How will America be in 2050

[Josh/Devilman88]

OK what do you think 2008 would look like?

[12th Doctor]

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.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Greensboro will be Bigger then Raleigh. Raleigh will be big, but Greensboro-High Point will be one Big city. Which right now if you add Greensboro's and High Points Population it adds to almost 1 million people. Just my 2 cent on North Carolina.

[Storebought]

I really would like to comment on your maps, but I can't fit them within the quotes of your commentary.

Anyway, by 2050, barring unforseen, but probable disasters (imminent nuclear exchanges with NK, the Religion of Peace establishing a new order, etc.),

The whites of this country will have fled to New England and the Pacific Northwest. The populations of OR, WA will be triple, Idaho and MT six-fold, what they are now. The "mountain northwest" will have benefitted from an economy no longer dependent on bulk transport of goods to large urban areas, and a white population with the skills to manage that new economy.

The New England states that will benefit from national white flight include VT, NH, and ME, for the same reasons as the "mountain northwest". MA will be stagnant (i.e., a pop of only 7 mil or so) because of nearly feudal economic regulations that keep old business from moving out, and new ones from being established.

The threat of living in New York City will cause the population there to remain at level what it is today (8 mil). But the high-tax, rapidly decaying suburbs of LI, Westchester, CT, and northern NJ, will have convinced the territorial ethnic whites to give up. Places like Levittown, Valley Spring, White Plains, will be majority Puerto Rican/Dominican/Carribbean black, and have only a quarter of their current populations.

The Midwest will be "A Clockwork Orange" ugly as lower class blacks and whites scrape over what remaining jobs are left in permanently depressed locales as Michigan, western PA, northern Ohio. Consider: in 1950 Detroit had a population of 1.8 million; today, it's only 900,000. What afflicted Detroit will spread, so that
MI today = 9 mill; MI 2050 = 4.5 mill
OH today = 11 mill; OH 2050 = 7 mill
PA today = 12 mill; PA 2050 = 9 mill

IL will resemble MA, in that industries in Chicago will be compelled to remain there. Downstate IL will be a wasteland, though (like upstate NY).

The South will have become like the Northeast. MD and VA, home of the Washington DC suburbs, will be as populous, exclusive, and socially-restricted as ever (like modern Suffolk County NY). Except their populations will be majority black, as blacks now make up the overwhelming majority of government workers, top to bottom.

W VA will become a southern Vermont, a playground for the Washington DC elite.

NC will function as the new "New York". Polyglot population of 30 mill, the new center of trade and industry for the East Coast; GA will be the PA--outside of Atlanta, the state is as rural as ever.

Southern whites refusing to live among uppity blacks (in VA) or every race of man imaginable (NC) will retreat to Tenn (pop 12 mill) and KY (pop 8 mill). Neither state will have a city larger than 900,000 between them.

I have less of a sense of what the Hispanic-majority parts of the US will be, so I'll leave my prediction off here.

[bullmoose88]

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.

Yeah...but while western PA has shrunk...the philly burbs have grown at a huge rate...the rest of the state grows at a small level (philly being the exception)

So I can't believe PA will decline to those levels. Some decline because of the relative growth of the rest of the country...but not that much.

[Schmitz in 1972]

Due to the horrendous presidencies of Kerry (2005-2013) and Hillary Clinton (2013-2021) America has been turned into an oppressive socialist nation. All 50 states have been merged into one and there is no political division as everyone is brainwashed to love the government...

           It could happen

[Horus]

The Midwest is trending more conservatively all around. The Southwest meanwhile, is trending more to the left. I think every Southwest State except Utah will be very democratic by 2050, maybe as much so as New England, though I don't think so. A lot of that has to do with the Hispanic immigration there that has sped up a lot recently.

I agree with the person who projected Michigan's population being cut in half in the next 50 years, I was there recently and that state is not in good shape, a lot of people will move to the southwest I bet.

I think Florida will trend a bit to the left, while West Virginia will head definitely towards the right. NE will still be a Democratic haven, but PA will be closer and virtually a tossup state. I just can't see MD moving towards the right.

As for Virginia, I think it is heading towards the left, there was a thread on that in another forum a few days ago, and I agreed with it.

Texas is getting lots of Hispanic immigration, I think it will lean ever so slightly to the Democrats in 2050, but will still be vey much of a swing.

Oregon, despite very liberal Portland, is trending right, I think Kerry will probably lose Oregon this year, and the republicans will do nothing but gain ground.

Here's two more predictions I'll make, they are of course incorrect but are fun nonetheless.

State that will change the least in the next 50 years: Hawaii

State that will change the most in the next 50 years: Arizona (It's already changed a whole lot in the past 3)

[Storebought]

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.

Your map drastically underestimates the populations of the Mountain Northwest and upper New England.

[Lilman]

We will be dead so who cares?

[Storebought]

We will be dead so who cares?

We're mostly about 20 now, so a great many of us will live to see 2050

[12th Doctor]

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.

Your map drastically underestimates the populations of the Mountain Northwest and upper New England.

How so?  Don't just do a drive-by.  Tell me why you think that.

[Storebought]

I gave an exhaustive summary of the white flight to the Northwest/upper New England on the previous page

[12th Doctor]

I gave an exhaustive summary of the white flight to the Northwest/upper New England on the previous page

Oh, okay.  Sorry, I'll read it.

[Josh/Devilman88]

I gave an exhaustive summary of the white flight to the Northwest/upper New England on the previous page

I don't think that is that would happen. But the North Carolina being the New "New York", that is true!

[12th Doctor]

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.

Yeah...but while western PA has shrunk...the philly burbs have grown at a huge rate...the rest of the state grows at a small level (philly being the exception)

So I can't believe PA will decline to those levels. Some decline because of the relative growth of the rest of the country...but not that much.

This is 50 years from now, remember.

[opebo]

By 2050 democracy will have to be suspended to preserve Capitalism.  

[KEmperor]

I don't think anyone is capable of predicting such long term trends in the US population.

[WMS]

[fun!]

I have less of a sense of what the Hispanic-majority parts of the US will be, so I'll leave my prediction off here.

New Mexico: Depends very much on if the current affirmitive action race/ethnic-based politics in play survive or not.

With them: Despite being 85% minority (and 75% Hispanic) overall, Hispanics still receive AA benefits [right now, Hispanics are the largest group in a majority-minority state, and AA is still here!]. This favoritism has led the more affluent Anglo population to flee to the Pacific Northwest as Storebought indicated. A huge, sprawling, choking socialist government employs most of the population in the traditional 'Democratic votes for government jobs' arrangement. Attempts by Hispanics to start up small businesses - there's quite a few of them in the Valley IRL - are stifled by tremendous levels of regulation and taxation. Almost everyone is poor or working class at best, except for the trial lawyers and teachers' unions presidents who rake in the cash, legal and otherwise. Politics is all about Democratic factions fighting it out in primary elections; it is a one-party state otherwise. And the Indians grow wealthy from casinos, but unlike Indians in, say, California the money goes to actual tribes and not made-up ones. However, political strife amongst the tribes limits the benefits the Indians get from all their money. Call this 'current trends extended'.

Without them: Coalitions of pro-growth Democrats and Republicans manage to sustain moderate levels of growth, a stable job market, and gradually rising wage levels. The skills of all the Californians who have moved to Santa Fe are exploited to spark a technical services boom. The major ethnic groups - Hispanics, Anglos, and Indians/Native Americans - work together to develop NM, with some intermarriage blurring the lines. Government is trimmed and all the make-work patronage jobs are wiped out, leading to actual efficiency for the first time...well, ever. While pockets of poverty still exist (don't they always?), the bulk of the population is working class to upper middle class. Except for the trial lawyers...they're poor. Strong private small business ownership among Hispanics leads the way. Healthy and close political competition, both within and between the parties. The Indians, in cooperation with federal, state and county governments, invest all their casino money wisely and New Mexico tribes begin to pull out of poverty - and the Navajos find some type of business that prospers (with aid from other tribes) since they're too proud and too moral - and too far away from everyone - to go into the casino business. While New Mexico isn't at the top of any lists, it is no longer in the bottom tier. Call this 'if NM gets lucky'.

In any event, *I* will be somewhere else by then, since I intend to move somewhere with a better job market once I get my GIS degree...

[Brambila]

I'm going to have to disagree with most of you. You seem to be defining the hispanic votes as automatically voting democrat, but the hispanic votes are continuously getting more and more conservative. Naturally, the democrats are very positive towards poverished immigrants, legal and illegal, so the hispanics are automatically going to sway to the left. However, I believe that once the hispanic culture mingles into society a bit more, we're going to see it get a little more conservative. Hispanics socially are very conservative, and although we see a lot of very socially liberal hispanics around (Cruz Bustemante, Jennifer Lopez, Tom Ammiano, Matt Gonzalez, et cetera), I believe that we will see a growing number of conservatives in the hispanic community. Already, hispanic support of the left has shrunk from around 80% in the 2000 election to around 60%. Another issue is that hispanics generally do not vote, and ones who vote are usually liberal. I put Louisiana as democrat, but I believe there may be a chance that if Cuba gains independence Louisiana will see a very big growth in cuban population because of mere geography.

As you can see in this map, the "deep" south votes liberal. I believe this because of the black population and the growing liberalism in the south. Georgia and Louisiana, for instance, are getting pretty liberal. I imagine that Alabama and Mississippi will join in. The-- what I call-- "Middle states", which include the less industrialized areas, are not certain. I think they may flow either way. I believe that most likely Missouri will go right, as it has a growing hispanic population. The rest of the states I'm not sure. I think that probably most of them will go left. Minnesota is interesting. I originally put it as a right wing state because I believe that because of the growing conservative population there (specifically Catholic) they will vote more conservatively. However, Minnesota also has a HUGE muslim population from Somalia, and I believe they may swing left because of negativity of the conservatives there.

Without further adieu:

[12th Doctor]

I really would like to comment on your maps, but I can't fit them within the quotes of your commentary.

Anyway, by 2050, barring unforseen, but probable disasters (imminent nuclear exchanges with NK, the Religion of Peace establishing a new order, etc.),

The whites of this country will have fled to New England and the Pacific Northwest. The populations of OR, WA will be triple, Idaho and MT six-fold, what they are now. The "mountain northwest" will have benefitted from an economy no longer dependent on bulk transport of goods to large urban areas, and a white population with the skills to manage that new economy.

The New England states that will benefit from national white flight include VT, NH, and ME, for the same reasons as the "mountain northwest". MA will be stagnant (i.e., a pop of only 7 mil or so) because of nearly feudal economic regulations that keep old business from moving out, and new ones from being established.

The threat of living in New York City will cause the population there to remain at level what it is today (8 mil). But the high-tax, rapidly decaying suburbs of LI, Westchester, CT, and northern NJ, will have convinced the territorial ethnic whites to give up. Places like Levittown, Valley Spring, White Plains, will be majority Puerto Rican/Dominican/Carribbean black, and have only a quarter of their current populations.

The Midwest will be "A Clockwork Orange" ugly as lower class blacks and whites scrape over what remaining jobs are left in permanently depressed locales as Michigan, western PA, northern Ohio. Consider: in 1950 Detroit had a population of 1.8 million; today, it's only 900,000. What afflicted Detroit will spread, so that
MI today = 9 mill; MI 2050 = 4.5 mill
OH today = 11 mill; OH 2050 = 7 mill
PA today = 12 mill; PA 2050 = 9 mill

IL will resemble MA, in that industries in Chicago will be compelled to remain there. Downstate IL will be a wasteland, though (like upstate NY).

The South will have become like the Northeast. MD and VA, home of the Washington DC suburbs, will be as populous, exclusive, and socially-restricted as ever (like modern Suffolk County NY). Except their populations will be majority black, as blacks now make up the overwhelming majority of government workers, top to bottom.

W VA will become a southern Vermont, a playground for the Washington DC elite.

NC will function as the new "New York". Polyglot population of 30 mill, the new center of trade and industry for the East Coast; GA will be the PA--outside of Atlanta, the state is as rural as ever.

Southern whites refusing to live among uppity blacks (in VA) or every race of man imaginable (NC) will retreat to Tenn (pop 12 mill) and KY (pop 8 mill). Neither state will have a city larger than 900,000 between them.

I have less of a sense of what the Hispanic-majority parts of the US will be, so I'll leave my prediction off here.

Okay, I finally have some time to respond to you comments.  First, I would like to say that you do make some good points.  I aggree with you in some areas, but have some major disagreements with you in others.

1) First, I agree that decentralization of the economy will have major effects on population migration, but, as expressed by my map, I see that treand more favoring the south than the Northeast or Northwest.  The state of Georgia will grow I believe, not just Atlanta.  Macon, Savana and other cited in Georgia will pick up.  You'll note that I acctually have Alabama gaining EV's and Tennessee not falling off by to much.  This is because I believe that new transpotation systems (i.e. The Interstate Mag-Lev project started by President Soult in 2038 ) Will allow people to travel much farther from work to home.  This also in part explains the stability of Wisconsin and the limited decline of Iowa in their relation to Minneapolis.

2) Blacks and Hispanics will become more affluent, not less.  Thus, there is no reason to explain a "Great Exodus" of Whites to the Northeast.  I don't nessesarily think the Northeast will decrease in population, it just won't grow as quickly.

3) I have the opposite view of PA and Ohio.  I think that both will settle into their own little nitches.  The states will become more like the South today, while North Carolina and Georgia will become more like the Northeast is today, both culturally and economically.  Western PA is acctually doing quite well for isself now and I think that it should stabalize soon.  Had it not been for the leadership of Govs. Casey and Ridge, then what you are suggesting probably would happen.  I think Ohio is starting to come around.

4) I agree with you 100% about Illinois.  I think that it will become basically a huge slum.  As Minnesota expands, all the dregs are going to be left in Northern Illinois and as the south exdands, it will be the same story in Southern Ill.

5) Things are starting to change now, socially speaking, in the white community.  The great age of raging feminism is over, I feel, as a number of these women get married and discover that they acctually like having kids and staying at home.  Many of the women graduating college now really just want to have families.  That being said, I think that the white birth-rate will acctually increase, not fall, as almost everyone believes.  3 kids will be the norm again and the white population will increase.

6) As Hispanics and Blacks become more affluent, their birth-rates will drop off and the number of out-of-wedlock births will decrease substantially.  This means that there will be fewer social problems in those communities.  Also, the will not overtake the white population by 2050.

7)  In fact, intermarriage between the groups will make it a moot point.  Interracial couples will increase to 25% by this time.  I predict that it might not get higher than that.  It's a fact that some people are simply more inclined to be attracted to members of their own race/ethnic group.  That's not racist, it's just a fact of life.  But interracial marriage will become far more common by this time.

[Lunar]

Response to Brambila:

Well, in general it seems like the Southwest has been trending Democratic.

Bush 88 won Arizona with +20% but Bush 00 won it by only 6%.
Bush 88 won Nevada with +21% but Bush 00 won it by only 3.5%.

Democratic areas like Los Vegas have been expanding rapidly and are changing the states' politics.

[12th Doctor]

Response to Brambila:

Well, in general it seems like the Southwest has been trending Democratic.

Bush 88 won Arizona with +20% but Bush 00 won it by only 6%.
Bush 88 won Nevada with +21% but Bush 00 won it by only 3.5%.

Democratic areas like Los Vegas have been expanding rapidly and are changing the states' politics.

Yes, but you people are thinking way to one dimensionally.  The Political Demographic is going to be very different by 2050.  Just because Hispanics are more Democratic now doesn't mean they will be in 50 years.

[12th Doctor]

Yeah...but while western PA has shrunk...the philly burbs have grown at a huge rate...the rest of the state grows at a small level (philly being the exception)

So I can't believe PA will decline to those levels. Some decline because of the relative growth of the rest of the country...but not that much.

So, if those people moved south to Philly from New York and Connecticut for a better life, what is preventing them from moving south to Maryland and then south again to Virginia?

Mobile populations will go where the money goes.

[Brambila]

Response to Brambila:

Well, in general it seems like the Southwest has been trending Democratic.

Bush 88 won Arizona with +20% but Bush 00 won it by only 6%.
Bush 88 won Nevada with +21% but Bush 00 won it by only 3.5%.

Democratic areas like Los Vegas have been expanding rapidly and are changing the states' politics.

Las Vegas*

Yes, but Bush 88 also won Conneticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, et cetera. By that logic, all the states are swinging left. As I said, Nevada and Arizona will become more conservative because I sincerely believe that the hispanic population will get more conservative.

[Lunar]

Yeah, Las Vegas.  In a different post I'd have spelled that correctly, wasn't paying attention.