How will America be in 2050

[muon2]

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

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

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

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

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

[muon2]

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

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

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

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

[ATFFL]

By 2050 Quebec would have voted to split from Canada.  this would lead to a chain of events:

1: Montreal, gritting its teeth in disgust, would split form the new nation and either become part of Ontario or, if the new Quebec nation looks to be violently upset, part of New York State.

2: WIthin 5-10 years Newfoundland and the Maritime provinces are part of the US.  The small pro-US movements there will pick up steam with them no longer being connected to the nation of Canada.

3: 15-20 years later the federal autority will have broken down and the provinces will split apart into seperate nations.  The Yukon territory becomes part of Alaska, followed by the Northwest Territory and Nunavut.  Alaska still only has 3 EVs.

4: 25-35 years after the split the remaining 5 provinces (now nations) will one by one join the US as their economies falter.  One or 2 may stay independent, but they will be functionally satellites of the US.  

This process may start soon, probably around 2010 would be my guess.  If the Conservatives win a majority government in the upcoming election it may start as soon as 2005.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

By 2050 Quebec would have voted to split from Canada.  this would lead to a chain of events:

I doubt it. If they couldn't win in '95 whatwith Meech Lake, Charlottetown et al failing... they can't now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Montreal would *never* join Ontario or NY

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Extremely unlikely. If the Maritimes ever left Canada, they'd be more likely to try to join with the U.K than anywhere else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No chance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No chance.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ha! Ha! Ha!
Idiot.

[ATFFL]

By 2050 Quebec would have voted to split from Canada.  this would lead to a chain of events:

I doubt it. If they couldn't win in '95 whatwith Meech Lake, Charlottetown et al failing... they can't now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Montreal would *never* join Ontario or NY

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Extremely unlikely. If the Maritimes ever left Canada, they'd be more likely to try to join with the U.K than anywhere else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No chance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No chance.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ha! Ha! Ha!
Idiot.

First, look at the trend line and the rise of nationalist parties in Québec.  The independence movement is getting stronger all the time.

Second, Montreal has no desire to be part of an independent Quebec, it votes overwhelmingly against separation, and is the only reason it has failed thus far.  It would not stay in after the split.  This leaves it three options.

The first is becoming an independent city.  Not going to work in modern times.

Second is joining NY.  This is possible, but not an appealing option.  A fall back position if Quebec looks to a military solution to force Montreal to stay, since Canada is not going to fight a war over this, or they would not be letting Quebec go in the first place.

Last is to become part of the Ontario province.  It happens by default.

None of them are happy options for Montreal, but all are better than staying in Quebec.

Next, all of the Maritime Provinces have political parties who advocate joining the US; they feel it would be an economic boon to the region.  With Quebec gone, there will be little to tie them to Canada, and they already feel abandoned by Canada.  With a big honking nation created between them, the national ties would diminish.  There is already a movement to join with the US, while no such movement exists with regards to the UK.  

Newfoundland is more iffy.  They might go as an independent nation instead of part of the US.

The rest of the prediction is from the Canadian governments assessment of what would happen if Quebec separation passed in 1995.  I lengthened the amount of time it would take for federal control to fall apart; they called for 20-25 years.  With the nation short its Atlantic ports government revenues would begin to drop.  Programs would have to be cut and the provinces would disagree on what goes.  Some would want to cut programs only in other provinces.  Provincial fighting is a huge problem now, with a major loss of revenue it would only get worse.

There was a politician in 95 who said something along the lines of: Canada is less a country than a group of people who like hockey, good beer and not being American.  If Quebec secedes we will have to give one up, and I am not giving up beer or hockey.

The secession movement would pick up steam under a Conservative government; a government that would spend less time kowtowing to Quebec and folding to their demands to keep the party in power.

Finally, as to your last line, you should have a higher opinion of yourself.  You are woefully uninformed and wrong-headed here, but I am sure you would do better on other topics.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

First, look at the trend line and the rise of nationalist parties in Québec.  The independence movement is getting stronger all the time.

Uh-uh. The only reason why the BQ has risen in the opinion polls is because of Liberal scandels, and the only reason why the provincial PQ has risen in the polls is because of Charest's unpopularity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Totally unrealistic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And how many votes do they get? Sod all. They are fringe parties.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The U.K is better regarded in the Maritimes than the U.S. Do a little research and you'll see why.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Newfies would never, ever join the U.S. Hell it's too damn isolated as it is...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Er... Chretien was prepared to send the Army in. That was his back up plan... there was never any real chance that he would have let his home province leave Canada.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. Very, very wrong. First of a majority conservative government is unlikely at the moment (this might change) and all the speculation is that they will try to strike a deal with the Bloq. Such a government would be utterly dependent on the whims of Gilles Duceppe.

[ATFFL]

First, look at the trend line and the rise of nationalist parties in Québec.  The independence movement is getting stronger all the time.

Uh-uh. The only reason why the BQ has risen in the opinion polls is because of Liberal scandels, and the only reason why the provincial PQ has risen in the polls is because of Charest's unpopularity.

So these factors have been around since the 1976?  What you mention is helping it get back into the headlines today, but says nothing about the historical trendline.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Totally unrealistic.[/quote]

Okay, you have just called every option totally unrealistic.  So what happens, Montreal simply disappears off the map?  All the other options I can think of are less realistic.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And how many votes do they get? Sod all. They are fringe parties.[/quote]

They don't run candidates, but raise issue awareness.  THey would never win today, but with even less government attention and an increasing sense of isolation, they would rise.  All the problems they have with the US go away if they join the US.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Er... Chretien was prepared to send the Army in. That was his back up plan... there was never any real chance that he would have let his home province leave Canada.[/quote]

That's right, Chretien regretted allowing it to come to a vote.  he predicted a 60-40 or worse defeat of seperation.      He would have used the military, because of the predictions of the report I mentioned earlier, but he is not likely to be PM again, is he?  Whoever is in charge may use the Canadian military, but that is in such sorry state there is no guarantee of success.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. Very, very wrong. First of a majority conservative government is unlikely at the moment (this might change) and all the speculation is that they will try to strike a deal with the Bloq. Such a government would be utterly dependent on the whims of Gilles Duceppe.
[/quote]

For the Bloq to form a coalition governemnt they are going to want a concession.  I'll wager they will want another vote.

If the conservatives win a clear majority (I agree it is unlikely, but possible) the coddling comes to an end and the independence movement grows.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Where's Siege when ya need him...

[12th Doctor]

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

(Scratches head)  WTF?

Did you add like 100 EV's?

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

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

(Scratches head)  WTF?

I doubt Hawaii could fit that many people to get 5 EVs. Actually I see the situation pretty much stabilizing. I know the EVs will go up in more southern states but I don't see a HUGE jump. Population growth rates will have leveled off by that point.

[12th Doctor]

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.

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

Super yours is reasonable. That is again if their is a US as we know it by that time.

[Siege40]

Al, my brother in arms, I've come in to save the day. Actually I'll like make the situation needlessly complicated.

Firstly I'd like to be very harsh and say that Tredrick has about as much sense in the matters of Canadian politics and current events as a bag of hair.

Firstly, on issue of Quebec separatisms. Try again. The Separatist party, Le Bloc Quebecois is not speaking AT ALL about separatism, and in fact is merely the official protest vote party of Quebec. Similar to the NDP or Greens across the nation. So NOOOOOO, there is no growing air of Quebec independence. Your logic of basing a Quebec separation on the 1995 referendum and the recent election is like saying after the Civil War, that the South is about to separate again, just because the Democrats win a lot of seats there.

The Maritimes has some of the highest levels of Anti-Americanism in this country; reason being is because much of the economy is stagnant. And in the 1970s and 80s when it looked like Canadian Lumber would be the future for the region the U.S. started all sorts of trade disputes, for example the soft wood lumber problems we have to this day. Canadian Nationalism is at some of its highest in that area.

Montreal is like New Orleans, no separating the two, like Canada and Quebec. The Nation of Quebec is not economically feasible. It would collapse on its own. Your whole independent province idea is laughable, and when I read it I laughed long and hard. Your prediction is amateurish at best! Were Quebec to get a 50%+1 vote, they’d negotiate more power within Canada not separatism, I.E. more autonomy, but not independence, and Canada may shift further towards Confederation and away from Federation.

Also, Canadian Nationalism grows every year across the nation INCLUDING Quebec.  Nice try, but by 2050 Canada will be the same as it is today, and may be larger, we might be annexing the Turks + Cacaos Islands.

Siege

P.S. Al, you could have told me about this guy, I’d have been here in a Montreal Minute.

[KEmperor]

I wouldn't say the Montreal is like New Orleans.  They speak English in New Orleans, not French.

[7,052,770]

Mississippi is not gonna go down to just 4 electoral votes!!!!  We'll never dip below 6, and are pretty likely to go back up to 7

[Josh/Devilman88]

Yes it will.

[ATFFL]

Al, my brother in arms, I've come in to save the day. Actually I'll like make the situation needlessly complicated.

Firstly I'd like to be very harsh and say that Tredrick has about as much sense in the matters of Canadian politics and current events as a bag of hair.

Firstly, on issue of Quebec separatisms. Try again. The Separatist party, Le Bloc Quebecois is not speaking AT ALL about separatism, and in fact is merely the official protest vote party of Quebec. Similar to the NDP or Greens across the nation. So NOOOOOO, there is no growing air of Quebec independence. Your logic of basing a Quebec separation on the 1995 referendum and the recent election is like saying after the Civil War, that the South is about to separate again, just because the Democrats win a lot of seats there.

The Maritimes has some of the highest levels of Anti-Americanism in this country; reason being is because much of the economy is stagnant. And in the 1970s and 80s when it looked like Canadian Lumber would be the future for the region the U.S. started all sorts of trade disputes, for example the soft wood lumber problems we have to this day. Canadian Nationalism is at some of its highest in that area.

Montreal is like New Orleans, no separating the two, like Canada and Quebec. The Nation of Quebec is not economically feasible. It would collapse on its own. Your whole independent province idea is laughable, and when I read it I laughed long and hard. Your prediction is amateurish at best! Were Quebec to get a 50%+1 vote, they’d negotiate more power within Canada not separatism, I.E. more autonomy, but not independence, and Canada may shift further towards Confederation and away from Federation.

Also, Canadian Nationalism grows every year across the nation INCLUDING Quebec.  Nice try, but by 2050 Canada will be the same as it is today, and may be larger, we might be annexing the Turks + Cacaos Islands.

Siege

P.S. Al, you could have told me about this guy, I’d have been here in a Montreal Minute.

Personal insults: Check
Statements without support: Check
A dtring of horrible analogies: Check

National unity is up, mainly because of the scare of '95.  Still, 40% of Quebecers are strongly tied to seperatist movements. and that has increased snice a dip dollowing the 95 failure.  It is less a sense of national unity, and more of an acceptance that seperation will nto come soon.

The Maritimes are deeply tied to national unity because if Quebec splits off they lose their connection to the rest of their nation, and they expect less and less influence in national politics; followed by less and less government funds.  

Quebec wasn't a viable economic nation in 95 was it?  Of course not.  Did that stop them from nearly voting for independence?  Not at all.

The Bloq has no shot at getting a reforendum today, so of course they don't talk about it much.  If hte chance arose in the future do you think they would pass it up?

Once again, I am basing my view of what would happen following Quebec independence off the Canadian governments own assessment from 95.

[Josh/Devilman88]

My 2012 NC will have about 5 million more people maybe more...

[Siege40]

Al, my brother in arms, I've come in to save the day. Actually I'll like make the situation needlessly complicated.

Firstly I'd like to be very harsh and say that Tredrick has about as much sense in the matters of Canadian politics and current events as a bag of hair.

Firstly, on issue of Quebec separatisms. Try again. The Separatist party, Le Bloc Quebecois is not speaking AT ALL about separatism, and in fact is merely the official protest vote party of Quebec. Similar to the NDP or Greens across the nation. So NOOOOOO, there is no growing air of Quebec independence. Your logic of basing a Quebec separation on the 1995 referendum and the recent election is like saying after the Civil War, that the South is about to separate again, just because the Democrats win a lot of seats there.

The Maritimes has some of the highest levels of Anti-Americanism in this country; reason being is because much of the economy is stagnant. And in the 1970s and 80s when it looked like Canadian Lumber would be the future for the region the U.S. started all sorts of trade disputes, for example the soft wood lumber problems we have to this day. Canadian Nationalism is at some of its highest in that area.

Montreal is like New Orleans, no separating the two, like Canada and Quebec. The Nation of Quebec is not economically feasible. It would collapse on its own. Your whole independent province idea is laughable, and when I read it I laughed long and hard. Your prediction is amateurish at best! Were Quebec to get a 50%+1 vote, they’d negotiate more power within Canada not separatism, I.E. more autonomy, but not independence, and Canada may shift further towards Confederation and away from Federation.

Also, Canadian Nationalism grows every year across the nation INCLUDING Quebec.  Nice try, but by 2050 Canada will be the same as it is today, and may be larger, we might be annexing the Turks + Cacaos Islands.

Siege

P.S. Al, you could have told me about this guy, I’d have been here in a Montreal Minute.

Personal insults: Check
Statements without support: Check
A dtring of horrible analogies: Check

National unity is up, mainly because of the scare of '95.  Still, 40% of Quebecers are strongly tied to seperatist movements. and that has increased snice a dip dollowing the 95 failure.  It is less a sense of national unity, and more of an acceptance that seperation will nto come soon.

The Maritimes are deeply tied to national unity because if Quebec splits off they lose their connection to the rest of their nation, and they expect less and less influence in national politics; followed by less and less government funds.  

Quebec wasn't a viable economic nation in 95 was it?  Of course not.  Did that stop them from nearly voting for independence?  Not at all.

The Bloq has no shot at getting a reforendum today, so of course they don't talk about it much.  If hte chance arose in the future do you think they would pass it up?

Once again, I am basing my view of what would happen following Quebec independence off the Canadian governments own assessment from 95.

Canadians, like Americans have short memories, if you think Nationalism is on the rise because of something that happened nearly 10 years ago, you're mistaken. People are proud of this nation because of our collective history, what we stand for and mean on the world stage, what we're doing on the world stage, and what we've accomplished at home, not because there are separatists in Quebec, that reasoning is weak at best.

40% of the population of Quebec is strong associated with the separatist movement? Now, I strongly doubt that has any basis in reality. Approximately 40% of Quebec is voting Bloc, but I wouldn’t call that strong ties, I’d call it pretty weak ones. If the anger in Quebec was about sovereignty then yes, this would be a problem, but since it’s not, it really doesn’t matter. 40% is not enough to separate even if the number was true, and since separation is a cold issue in Quebec that number is decreasing.

This isn’t 1995 anymore, this is not going to be the same or anywhere close to the same circumstances again. Part of the reason the referendum was so close is because of the hatred at Jean Chrétien. Ironically, if your friend Stephen Harper is elected it will likely stir the separatist movement. Even so, unless there is some sort of Anti-Quebec legislation it’s going nowhere.

In your argument of why separatism would force the Maritimes to be annexed is weak. Alaska doesn’t touch America, does that means it too will separate or be annexed by Canada? Oh, is that a good analogy, I think it is. This isn’t the middle ages, you don’t have to have every piece of your country touching to keep it together. Since when is America in the game of Imperialism? What would the world think, Canada has a Civil Crisis and the Americans sweep in and steal territory from a long time ally. There would be international outcry against the actions of the U.S.

This prediction is way off, and his highly unlikely, while a referendum is likely again if the Conservatives get into power, my opinion is it will fail, again, thankfully, and if it does Canada will not collapse, the Republic of Quebec will, and rejoin Canada.

Siege

[ATFFL]

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.

[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.

[danwxman]

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.

[12th Doctor]

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".

[danwxman]

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.

Gov. Ridge's policies did very little to help PA's economy. Western PA's economy is in very bad shape, and although it is improving in some areas, in most it is in shambles. All of Western PA is still losing population!

While Western PA will continue to lose population, Central PA (specifically the Harrisburg/York/Lancaster corridor) will experience a huge boom in the next 10-20 years as people migrate further away from the big cities. The area is already growing at a fast rate. I think the NE (Scranton/WB) will also turn around and begin growing. The growth rates in these areas will even out anything happening in the western part of the state - which I believe will eventually turn around also.

[danwxman]

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".