Will the South Eventually Have a Majority of the US Population?

[Skill and Chance]

Currently, the South as defined by the US census has ~39% of the total population.  So the main thing that would be needed is for Texas and Florida to grow to ~1.5X their current population.  Throw in some help from GA/NC/TN which are all big enough to matter and it doesn't seem crazy this could happen at midcentury?

However, the US census uses one of the broadest definitions of South: basically every state that had slavery in 1860 except Missouri.  If you take out MD, DE, etc. this gets harder, but probably still not insurmountable?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Relevant data here
At this rate, such a mark would be breached in 2065.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

The South honestly needs to be cut into 2 regions in the census.

[wnwnwn]

The West will continue growing...

[Agonized-Statism]

Doubtful, some of that growth will reverse with the Great Climate Migration. We might lose New Orleans for good this year, and Houston won't be a safe place for the climate refugees for long.

[Skill and Chance]

Doubtful, some of that growth will reverse with the Great Climate Migration. We might lose New Orleans for good this year, and Houston won't be a safe place for the climate refugees for long.

This is something that could happen in theory, but I think the breaking point is a lot further out than assumed.  The Gulf Coast continues to have huge net population gain.  It seems that there will still be large cities, just completely dependent on complex dike/levee systems each summer.  Think about how Amsterdam was a seabed a few hundred years ago.  If it can be dried out and kept dry, with enough investment so can Miami and Houston until/unless it becomes more economically/aesthetically attractive to leave. 

Again, there's a point where it breaks down, but keep in mind most of these people actively want to be in a place where it never snows.  They aren't going to actually retire to the Great Lakes until/unless things are so far gone that Michigan or Upstate NY has a Mediterranean climate.  They would end up on a beach in NC if in 2060 it has the climate of present day Florida.   

[Agonized-Statism]

Doubtful, some of that growth will reverse with the Great Climate Migration. We might lose New Orleans for good this year, and Houston won't be a safe place for the climate refugees for long.

This is something that could happen in theory, but I think the breaking point is a lot further out than assumed.  The Gulf Coast continues to have huge net population gain.  It seems that there will still be large cities, just completely dependent on complex dike/levee systems each summer.  Think about how Amsterdam was a seabed a few hundred years ago.  If it can be dried out and kept dry, with enough investment so can Miami and Houston until/unless it becomes more economically/aesthetically attractive to leave.  

That's the thing. The rate of change will accelerate as we pass tipping points in the climate system over the next decade or so, and the bipartisan hostility toward a Green New Deal that said investment would require has only increased in the last four years. As insurance premiums skyrocket and more and more gets destroyed, the only really viable answer will be leaving. I agree that first this will initially mean shorter moves within the South (like the Katrina climate migrants to Houston historically that I mentioned or Floridians to North Carolina like you mentioned), but that faster-than-expected climate change will hurt the whole region as insurance companies panic. As this problem becomes undeniable, migration will slow (also, unrelatedly, the boomer cohort will pass in the case of Florida migration) and Southerners looking to move will get more cautious and look further afield. The Great Lakes states particularly will be much better equipped to take them in the near future as protectionism revitalizes industrial work there, and they become aware of their value and make an effort to diversify their economies as well.

[Skill and Chance]

Doubtful, some of that growth will reverse with the Great Climate Migration. We might lose New Orleans for good this year, and Houston won't be a safe place for the climate refugees for long.

This is something that could happen in theory, but I think the breaking point is a lot further out than assumed.  The Gulf Coast continues to have huge net population gain.  It seems that there will still be large cities, just completely dependent on complex dike/levee systems each summer.  Think about how Amsterdam was a seabed a few hundred years ago.  If it can be dried out and kept dry, with enough investment so can Miami and Houston until/unless it becomes more economically/aesthetically attractive to leave.  

That's the thing. The rate of change will accelerate as we pass tipping points in the climate system over the next decade or so, and the bipartisan hostility toward a Green New Deal that said investment would require has only increased in the last four years. As insurance premiums skyrocket and more and more gets destroyed, the only really viable answer will be leaving. I agree that first this will initially mean shorter moves within the South (like the Katrina climate migrants to Houston historically that I mentioned or Floridians to North Carolina like you mentioned), but that faster-than-expected climate change will hurt the whole region as insurance companies panic. As this problem becomes undeniable, migration will slow (also, unrelatedly, the boomer cohort will pass in the case of Florida migration) and Southerners looking to move will get more cautious and look further afield. The Great Lakes states particularly will be much better equipped to take them in the near future as protectionism revitalizes industrial work there, and they become aware of their value and make an effort to diversify their economies as well.

Maybe.  This is a reasonable scenario, but it all feels like it's set in an extremely warm world where it doesn't snow at sea level anywhere in the continental US.  This also makes me wonder if there would be a mega-resort developments in Alaska for retirees who enjoyed the climate of the present day Upper Midwest or Northern New England?

However, at the current rate of change, economic considerations like taxes and the cost of housing seem to dominate.  Parts of Upstate NY and the Upper Midwest do have the nearly free housing part, but are they ready to repeal or greatly reduce state income taxes and/or change their laws to basically let employers do whatever the heck they want?  Would it even be a good thing if they did?  Because that is mostly what's attracting people and businesses to the South right now.

[Agonized-Statism]

Maybe.  This is a reasonable scenario, but it all feels like it's set in an extremely warm world where it doesn't snow at sea level anywhere in the continental US.  This also makes me wonder if there would be a mega-resort developments in Alaska for retirees who enjoyed the climate of the present day Upper Midwest or Northern New England?

However, at the current rate of change, economic considerations like taxes and the cost of housing seem to dominate.  Parts of Upstate NY and the Upper Midwest do have the nearly free housing part, but are they ready to repeal or greatly reduce state income taxes and/or change their laws to basically let employers do whatever the heck they want?  Would it even be a good thing if they did?  Because that is mostly what's attracting people and businesses to the South right now.

I think climate migration and capitalism's race to the bottom are horrific personally, but I set that aside when making predictions. It's neither "good" nor "bad" inherently, it just is what it is, there's adaptive and maladaptive practices under the tyranny of capital that we choose to continue subjecting ourselves to.

Expanding tax bases would create budget surpluses, and considering that Republicans have been making headway up there for some time, politicians will absolutely jump on the opportunity for tax cuts. As the industrial sector of the bourgeoise strengthens with increasing profits and government support, they'll gain influence over politics there and cut into workers' rights. The Upper Midwest will "win" the race to the bottom in the end, especially if the South opts not to let coastal cities float away and has to raise taxes for infrastructure improvements.

[Samof94]

Doubtful, some of that growth will reverse with the Great Climate Migration. We might lose New Orleans for good this year, and Houston won't be a safe place for the climate refugees for long.

This is something that could happen in theory, but I think the breaking point is a lot further out than assumed.  The Gulf Coast continues to have huge net population gain.  It seems that there will still be large cities, just completely dependent on complex dike/levee systems each summer.  Think about how Amsterdam was a seabed a few hundred years ago.  If it can be dried out and kept dry, with enough investment so can Miami and Houston until/unless it becomes more economically/aesthetically attractive to leave. 

Again, there's a point where it breaks down, but keep in mind most of these people actively want to be in a place where it never snows.  They aren't going to actually retire to the Great Lakes until/unless things are so far gone that Michigan or Upstate NY has a Mediterranean climate.  They would end up on a beach in NC if in 2060 it has the climate of present day Florida.   

So, when millenials and zoomers are retiring? Politics will be very, very different in 2060 if/when NC  appeals to the retirement of folks.

[Skill and Chance]

Doubtful, some of that growth will reverse with the Great Climate Migration. We might lose New Orleans for good this year, and Houston won't be a safe place for the climate refugees for long.

This is something that could happen in theory, but I think the breaking point is a lot further out than assumed.  The Gulf Coast continues to have huge net population gain.  It seems that there will still be large cities, just completely dependent on complex dike/levee systems each summer.  Think about how Amsterdam was a seabed a few hundred years ago.  If it can be dried out and kept dry, with enough investment so can Miami and Houston until/unless it becomes more economically/aesthetically attractive to leave. 

Again, there's a point where it breaks down, but keep in mind most of these people actively want to be in a place where it never snows.  They aren't going to actually retire to the Great Lakes until/unless things are so far gone that Michigan or Upstate NY has a Mediterranean climate.  They would end up on a beach in NC if in 2060 it has the climate of present day Florida.   

So, when millenials and zoomers are retiring? Politics will be very, very different in 2060 if/when NC  appeals to the retirement of folks.

This is true, but the general North/South divide on business regulations and labor rights has persisted through multiple partisan alignments for over a century.  So I think it goes beyond D vs. R stuff.

[Sol]

Climate change obviously will have some kind of impact on southern migration, but it's hard to say what exactly, in part because a lot depends on what we do about it. I feel a less confident than most of you all in saying anything decisive.

I also think people think of this in regional terms when that might not be the right unit of analysis. Within the south, there are areas at much greater risk of various climate impacts and areas with lower risk, and there are important cities in each category. The same is true of the Midwest too; Chicago is often touted as a potential climate change metropolis but has worse prospects for heat and flooding than a place like Atlanta.

I do think that an underrated factor in all this is the possibility of rising costs of living. Sunbelt growth is predicated in large part on cheap land and cheap labor, but as these cities have become major centers both of those factors tend to go away, and growth tapers somewhat. This is the Los Angeles story of course, but even places like Miami and Atlanta no longer have the white hot growth that they used to.

[Skill and Chance]

Climate change obviously will have some kind of impact on southern migration, but it's hard to say what exactly, in part because a lot depends on what we do about it. I feel a less confident than most of you all in saying anything decisive.

I also think people think of this in regional terms when that might not be the right unit of analysis. Within the south, there are areas at much greater risk of various climate impacts and areas with lower risk, and there are important cities in each category. The same is true of the Midwest too; Chicago is often touted as a potential climate change metropolis but has worse prospects for heat and flooding than a place like Atlanta.

I do think that an underrated factor in all this is the possibility of rising costs of living. Sunbelt growth is predicated in large part on cheap land and cheap labor, but as these cities have become major centers both of those factors tend to go away, and growth tapers somewhat. This is the Los Angeles story of course, but even places like Miami and Atlanta no longer have the white hot growth that they used to.

It does seem like Florida, and South Florida in particular is starting to approach carrying capacity and experience this.  However, I don't think this generalizes.  Given the surplus flat land and general lack of zoning regulations, you could probably fit the entire current US population into the Texas Triangle cities +/- a 2 hour commute and still have lower housing prices there than California or most of the NE.

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

Climate change obviously will have some kind of impact on southern migration, but it's hard to say what exactly, in part because a lot depends on what we do about it. I feel a less confident than most of you all in saying anything decisive.

I also think people think of this in regional terms when that might not be the right unit of analysis. Within the south, there are areas at much greater risk of various climate impacts and areas with lower risk, and there are important cities in each category. The same is true of the Midwest too; Chicago is often touted as a potential climate change metropolis but has worse prospects for heat and flooding than a place like Atlanta.

True, a heat index of 125 F is nothing to scoff at.

It does seem like Florida, and South Florida in particular is starting to approach carrying capacity and experience this.  However, I don't think this generalizes.  Given the surplus flat land and general lack of zoning regulations, you could probably fit the entire current US population into the Texas Triangle cities +/- a 2 hour commute and still have lower housing prices there than California or most of the NE.

Just because we theoretically could replicate Uttar Pradesh or Jiangsu population density by fitting 300+ million people within the state of Texas doesn't mean we should. Especially given how vulnerable Texas's electrical grid has proven to be in recent years.

[Skill and Chance]

Climate change obviously will have some kind of impact on southern migration, but it's hard to say what exactly, in part because a lot depends on what we do about it. I feel a less confident than most of you all in saying anything decisive.

I also think people think of this in regional terms when that might not be the right unit of analysis. Within the south, there are areas at much greater risk of various climate impacts and areas with lower risk, and there are important cities in each category. The same is true of the Midwest too; Chicago is often touted as a potential climate change metropolis but has worse prospects for heat and flooding than a place like Atlanta.

True, a heat index of 125 F is nothing to scoff at.

It does seem like Florida, and South Florida in particular is starting to approach carrying capacity and experience this.  However, I don't think this generalizes.  Given the surplus flat land and general lack of zoning regulations, you could probably fit the entire current US population into the Texas Triangle cities +/- a 2 hour commute and still have lower housing prices there than California or most of the NE.

Just because we theoretically could replicate Uttar Pradesh or Jiangsu population density by fitting 300+ million people within the state of Texas doesn't mean we should. Especially given how vulnerable Texas's electrical grid has proven to be in recent years.

Not saying it would be desirable, just emphasizing part of a general point that most metro areas in the US are nowhere near ecological carrying capacity.  Often, political geography discussion operates on the assumption that ecological factors will limit population growth or force a substantial % of the population  to move.  In practice, the only highly populated areas coming up against ecological carrying capacity today are the West Coast metros, Louisiana, and parts of Florida.  Ecologically speaking, we could easily grow the US population 4X with an even higher standard of living than today if all the extra people lived along or east of I-35!