pennsylvania has already seen a massive shift.  I susspect that the shift will keep PA's population from shrinking, but it is probably not enough to sustain larger growth either.

Chicago will continue to keep Ill. afloat.  Ohio is in the process of growing pains right now, I think.  I will be ready to come around in about 10 years.  That and the presence of Honda and Protor & Gamble should keep the population from shrinking too badly before it can level out.

6) What happens to California?

Well, the question is acctually "what did happen to California"?  I think that California has reached it's zenith.  It has grown too far, too fast to grow any further.  Indeed I think it will lose an EV or two in 2010.  Too much urban sprawl, years of economic neglect (not even Arnold can turn all of that around) and the occational disaster will keep California's population growth well below the national average, I feel.

I'll take you up on the debate.

First I'll agree that CA is topping out.

It's GA and NC that I want to dispute. There are various models with real estimates that one can use to project into the future. As I suggested earlier, the Census can be used as a starting point and from that I see no evidence of more than a 2 seat gain for either GA or NC before 2025. That would imply a radical movement to those states after 2025 but before 2050. Unless you are forecasting an economic catastrophe like the Great Depression (with a Dust Bowl thrown in), I don't see any justification for that kind of growth.

Hey can you tell us where we can find that?

The Census made state by state projections in 1995 out to 2025 at http://www.census.gov/population/projections/state/stpjpop.txt
Series B seems to have a better match to the relative populations measured in 2000. The overall national growth is projected at http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/. To correct the older projections I compared them to the 2003 estimates at http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/tables/NST-EST2003-01.php.

From those tables I estimated the following changes by 2025:

AZ +2, NV +1 continuing the current trend, growth at more than double the national average.

FL +1, GA +1, TX +4 continuing their current trend, running at not quite double the national average.

ID +1, MT +1, NM +1, OR +1, UT +2, WA +1, the rest of the west will grow at one and a half times the national average.

CA +1, it's growth is slowing but it reaches the national average. To go below 50 it really has to shrink.

MN -1, it's on the bubble and just won't quite keep pace with the national growth rate without a new source of immigrants.

IL -1, MA -1, MI -1, MO -1, NJ -1 growth at half the national rate causes big states to lose seats slowly.

CT -1, IA -1, WV -1 with no significant population change they lose ground as small states.

NY -4, OH -2, PA -2, little growth causes a big loss here. Note that this still forecasts growth but barely - it shows how hard it would be to drop CA to 40-something.

[muon2]

MN -1, it's on the bubble and just won't quite keep pace with the national growth rate without a new source of immigrants.

Well, we've got Somalis and Hmong, so

Yes, but MN will need a new group to keep pace with the national average. Its neighbors will all be at well below average growth (1/3 to 1/2 the rate), reflecting the shrinking rural population of the upper midwest. MN would be in the same position as WI, with its recent loss of a seat, but the immigrants of the last three decades have kept it up.  The next generation will start to slip below the national average without external effects.

[muon2]

What about NC.. you did not do NC... by 2050 NC and GA will have the same amount..

I did look at NC and they are on the other side of the growth bubble. In the last three years population has grown at an estimated 1.3% per year compared to 1.8% per year in GA. Extended over twenty years, GA will have a million more residents than NC by 2025. That's enough to give GA one extra seat.

[muon2]

One huge probelm with the census data.  Well... two huge problems.

1) It doesn't take into account new technologies that will or developments that will drastically effect the way people live.

Actually I think it does pretty well to the time period I've identified.

The time scale for transportation or energy technologies to impact the economy in a meaningful way is typically 25 to 50 years. A traditional commuter rail project from inception to riders is at least 15 years; maglev would be longer. Modern wind farms have been around for more than twenty years but are just barely making a blip on the overall energy market; a new technology like fusion would take far longer.

It would be more correct to look at technologies from the last twenty years and see how they would affect this coming generation (telecommuting, regional jets, hybrid power generation).

2) This goes without saying, but it doesn't take into account the effect that these technologies will have on the economy and thus, migration patterns.

Most of the technologies implemented in the last twenty years make it less likely to see major relocation in the next twenty years. Telecommuting allows people to stay in the areas they grew up in even as work moves elsewhere.

3) And I guess a third one: if doesn't take into account any unforseen monumentous events that are going to have an impact on the above.

I can't disagree with this one. In my earlier post I had a disclaimer that a Great Depression event would change the forecast.

I also have been careful to project only one generation ahead. The second twenty years is very dependent on events in the first tewnty years to come. That said, it takes a lot to move the numbers of people you forecast even in 46 years.

[muon2]

Three technologies that I see coming in the next 30 years that are going to change a lot of things are:

1) Mag/Lev Trains- these have already been invented, but I believe that the building of future lines will massively effect the way people live and where they live.

2) Man-made water- Eventually, it will become profitable (and nessesary) to manufature water in labs, so the water resources of a particular area will not matter as much.

3) Fussion Power- Will totally change the concept of how we get our energy resources.  No more coal or oil.  All fussion.  Imagine be able to power a city the size of LA on for a month on a bucket of salt-water.  Well, that's what we'll get with fussion power.

It is interesting to look back and ask which technologies and demographics casued the substantial changes in the EV map from 46 years ago (1958 - my birth year).

The automobile is less a factor in EV during this period than it was during the Dustbowl. The freeway system changed regional demographics between city and suburb but was less of a factor on state to state migration.

People are most likely to make a significant relocation when they are about to start a career or famility and at the end of their career. Lesser movement comes when there is a major career shift, but this is tempered by family needs which tends to keep people in place.

I would argue that the most significant techological factors during the late 20th centrury were advances in medicine and the air conditioner pioneered in the pre WWII-era.  Air conditioning clearly contributed to the ability to the growth in the biggest gainers - CA, AZ, FL, TX. It produced livable work environments, and with the substantial increase in lifespan during the latter 20th century made retirement to the Sun Belt a popular option.

The declining states can point to the tchnological improvements in manufacturing. The big cities of the north needed large work forces to man the factories. As the productivity per worker increased the number of workers needed in the cities declined. The result was a lack of growth for states like NY, PA, OH, IL. The children of those families were most likely to start their careers in the emerging markets of the Sun Belt. Their parents follwed as they retired.

[muon2]

this might change the dynamics of this thread a little, since the predominately Democratic Pacific Northwest is growing in population, when people have long assumed that long-term population growth trends favored Republicans:

State's population booming

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER STAFF AND NEWS SERVICES

Washington should gain one congressional seat by 2030 if U.S. Census Bureau population projections are correct. Census demographers predict the state's population will grow 46 percent over the next 25 years, to 8.6 million. That will move Washington up one notch to the 14th most populous state -- right between New Jersey and Tennessee. According to the projections, Washington will be the ninth fastest-growing state in the nation over the next 25 years. Other Northwest states also made that top 10: Idaho is expected to be the sixth fastest-growing state and Oregon the 10th fastest-growing state. If Washington's population growth meets expectations, the 10th congressional district will probably be in Western Washington.

It seems very much in line with my projections made last summer.

I estimated the following changes by 2025:

AZ +2, NV +1 continuing the current trend, growth at more than double the national average.

FL +1, GA +1, TX +4 continuing their current trend, running at not quite double the national average.

ID +1, MT +1, NM +1, OR +1, UT +2, WA +1, the rest of the west will grow at one and a half times the national average.

CA +1, it's growth is slowing but it reaches the national average. To go below 50 it really has to shrink.

MN -1, it's on the bubble and just won't quite keep pace with the national growth rate without a new source of immigrants.

IL -1, MA -1, MI -1, MO -1, NJ -1 growth at half the national rate causes big states to lose seats slowly.

CT -1, IA -1, WV -1 with no significant population change they lose ground as small states.

NY -4, OH -2, PA -2, little growth causes a big loss here. Note that this still forecasts growth but barely - it shows how hard it would be to drop CA to 40-something.

[muon2]

We may disagree on suburbs, but I'm with you 100% on this analysis.

2004:



1952:



Eh, this shows it's impossible to predict and that the map probably won't look anything like now in 50 years.