How will America be in 2050

[Lunar]

43 is a bit low for California.  It would require us losing more than 2 electoral votes for every decade up to 250.

[12th Doctor]

Thanks for clarifying. I thought you were referring to Pittsburgh and Allegheny county. They are about to merge some city and county services btw.

What are you talking about? Pittsburgh and Allegheny never merged. There is the city of Pittsburgh and the County of Allegheny. Both are losing population.

but those consisted of one huge one annexing another, rather than two of fairly similar size combining. St. Paul residents would never let Minneapolis take over their city.

New York had a population of about 3 million and Brooklyn 1.5 million.  Pittsburgh had a population of 300,000 and Allegany had a population of about 200,000.

What are you talking about?  Back in 1900, what we now know as Pittsburgh was several seperate cities.  "Pittsburgh" proper only occupies the eastern shore of the three rivers.  The city of Allegany occupied the northern shore and the souther and western shore was made up of several different small towns/villages that had no distiguishable boundaries.  These were all then merged into what we now call "Pittsburgh".

Funny, I saw the red PA avatar and thought you were one of the old PA Dem. stand-bys.  Welcom to the forum.  Where abouts are you from?

[12th Doctor]

43 is a bit low for California.  It would require us losing more than 2 electoral votes for every decade up to 250.

i think that it will happen.  California's population growth will virtually stagnate, I think, while Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota Texas and the southeast boom.

[danwxman]

Harrisburg area. Have spent some time near Washington, PA too. You?

Thanks for clarifying. I thought you were referring to Pittsburgh and Allegheny county. They are about to merge some city and county services btw.

What are you talking about? Pittsburgh and Allegheny never merged. There is the city of Pittsburgh and the County of Allegheny. Both are losing population.

but those consisted of one huge one annexing another, rather than two of fairly similar size combining. St. Paul residents would never let Minneapolis take over their city.

New York had a population of about 3 million and Brooklyn 1.5 million.  Pittsburgh had a population of 300,000 and Allegany had a population of about 200,000.

What are you talking about?  Back in 1900, what we now know as Pittsburgh was several seperate cities.  "Pittsburgh" proper only occupies the eastern shore of the three rivers.  The city of Allegany occupied the northern shore and the souther and western shore was made up of several different small towns/villages that had no distiguishable boundaries.  These were all then merged into what we now call "Pittsburgh".

Funny, I saw the red PA avatar and thought you were one of the old PA Dem. stand-bys.  Welcom to the forum.  Where abouts are you from?

[12th Doctor]

Harrisburg area. Have spent some time near Washington, PA too. You?

Thanks for clarifying. I thought you were referring to Pittsburgh and Allegheny county. They are about to merge some city and county services btw.

What are you talking about? Pittsburgh and Allegheny never merged. There is the city of Pittsburgh and the County of Allegheny. Both are losing population.

but those consisted of one huge one annexing another, rather than two of fairly similar size combining. St. Paul residents would never let Minneapolis take over their city.

New York had a population of about 3 million and Brooklyn 1.5 million.  Pittsburgh had a population of 300,000 and Allegany had a population of about 200,000.

What are you talking about?  Back in 1900, what we now know as Pittsburgh was several seperate cities.  "Pittsburgh" proper only occupies the eastern shore of the three rivers.  The city of Allegany occupied the northern shore and the souther and western shore was made up of several different small towns/villages that had no distiguishable boundaries.  These were all then merged into what we now call "Pittsburgh".

Funny, I saw the red PA avatar and thought you were one of the old PA Dem. stand-bys.  Welcom to the forum.  Where abouts are you from?

Erie.  Although I am originally from about an hour west of State College on I-80, near DuBois, if you know where that is.  The Harrisburg area is nice.  I have family who live in the western outskirts of Reading in "Dutchie" country.  Things are a lot better here in the west than they were in the 80's, but if you spent your time in Washington, I can understand where you get you view-point from.  That place is truely a Hell-hole.  No offense.

[danwxman]

Harrisburg area. Have spent some time near Washington, PA too. You?

Thanks for clarifying. I thought you were referring to Pittsburgh and Allegheny county. They are about to merge some city and county services btw.

What are you talking about? Pittsburgh and Allegheny never merged. There is the city of Pittsburgh and the County of Allegheny. Both are losing population.

but those consisted of one huge one annexing another, rather than two of fairly similar size combining. St. Paul residents would never let Minneapolis take over their city.

New York had a population of about 3 million and Brooklyn 1.5 million.  Pittsburgh had a population of 300,000 and Allegany had a population of about 200,000.

What are you talking about?  Back in 1900, what we now know as Pittsburgh was several seperate cities.  "Pittsburgh" proper only occupies the eastern shore of the three rivers.  The city of Allegany occupied the northern shore and the souther and western shore was made up of several different small towns/villages that had no distiguishable boundaries.  These were all then merged into what we now call "Pittsburgh".

Funny, I saw the red PA avatar and thought you were one of the old PA Dem. stand-bys.  Welcom to the forum.  Where abouts are you from?

Erie.  Although I am originally from about an hour west of State College on I-80, near DuBois, if you know where that is.  The Harrisburg area is nice.  I have family who live in the western outskirts of Reading in "Dutchie" country.  Things are a lot better here in the west than they were in the 80's, but if you spent your time in Washington, I can understand where you get you view-point from.  That place is truely a Hell-hole.  No offense.

None taken. Washington isn't the worst though -- the Mon Valley area, Greene county & Fayette county are all in horrible shape economically. Washington county is the *only* county south of Pittsburgh to experience growth (in pop. and business) in the past few years.

Erie is nice, although I've heard that area has fallen upon some hard times recently.

[12th Doctor]

Harrisburg area. Have spent some time near Washington, PA too. You?

Thanks for clarifying. I thought you were referring to Pittsburgh and Allegheny county. They are about to merge some city and county services btw.

What are you talking about? Pittsburgh and Allegheny never merged. There is the city of Pittsburgh and the County of Allegheny. Both are losing population.

but those consisted of one huge one annexing another, rather than two of fairly similar size combining. St. Paul residents would never let Minneapolis take over their city.

New York had a population of about 3 million and Brooklyn 1.5 million.  Pittsburgh had a population of 300,000 and Allegany had a population of about 200,000.

What are you talking about?  Back in 1900, what we now know as Pittsburgh was several seperate cities.  "Pittsburgh" proper only occupies the eastern shore of the three rivers.  The city of Allegany occupied the northern shore and the souther and western shore was made up of several different small towns/villages that had no distiguishable boundaries.  These were all then merged into what we now call "Pittsburgh".

Funny, I saw the red PA avatar and thought you were one of the old PA Dem. stand-bys.  Welcom to the forum.  Where abouts are you from?

Erie.  Although I am originally from about an hour west of State College on I-80, near DuBois, if you know where that is.  The Harrisburg area is nice.  I have family who live in the western outskirts of Reading in "Dutchie" country.  Things are a lot better here in the west than they were in the 80's, but if you spent your time in Washington, I can understand where you get you view-point from.  That place is truely a Hell-hole.  No offense.

None taken. Washington isn't the worst though -- the Mon Valley area, Greene county & Fayette county are all in horrible shape economically. Washington county is the *only* county south of Pittsburgh to experience growth (in pop. and business) in the past few years.

Erie is nice, although I've heard that area has fallen upon some hard times recently.

When International Paper left, it really tore the heart out of the town.  New tech firms have come in, but they cannot replace the jobs that were lost.  Erie is, changing.  The general appearence of the downtown area has gotten considerably better since 10 years ago, but the industry is gone.

[danwxman]

Interesting. I always thought Erie looked like it belonged more in Michigan or Ohio rather than PA. It's a cool city and a nice area though. I was just there in January and noticed what seemed to be some new development and shopping centers on the outskirts of town.

Harrisburg area. Have spent some time near Washington, PA too. You?

Thanks for clarifying. I thought you were referring to Pittsburgh and Allegheny county. They are about to merge some city and county services btw.

What are you talking about? Pittsburgh and Allegheny never merged. There is the city of Pittsburgh and the County of Allegheny. Both are losing population.

but those consisted of one huge one annexing another, rather than two of fairly similar size combining. St. Paul residents would never let Minneapolis take over their city.

New York had a population of about 3 million and Brooklyn 1.5 million.  Pittsburgh had a population of 300,000 and Allegany had a population of about 200,000.

What are you talking about?  Back in 1900, what we now know as Pittsburgh was several seperate cities.  "Pittsburgh" proper only occupies the eastern shore of the three rivers.  The city of Allegany occupied the northern shore and the souther and western shore was made up of several different small towns/villages that had no distiguishable boundaries.  These were all then merged into what we now call "Pittsburgh".

Funny, I saw the red PA avatar and thought you were one of the old PA Dem. stand-bys.  Welcom to the forum.  Where abouts are you from?

Erie.  Although I am originally from about an hour west of State College on I-80, near DuBois, if you know where that is.  The Harrisburg area is nice.  I have family who live in the western outskirts of Reading in "Dutchie" country.  Things are a lot better here in the west than they were in the 80's, but if you spent your time in Washington, I can understand where you get you view-point from.  That place is truely a Hell-hole.  No offense.

None taken. Washington isn't the worst though -- the Mon Valley area, Greene county & Fayette county are all in horrible shape economically. Washington county is the *only* county south of Pittsburgh to experience growth (in pop. and business) in the past few years.

Erie is nice, although I've heard that area has fallen upon some hard times recently.

When International Paper left, it really tore the heart out of the town.  New tech firms have come in, but they cannot replace the jobs that were lost.  Erie is, changing.  The general appearence of the downtown area has gotten considerably better since 10 years ago, but the industry is gone.

[12th Doctor]

Interesting. I always thought Erie looked like it belonged more in Michigan or Ohio rather than PA. It's a cool city and a nice area though. I was just there in January and noticed what seemed to be some new development and shopping centers on the outskirts of town.

Ha, yeah.  I've always said the Erie is more Ohio than PA.  Culturally, Erie really isn't a part of this state.  It is a nice place.  People who live here hate it, but I appreiciate it.  There is a lot of development going on, but the current administration in town is totally inept and somewhat currupt.

[Siege40]

I'm going to ignore most of what you said since you are putting thoughts and opinions into me that are not there to prop up your arguments.

I will point out that Alaska does have an independence party, which has been quite strong at times and won numerous financial concessions and forced the US to strengthen the economic ties to the mainland to undercut its support.

You can learn more about them at their web page.  Look inteh history section and you can see they got almost 39% of the gubenatorial vote in 1990.

http://www.akip.org/

Hawaii also has a similar movement, but it has been much less effective.

If Quebec separated the federal government would have to give the Maritimes and Newfies the special treatment Quebec received to weaken the eperatist position.  The Candian economy sans Quebec will not be able to support this for long, and it will riase resentment in the west.

I'll agree that a 2005 referendum would likely fail, but I think the Bloq knows this.  2010 is a much better target for them.

I would argue that an Independence movement example from Alaska isn't quite right, a more accurate example would be if Alaska wanted to join Canada, independence and annexation are two very different things. Also Canadians will not fit in well in America, public healthcare, welfare etc. every state would complain if the recieved what they wanted, or they wouldn't and consider secession.

The Canadian economy could survive losing Quebec, despite the fact that a lot of taxes are reaped in from the province, a lot of spending is done on their benefit. Bilingual education could be cut, Federal bilingual programs, and all of those special concessions to Quebec would be gone. Probably a net benefit.

Siege

[Josh/Devilman88]

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?

[7,052,770]

Super, why do you have MS going down to 4 ev's?  MS only barely lost a seat this time, and I bet we'll go back up to 7 ev's by 2012.  We may be at 6 by 2050, but no lower!

[Josh/Devilman88]

MAybe

[12th Doctor]

Super, why do you have MS going down to 4 ev's?  MS only barely lost a seat this time, and I bet we'll go back up to 7 ev's by 2012.  We may be at 6 by 2050, but no lower!

True, but remember, this is a calculation of relative growth, not absolute growth.  Thus Mississippi would lose seats because it would not grow as quickly as the other states.

[ilikeverin]

I think it was Brambila who said something like this, to 'prove' that Minnesota will trend conservative:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Brambila... you said that Hispanic political leanings will radically change... why not Catholic ones?


Also, I think if some new 3rd party movement will spring up, Minnesota will jump on that bandwagon pretty early

[bullmoose88]

Storebought's scenario is a little far fetched...

PA loses 3 million people (down to 9 million?), a state that grew by 3.5% last decade? (up from 0.4%...meaning the 2nd derivative of growth here, the growth of the growth rate, is pretty damn high)


not realistic by any means.

[Josh/Devilman88]

NC grew by 21.4% last Decade. And for April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002 it grow by 3.4%.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37000.html   Link to prove it

[Josh/Devilman88]

Here is some good Date..  http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/rankings/PL0120000r.html

[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.

[ilikeverin]

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

[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.

[Josh/Devilman88]

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

[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.

[12th Doctor]

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.

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.

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.

[12th Doctor]

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.