California population expected to double in 30 years.. does this trouble you? (home, neighborhoods)

[Charles]

California Cities Population Change, 2011-12 - Spreadsheets - Los Angeles Times

(Map didn't show for me at work using IE8, but it worked using Firefox.)

[BlackShoe]

This thread is six years old, and those lofty predictions were made before the recession. Hardly think that they are valid now. There have been many threads on CD displaying studies and surveys that show that the state's most productive citizens have left, and are continuing to leave. If present trends continue, by mid century California will have mostly a poor largely minority underclass with entitlement mindsets and a small wealthy racially mixed population. Working and middle class whites will only be a small part of the demographics as older ones die off and younger ones continue to leave the state.

[hoffdano]

I have never seen a projection where CA's population would double in 30 years - even before the recession. California's population growth is significant but has been slowing for more than 20 years.

Current projections from California agencies predict 41.2% growth from 2010 to 2060. That is 50 years, and nowhere near doubling.

A full report with many interesting demographic projections:

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demog..._2010-2060.pdf

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by BlackShoe

This thread is six years old, and those lofty predictions were made before the recession. Hardly think that they are valid now. There have been many threads on CD displaying studies and surveys that show that the state's most productive citizens have left, and are continuing to leave. If present trends continue, by mid century California will have mostly a poor largely minority underclass with entitlement mindsets and a small wealthy racially mixed population. Working and middle class whites will only be a small part of the demographics as older ones die off and younger ones continue to leave the state.

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.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

I have never seen a projection where CA's population would double in 30 years - even before the recession. California's population growth is significant but has been slowing for more than 20 years.

Current projections from California agencies predict 41.2% growth from 2010 to 2060. That is 50 years, and nowhere near doubling.

A full report with many interesting demographic projections:

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demog..._2010-2060.pdf

I think even thats going to be an overestimate. Population growth rates have been less than predictions because birth rates have been dropping here, and worldwide.

World population may actually start declining, not exploding. - Slate Magazine

[BeauCharles]

We've dropped down to about the same as the US growth rate. Too bad that didn't happen 30 years ago.

[BlackShoe]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

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.

The problem may be that, unlike nature and the natural world, humans do not always restore natural balance, and instead warp and distort it. While my socio-economic views are admittedly molded by my paleo-conservative political ideology, many hard nosed researchers and unbiased demographers pretty much agree with my previous comments.

[EastCoaterinSoCal]

Originally Posted by Dingler

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?

Stop building homes. Change the way things are done in SoCal. Stop the excessive greed

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by BlackShoe

The problem may be that, unlike nature and the natural world, humans do not always restore natural balance, and instead warp and distort it. While my socio-economic views are admittedly molded by my paleo-conservative political ideology, many hard nosed researchers and unbiased demographers pretty much agree with my previous comments.

No, they don't. The view you express is based in ideological bias -- not history, nor anthropology. Humans don't have to restore natural balance ... they will, however, adjust to what is necessary for them to survive opportunistically. The failure to do otherwise has never been acceptable. We are, above all else, opportunistic survivors to the extreme degree. We NEVER accept status-quo, or exist in controlled moderation. Never.

The state, country, and world is awash in money. The drama that plays out as various forms of economic threat is just that: drama ... negotiation ... who can hang on to the most and pay out the least to get the closest desired results. There is no crisis ... only drama.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by BlackShoe

The problem may be that, unlike nature and the natural world, humans do not always restore natural balance, and instead warp and distort it. While my socio-economic views are admittedly molded by my paleo-conservative political ideology, many hard nosed researchers and unbiased demographers pretty much agree with my previous comments.

Who says? Why not? Just because we are intelligent animals doesn't mean we're not subject to evolutionary change and ecological balance that occurs outside or our purposefulness.

The low birthrates are an example of this. The new generation of hipsters/yuppies living in cities, if they have kids at all, only one or two later in life I think is an example of this.

And birthrates have dropped worldwide, even Asia and Latin America have birthrates only between two and three per woman now.