Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-23-2013, 02:25 PM
 
Location: Oroville, California
3,477 posts, read 6,474,362 times
Reputation: 6789

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il? View Post
And birthrates have dropped worldwide, even Asia and Latin America have birthrates only between two and three per woman now.
True, but there is a huge "bubble" of people in their child-bearing years in those countries so even at 2 to 3 kids they'll still grow somewhat fast for another generation or two.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-23-2013, 04:07 PM
 
Location: San Diego
19 posts, read 21,870 times
Reputation: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeauCharles View Post
True, but there is a huge "bubble" of people in their child-bearing years in those countries so even at 2 to 3 kids they'll still grow somewhat fast for another generation or two.
Well of course children grow fast. That's what children do, dear! Bless their hearts.
My first post. Hope you can all see me. (My son is showing me how.)

Glo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2013, 04:56 PM
 
246 posts, read 420,595 times
Reputation: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastCoaterinSoCal View Post
Stop building homes. Change the way things are done in SoCal. Stop the excessive greed
Ridiculous, if you think no more homes should be built, bulldoze your home first to set the example. After all, we have too many people according to you, with yourself being one of them.

I can't stand it when people advocate locking others out while they've "got theirs". Highest form of hypocracy and selfishness.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2013, 05:21 PM
 
Location: Traveling with the Emperor
35 posts, read 7,689 times
Reputation: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo View Post
Oh here we go again. You know, I enjoy your posts about wildlife and related, but your socio-political views are just nuts. For someone who grasps natural order so well, it is a bit baffling that you can't apply logic to human society.

What I am getting at is: all growth and change is self-limiting and adjusting. The state of California is uniquely -- in the world, not just the nation -- desirable and well positioned. A "[mostly] poor largely minority underclass with entitlement mindsets" is not sustainable, therefore it will not occur as a long-term change. And the resources of this state, from natural ports to Asia - to - fertile ag productivity, will always require and sustain a broad range of economics. Indeed, the economically higher classes of tech workers, education and research leadership, and up to the investment and management communities find the California environment so desirable they will have to accommodate a range of mixed class in order to prosper and enjoy their lifestyle.

It's more symbiotic at all levels than you fear. Look at nature for your guide. Ecologies balance themselves necessarily.
I generally agree with this. But people like to do the hokey pokey and have kids. While the growth rate is slowing, I don't think we will ever be in a shrinking situation. Not during my lifetime, at least.

We counter this with birth control, and what not, but the competing message is no birth control from the Vatican and others.

So I think we will continue to lowly grow over time.

We do need a broad range of people to make the economy grow, we all can't be engineers, and doctors, we need garbagemen and farmworkers... Try to eliminate farmworkers, and people will find ways to bring them into the state. Might as well do it legally, no? The only people "fleeing" due to minority influx seem to be RWNJ's to me, and I say good riddance and soyanara sweetheart.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2013, 05:51 PM
 
12,823 posts, read 24,309,756 times
Reputation: 11039
30 years from now they will be tearing down entire neighborhoods and turning them into a whole lot of nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2013, 06:10 PM
 
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
9,197 posts, read 16,786,881 times
Reputation: 6373
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly View Post
30 years from now they will be tearing down entire neighborhoods and turning them into a whole lot of nothing.
Or, they will fill in large tracts of nothing with something. And put walls around the new 'something'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2013, 09:37 PM
 
Location: the illegal immigrant state
767 posts, read 1,737,855 times
Reputation: 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingler View Post
The energy and transportation infrastructure in CA is at a breaking point. It is challenged to handle the current population of the State. What will happen as the population goes to 60 million in the next three decades?

Are you concerned about the expected population increase in California's population? Or do you think that it is just part of progress?
My question- where in CA will they live?

The majority of the state's populace is shoe-horned into the major metros along the coast. The infrastructure of those metros is generally sprawl infrastructure and if there is to be a major increase in those metros, those metros will have to grow outward, upward or both.

If we maintain our UGB's, the cities will have to grow upward which will mean multi-story high-density housing. This will require much infill and likely some destruction of some of the low-density housing- single-family tract homes.

If we relax our UGB's, our metros will sprawl outward.

If we grow both up and out, it will be miserably time-consuming to travel anywhere which is the case in the LA metro now.

Our public transportation system will have to evolve and be more like that of the northeastern US states to allow not only car-free transportation but fast car-free transportation.

All this growth of infrastrucure will be staggeringly expensive. Who will pay for it?

As it stands now, CA's soon-to-be majority demography will likely be in a poor position to pay for it as that very demography did not come to CA to contribute to its tax base. Hardly.

As in SF, the middle class will continue to be mostly childless. The middle class who stay in CA and bear children will have little monetary choice but to enroll their children in CA's poor-performing public school system with the those kid's career success mirroring their school's academic performance, resulting in their downward social mobility. The child-bearing middle class who are able to leave CA will do exactly that, as it has been for some time now.

The upper class will be able to insulate itself and send its children to private school, as it does now. That upper class will likely maintain itself as it does now, by exporting it wealth and seeking tax shelters outside of CA's borders as will corporations who operate in CA.

So, with it lower class growing, its middle class shrinking and its upper class and corporations continuing to dodge taxation, where will all the money for this infrastructural growth come from?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2013, 09:59 PM
 
Location: USA
3,966 posts, read 10,668,812 times
Reputation: 2225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calix View Post
Ridiculous, if you think no more homes should be built, bulldoze your home first to set the example. After all, we have too many people according to you, with yourself being one of them.

I can't stand it when people advocate locking others out while they've "got theirs". Highest form of hypocracy and selfishness.
You think more burbs is the answer?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2013, 01:39 AM
 
3 posts, read 3,163 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiphead View Post
You think more burbs is the answer?
Unless you want them to live with you, building more housing is the answer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2013, 05:09 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
77,772 posts, read 104,270,221 times
Reputation: 49247
I have my doubts if those figures are anywhere close to correct. I think it is a figure dreamed up to encourage people to push for better rapid transit and even more and better freeways. Look at who did the study?

people are marrying later, having fewer kids, and unless the cost of living, including taxes are adjusted down some of those living in CA now will be exiting.

Now, unfortunately I won't be alive in 30 years to see if this prediction comes true, but I might be around in 20 years and I will be able to see a trend: if I can still see then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top