How will America be in 2050

[Storebought]

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

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.

I did rush a bit in my judgement of Ohio. On second thought, that will be a state that ages relatively gracefully in the next 50 years. Outside of the Lake Erie rustbelt, OH does have an extended-family feel to it that will prevent any major social catastrophe. Its population will still decline, of course, but not by half like MI (a state that really has no hope).

In 2050, blacks will have the most disparate income separation of any race in the US. Wealthy blacks in MD/VA, almost all of whom government employees, will have lifestyles unrecognizable to the the lower-middle class Caribbeans in NJ/NYC/CT and poor blacks trapped in the Midwest and the Deepest South.

Not only that, the class and social segregation among blacks themselves will be pretty ugly, by far worse than the segregation between blacks and every other race in the US. Not that blacks would want to live among other people, let alone marry them.

I agree with you about the upper Midwest (MN, WI, etc.). Except that there will be fewer minorities there overall, except in Minneapolis.

South Carolina, a state neglected by my original prediction, will be essentially a resort and retirement village, pop 5 mill. Consequently, it has the oldest per capita population of the Union.

And the Deepest South: AL, MS, LA, AK. Frankly, there is no way to sugarcoat the fact that these states will be severe social losers in the future. Alabama and Mississippi, states strong in attracting mills, automobile assembly plants, and food processing firms currently, will be the 'Michigans' and 'Ohios' of the future; that is, states shackled to an narrow and ultimately obsolete concept of "economic development." Alabama pop = 6 mill; Miss pop = 4.5 mill. Not even Hispanics will be able to stem the decline of these two rustbelt states in the making.

Extending my analogy, Arkansas will be the 'Indiana' of the south (or is it, Indiana is the Arkansas of the north?)--the home of major corporations and toothless hicks at the same time. No major urban area will spoil the country-fried flavor of that state.  Not quite 5 mill.

Louisiana will replace of W VA the state with the smallest population, but the highest federal government outlays. The local economy is entirely dependent on the welfare spending of the indigent elderly. Educated, or at least hard-working young people flee by the tens of thousands; as soon as a kid turns 16, by hook or crook he leaves LA. Young people who lack drive immediately sign up for state and federal assistance and live on the dole until death.

New Orleans will be a small town of 170000, half what it is currently. Even the suburbs of Metairie and the North Shore are abandoned as whites with marketable skill leave for Tennessee or North Carolina. Shreveport will have the highest murder rate of any city of its size; Baton Rouge the highest STD rate. The rural areas are even more blighted, because the revival of French among the Cajun schools will encourage the young to learn English poorly.

LA's population = 2 mil, with a slight, but persistent negative growth rate.

Now I would really love describe TX, but considering that state will have a pop of 36 mill (unlike CA or Florida, there is enough space for all those people to live and not jostle each other) and be a nation unto itself, I just don't have the energy.  

For ex. Christians, tired of the left-wingism and Azatlan chauvinism of Hollywood, will establish their own movie industry in San Antonio. By 2050, the TX Christian movie industry will crank out one b-movie after another, much like Warner Bros studios back in the 1930s.

[7,052,770]

Mississippi will never go Dem, nor will it lose any more seats.  It'll probably gain 1 or 2 by 2050!!!!!

[7,052,770]

Hmmm, i could do a what if TL on this

[ilikeverin]

Everyone's right on about Minnesota

Soulty:

2) Why is Minnesota so big?

Minnesota is probably the most innovative non-southern state in the country.

Fo shizzle.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't forget about our culture.  IIRC we're one of the 'most cultured' municipalities in the US.... or something like that.  Maybe one of the most livable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not too sure about that.  They're quite different.  Minneapolis () is regarded as the 'new' city, while St. Paul is the 'historic' one.

And besides, I think the Twin Cities is a good nickname for this area.  What would they call it then?  The Twin City?

(hey, that doesn't sound too bad )

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Brambila:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Twin Cities have the second largest Somali population in the country, after NYC.  Our school district, one of the richer ones, has some Somali students already.

They're pretty cool.  Most of the girls wear headscarves.  Ooooooooh.

[Josh/Devilman88]

NC would have more then 18, more like 20-30....

[12th Doctor]

Hmmm, i could do a what if TL on this

Looks like we have some major disagreements, Harry.  Care to explain your map?

[7,052,770]

Looks like we have some major disagreements, Harry.  Care to explain your map?

Well, I don't think there'll be that much radical change.  A map of the 1970's doesn't look too different than that of today.  I didn't have any state growing huge or shrinking.  And I added Puerto Rico, which I think at the very least will be added--probably more.

[??????????]

Looks like we have some major disagreements, Harry.  Care to explain your map?

Well, I don't think there'll be that much radical change.  A map of the 1970's doesn't look too different than that of today.  I didn't have any state growing huge or shrinking.  And I added Puerto Rico, which I think at the very least will be added--probably more.

Harry, how did you increase the EV votes? And how did you tack on P.R.?

[12th Doctor]

Looks like we have some major disagreements, Harry.  Care to explain your map?

Well, I don't think there'll be that much radical change.  A map of the 1970's doesn't look too different than that of today.  I didn't have any state growing huge or shrinking.  And I added Puerto Rico, which I think at the very least will be added--probably more.

Compare the map in 1950 to the map in 2000.  Then factor that the population was not nearly as mobile back then.  Then factor in the the economy of today is drastically different from the economy then and the economy of 2050 will be drastically different from the economy of today.  There will be changes.

Just to make may case clear, in 1952 you could have won the Presidency by winning only the states of the Northeast and the Midwest, plus Delaware.  This would have given you 267 EV's, one more than needed to win.

If you did the same in the 2004 election, you wouldn't even come close.  Wining all the same states would only give you 211 EV's!  Now granted six EV's were added to accomidate Alaska and Hawaii, but that still means a lose of 50 EV's.  In 50 years the shift will probably be at least as drastic.

[12th Doctor]

Looks like we have some major disagreements, Harry.  Care to explain your map?

Well, I don't think there'll be that much radical change.  A map of the 1970's doesn't look too different than that of today.  I didn't have any state growing huge or shrinking.  And I added Puerto Rico, which I think at the very least will be added--probably more.

Harry, how did you increase the EV votes? And how did you tack on P.R.?

Don't know how he did P.R.  I can tell you how to change EV's though.  First, go to the prediction page.  Then enter a prediction.  Click to the next page.  When the map appears, copy the image location of that map (this is on the "your comments" page).  Then copy that to Word or the reply section.  There will be abreiviations for each state and after each will be 3 numbers.  The first is for party (1=Dem, 2=GOP, 3=undecided))  The second number is EV's.  I'm not sure what the third one does so I wouldn't touch it.  Yu can then type in new EV figures.  When you are finished, just post.  

[7,052,770]

I increased the total to 540, and put in PR.

[12th Doctor]

I increased the total to 540, and put in PR.

I think he means "How did you put P.R. on the map"?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Minneapolis and St. Paul will NEVER merge. The only residents of either that would think that's a good idea are those who have lived in both. It'd be like New York annexing New Jersey.

What is likely however is that the Twin Cities will become the Tri-Cities. Bloomington is rapidly growing.

And the Somalian population isn't really that big. Even though they have been expanding outside of the Twin Cities (I see quite a few quite frequently down here), Minnesota is only about 4% black overall, and I'm betting that at least half of those are ones from families that have been here since the Civil War. We probably have more Hispanics than Somalians. However, assuming that Catholics will start voting conservative makes no sense unless you expect San Francisco to turn into a Republican stronghold.

[12th Doctor]

Minneapolis and St. Paul will NEVER merge. The only residents of either that would think that's a good idea are those who have lived in both. It'd be like New York annexing New Jersey.

What is likely however is that the Twin Cities will become the Tri-Cities. Bloomington is rapidly growing.

And the Somalian population isn't really that big. Even though they have been expanding outside of the Twin Cities (I see quite a few quite frequently down here), Minnesota is only about 4% black overall, and I'm betting that at least half of those are ones from families that have been here since the Civil War. We probably have more Hispanics than Somalians. However, assuming that Catholics will start voting conservative makes no sense unless you expect San Francisco to turn into a Republican stronghold.

1) We are talking about 50 years in the future.  I think that Minneapolis and St. Paul will merge by then.

2) I never said that Catholics would turn hugely Republican.  I don't know where you got that from.

Man, a lot of you guys are not very forward thinking.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Minneapolis and St. Paul will NEVER merge. The only residents of either that would think that's a good idea are those who have lived in both. It'd be like New York annexing New Jersey.

What is likely however is that the Twin Cities will become the Tri-Cities. Bloomington is rapidly growing.

And the Somalian population isn't really that big. Even though they have been expanding outside of the Twin Cities (I see quite a few quite frequently down here), Minnesota is only about 4% black overall, and I'm betting that at least half of those are ones from families that have been here since the Civil War. We probably have more Hispanics than Somalians. However, assuming that Catholics will start voting conservative makes no sense unless you expect San Francisco to turn into a Republican stronghold.

1) We are talking about 50 years in the future.  I think that Minneapolis and St. Paul will merge by then.

2) I never said that Catholics would turn hugely Republican.  I don't know where you got that from.

Man, a lot of you guys are not very forward thinking.

1) And there's no reason to believe the situation would change even in 50 years. They are actually quite different cities. And they are in seperate counties. Have any two major cities ever merged in history? Virtually everyone there would hate the idea and there's no reason to believe that would change. To put things into perspective, residents of the Twin Cities would like to merge about as much as residents of central Pennsylvania would like to annex the parts of the Philly area that are currently in New Jersey

2) I was referring to Brambila, not you.

[12th Doctor]

Minneapolis and St. Paul will NEVER merge. The only residents of either that would think that's a good idea are those who have lived in both. It'd be like New York annexing New Jersey.

What is likely however is that the Twin Cities will become the Tri-Cities. Bloomington is rapidly growing.

And the Somalian population isn't really that big. Even though they have been expanding outside of the Twin Cities (I see quite a few quite frequently down here), Minnesota is only about 4% black overall, and I'm betting that at least half of those are ones from families that have been here since the Civil War. We probably have more Hispanics than Somalians. However, assuming that Catholics will start voting conservative makes no sense unless you expect San Francisco to turn into a Republican stronghold.

1) We are talking about 50 years in the future.  I think that Minneapolis and St. Paul will merge by then.

2) I never said that Catholics would turn hugely Republican.  I don't know where you got that from.

Man, a lot of you guys are not very forward thinking.

1) And there's no reason to believe the situation would change even in 50 years. They are actually quite different cities. And they are in seperate counties. Have any two major cities ever merged in history? Virtually everyone there would hate the idea and there's no reason to believe that would change. To put things into perspective, residents of the Twin Cities would like to merge about as much as residents of central Pennsylvania would like to annex the parts of the Philly area that are currently in New Jersey

Yes, major cites have merged.  New York and Brooklyn.  Pittsburgh and Allegany.  I'm sure I could think of someothers.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[12th Doctor]

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.

[Josh/Devilman88]

This states will be the top 12 in population. By 2050, more then likely sooner.

[Lunar]

I would replace Massachussetts with Arizona.

Perhaps also ditch New Jersey.

[Beet]

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!

But if you really must, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Canada's vast oil supply, which after it dwindles in other areas, we will have to drill there. That will increase Canada's population and thus the economic size of states like MT, SD, and MN.

[12th Doctor]

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!

But if you really must, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Canada's vast oil supply, which after it dwindles in other areas, we will have to drill there. That will increase Canada's population and thus the economic size of states like MT, SD, and MN.

By that time, oil won't matter.

[Beet]

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!

But if you really must, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Canada's vast oil supply, which after it dwindles in other areas, we will have to drill there. That will increase Canada's population and thus the economic size of states like MT, SD, and MN.

By that time, oil won't matter.

Hopefully there will be something cheaper, because the Canadian oil is a b*tch to get out and the cost of oil would be significantly higher than it is now. But without development of cheaper alternative fuels (we dont even know if its feasible to get an alternative fuel as cheap as oil), it may become necessary.

[12th Doctor]

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!

But if you really must, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Canada's vast oil supply, which after it dwindles in other areas, we will have to drill there. That will increase Canada's population and thus the economic size of states like MT, SD, and MN.

By that time, oil won't matter.

Oil is always going to be used, cars aren't the only thing that use oil.

True, but we will have hydrogen fueled cars and fussion power plants.  So a large amount of the use of oil will disappear.

[??????????]

Baltimore City was also created out of 3-4 smaller cities.