In 2050, what would be the demographics of the United States?

[Willy Woz]

According to a Yankelovich study, the following should be true:

U.S. will have about 400,000,000 people.

Only 49% will be non-Hispanc whites. Utah will be the only state with over 90% white population.

The most populous states will be California, Texas, Florida, and Georgia; while the "Frost Belt" Northeast/Midwest will slowly begin losing population.

Many major US cities will develop an "inner suburb" system, in which former suburbs will be incorporated into the city. All of Cook County, Illinois will be Chicago.

[Хahar 🤔]

Seems to make sense.

[Alcon]

Since Hispanics in Utah went from 8.62% in 2000 to 10.39% in 2005, I'm going to assume that this is more crap that you made up and are lying to us about.

[Хahar 🤔]

Since Hispanics in Utah went from 8.62% in 2000 to 10.39% in 2005, I'm going to assume that this is more crap that you made up and are lying to us about.

Damn, I didn't see that, or the part about GA.

[Padfoot]

The South will probably be the most evenly divided race wise with blacks, whites, and hispanics making up about 30% of the population each.  People of Asian descent will likely make up about 10-15% of the national population and a minimum of 5% of the population in each state.

As the cost of transportation via car continues to rise, cities will return to being more densely populated and outlying suburban growth will slow.  Houston and Phoenix will pass the 3 million mark and may possibly be larger than Chicago.  California and Texas will remain the two most populous states in that order.  Rounding out the top ten will be Florida, New York, Georgia, North Carolina, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Ohio.  The average Congressional district will exceed a population of 900,000 barring an increase (or decrease) in the number of Representatives.  Montana, Delaware, and Rhode Island will all have over 1 million people but only one representative, this could potentially be the case in South Dakota, Hawaii, New Hampshire, and Maine as well but it is unlikely.

[Willy Woz]

Of course it should also be noted that a large number of Hispanics by then will have forgotten their language and look and behave exactly like whites.

[dead0man]

Of course it should also be noted that a large number of Hispanics by then will have forgotten their language and look and behave exactly like whites.

Nah, they'll still be more fun at parties and eat better food.

[Verily]

Of course it should also be noted that a large number of Hispanics by then will have forgotten their language and look and behave exactly like whites.

Not "forgotten" their language; they will be second- and (especially) third-generation immigrants who may have grown up speaking English exclusively, or at speaking English fluently from a very young age. This is not exceptional, as it's what happened with every major immigrant group save those which already spoke English (and even the Irish had the multi-generation assimilation of replacing Irish accents and idioms with American ones).

[ag]

Of course it should also be noted that a large number of Hispanics by then will have forgotten their language and look and behave exactly like whites.

Actually, what's the probability they'd still have "Hispanic" as a separate census category?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Hispanic isn't a separate census category, it's an additional question asked. It first asks your race and then if you're Hispanic. Most Hispanics are white and check this as well as Hispanic, there's also many black Hispanics from the Carribean, and probably some Filipinos identify as Hispanic as well making Asian Hispanics. Every Hispanic is also included under another category.

[ag]

Hispanic isn't a separate census category, it's an additional question asked. It first asks your race and then if you're Hispanic. Most Hispanics are white and check this as well as Hispanic, there's also many black Hispanics from the Carribean, and probably some Filipinos identify as Hispanic as well making Asian Hispanics. Every Hispanic is also included under another category.

I know, I know, it's a separate question..  It's still a separate census category: Hispanic/ non-Hispanic. For some strange and obscure reason they do not ask about Italianic/non-Italianic or Jewish/Goyish. So, the question is: would in 2050 they still ask the Hispanic/non-Hispanic question. Or, perhaps, at that point in time there would be some other extremely relevant criterion of identifying minorities .

BTW, suppose some years from now my daughter goes to college in the U.S. and is there during a census.  Can she write "Hispanic" in the census form? She is a natural-born Mexican citizen, has lived in Spanish-speaking countries all of her life up until now, and, naturally, she does speak Spanish (better than she speaks English, that's for sure).

[bullmoose88]

42 years from now...aren't such projections useless?

[tik 🪀✨]

42 years from now...aren't such projections useless?

Largely. So?

[ag]

Hispanic isn't a separate census category, it's an additional question asked. It first asks your race and then if you're Hispanic. Most Hispanics are white and check this as well as Hispanic, there's also many black Hispanics from the Carribean, and probably some Filipinos identify as Hispanic as well making Asian Hispanics. Every Hispanic is also included under another category.

BTW, saying that "most Hispanics are white" is an exaggeration.  85% of Mexican population is not really white (70% of mestizos and 12%-15% of Indians included).  The proportion is, probably, at least as high among those who migrate North. All these people have a better claim to being "Native American"  than many, if not most, of U.S. "Native Americans". Now, my daughter is a white Mexican, but she is only a second generation migrant

[Inverted Things]

42 years from now...aren't such projections useless?

Not really. Projecting large populations is fairly easy to do accurately. We know the current demographics, and so we can extrapolate health care trends and throw an immigration guess in to find the upper half (i.e. people over 42) of our population pyramid in 2050. The lower half we can do slightly less accurately, as it requires an additional guess: birthrates (which is in turn sensitive to the immigration guess). The whole pyramid can probably be done to within a 5% overall error, barring a nuclear weapon strike or cure for cancer.

[bullmoose88]

42 years from now...aren't such projections useless?

Not really. Projecting large populations is fairly easy to do accurately. We know the current demographics, and so we can extrapolate health care trends and throw an immigration guess in to find the upper half (i.e. people over 42) of our population pyramid in 2050. The lower half we can do slightly less accurately, as it requires an additional guess: birthrates (which is in turn sensitive to the immigration guess). The whole pyramid can probably be done to within a 5% overall error, barring a nuclear weapon strike or cure for cancer.

But i guess my point is, much of the varying growth rates across the country are due to current economic conditions, jobs, housing prices, growth/decline of certain industries, taxes etc...

I'd venture to say that a large part of growth trends (I obviously have no clue as to the actual influence, but suspect it is significant) is due to the aforementioned factors...which I guess would be a residual in the generic model you've outlined...and if its as large as I suspect it is...then is such a model any good? shrug

[Ban my account ffs!]

Many demographers were predicting by the mid-30s that the U.S. population would peak sometime during the 1950s and then begin to fall because the birthrate had been falling for decades and was nearing the replacement level.  The number of births fell from about 1925-1933, before stabilizing.  they remained at a pretty low level until 1947, and then BOOM.. the baby boom started.  Births rose from 2.7 million to nearly 4.4 million between 1945 and 1957.  Births then fell gradually to 3.7 million by 1970 and then plummeted to just over 3.1 million by 1973.

Then they began rising again, peaking again at 4.1 million in 1990, falling slightly, and then slowly rising again.

While another baby boom is unlikely, it is possible that our population could be VERY different than the predictions.  Demographers were predicting a shrinking population by 1960 and yet the 1950s brought the largest population growth in several decades, and this was without any appreciable immigration.

Fertility rates among women rose from about 2.2 to 3.2 before falling to 1.7 in the early 1980s, and have since risen to just about 2.1, the replacement rate.  This compares to a rate of 1.3 in Germany.  A rate of 1.3 means that for every 200 parents, there will be only 130 children.