Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [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)
View Poll Results: Which post-industrial/Rust Belt city will be first to regain peak population?
Chicago 22 24.18%
Philadelphia 25 27.47%
Detroit 4 4.40%
Baltimore 3 3.30%
Cleveland 6 6.59%
St. Louis 2 2.20%
Pittsburgh 7 7.69%
Other 1 1.10%
None 21 23.08%
Voters: 91. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-05-2017, 01:07 PM
 
1,851 posts, read 2,149,268 times
Reputation: 1283

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian View Post
Chicago, Philly, and Baltimore will be just as bad as the rest. With the exception of one area in California (San Jose), all metros are poised to lose at least 50% of jobs due to automation. There's no competitive advantage between losing 50% and 55% of all jobs. Chicago is also the same color as Atlanta, a sunbelt city, so the usual qualifiers used to prop up Northern cities can't be the reason they are projected to do "better".

The colors in this chart are off; the shades should be much closer than they currently are in order to better reflect the difference in percentage.
I agree no job or metro area is safe (even SJ), but some will clearly feel more pain than others. Chicago and Philadelphia already lost all of their heavy manufacturing. They've weathered this storm and now have a mostly service-based economy and populations that have cross-transferable skills. Manufacturing/warehousing jobs are the first roles to go and while the southern U.S. has seen some outsourcing, it is not yet near the scale of disinvestment that cities across the industrial Midwest and Northeast experienced. When that does happen, expect places like Dallas, Fort Worth, Atlanta, Houston, etc. to see the same type of abandonment that plagued the northern U.S. for essentially half a century.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-05-2017, 01:32 PM
 
1,207 posts, read 1,271,406 times
Reputation: 1426
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishIllini View Post
I agree no job or metro area is safe (even SJ), but some will clearly feel more pain than others. Chicago and Philadelphia already lost all of their heavy manufacturing. They've weathered this storm and now have a mostly service-based economy and populations that have cross-transferable skills. Manufacturing/warehousing jobs are the first roles to go and while the southern U.S. has seen some outsourcing, it is not yet near the scale of disinvestment that cities across the industrial Midwest and Northeast experienced. When that does happen, expect places like Dallas, Fort Worth, Atlanta, Houston, etc. to see the same type of abandonment that plagued the northern U.S. for essentially half a century.
That may be true, but what we won't see is an exodus to Northern cities, because they will be experiencing the same ails to a slightly lesser degree. Thus isn't a case of Northeast vs Midwest vs Sunbelt vs PNW; ALL US metros will be hurt greatly.

The last time a region in the US lost a significant number of jobs, another region was able to flourish in the wake of that change (a huge reason for that being the imbalance of power and population at the time). Now, with things being more balanced, there will be no one who gains.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2017, 02:30 PM
 
1,851 posts, read 2,149,268 times
Reputation: 1283
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian View Post
That may be true, but what we won't see is an exodus to Northern cities, because they will be experiencing the same ails to a slightly lesser degree. Thus isn't a case of Northeast vs Midwest vs Sunbelt vs PNW; ALL US metros will be hurt greatly.

The last time a region in the US lost a significant number of jobs, another region was able to flourish in the wake of that change (a huge reason for that being the imbalance of power and population at the time). Now, with things being more balanced, there will be no one who gains.
Climate change may very well push people to northern metro areas. Not sure how many people will be lining up to live in Dallas when its 120 degrees for days on end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2017, 03:26 PM
 
1,207 posts, read 1,271,406 times
Reputation: 1426
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishIllini View Post
Climate change may very well push people to northern metro areas. Not sure how many people will be lining up to live in Dallas when its 120 degrees for days on end.
These exaggerations need to stop. It has never been 120F in Dallas. In fact, it had rarely been above 120F in Phoenix. And climate change projections show that the extent of the change will increase the number of days over 95F. The greatest increase in temperatures is actually expected to occur in northern areas. Increased precipitation is expected to lead to reduced drinking water availability surprisingly. Warmer temperatures in the Great Lakes is expected to lead to increases in toxic algae. There is more to climate change than simple temperature increase, but all areas will be affected negatively. These stressors will probably be most present in southern areas, but northern areas will be similarly affected to the degree that moving north may not be an actual benefit.

Also, if both the North and South lose jobs, then moving north well provide no benefit as there are no jobs in either location to fill.

Again, there is no winner this time around. We will all suffer.

Last edited by orlando-calrissian; 05-05-2017 at 03:37 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2017, 03:37 PM
 
1,851 posts, read 2,149,268 times
Reputation: 1283
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian View Post
These exaggerations need to stop. It has never been 120F in Dallas. In fact, it had rarely been above 120F in Phoenix. And climate change projections show that the extent of the change will increase the number of days over 95F. This may convince a very small number of people to move up north but not a mass exodus.

Also, if both the North and South lose jobs, then moving north well provide no benefit as there are no jobs in either location to fill.

Again, there is no winner this time around. We will all suffer.
We all will suffer, but some will suffer less. 120 degree summers are not the norm now, but they could very well be in thirty to forty years. I don't think people understand how rapidly our planet's surface temperatures are increasing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2017, 03:41 PM
 
1,207 posts, read 1,271,406 times
Reputation: 1426
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishIllini View Post
We all will suffer, but some will suffer less. 120 degree summers are not the norm now, but they could very well be in thirty to forty years. I don't think people understand how rapidly our planet's surface temperatures are increasing.
1. We may see 5-7 days of 120F highs in the future, but they would not be the norm.
2. The EPA projects this change in 100 years, not 30-40. This projection was made during the Obama administration.
3. The north would then begin to experience 105-110F degree highs at around the same rate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2017, 03:51 PM
 
26,821 posts, read 43,286,237 times
Reputation: 31432
Regarding the popularity of Philadelphia so far consider the following in tandem with recent "immigration reform"..

"While a drop from the sixth most populous region in 2014 to seventh in 2015 may seem incremental, experts say there's cause for concern: The region's growth was largely fueled by births offsetting others' departures.

Although residents have moved out, nearly 50,000 immigrants came to the city of Philadelphia in the same time period - and their numbers, experts said, are what counterbalance other losses, as in other Eastern cities.

"What's keeping us from declining, for the most part, is immigration from abroad," said James W. Hughes, dean of the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University."


Slow-growing metro Philly falls to No. 7 nationally
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2017, 04:24 PM
 
1,851 posts, read 2,149,268 times
Reputation: 1283
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian View Post
1. We may see 5-7 days of 120F highs in the future, but they would not be the norm.
2. The EPA projects this change in 100 years, not 30-40. This projection was made during the Obama administration.
3. The north would then begin to experience 105-110F degree highs at around the same rate.
The earth's surface is warming exponentially. It's the result of a positive feedback loop. It's very difficult to project weather patterns, but everything we're seeing now indicates that the repercussions of unchecked fossil fuel consumption, agricultural practices, etc. will be far worse than we previously thought.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2017, 04:25 PM
 
1,851 posts, read 2,149,268 times
Reputation: 1283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus View Post
You must have meant something different, as 50+ projects doesn't drop jaws. 5,000 projects, or 50+ hi-rises, on the other hand....
50+ residential projects is more than any U.S. city at the moment...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2017, 05:05 PM
 
1,207 posts, read 1,271,406 times
Reputation: 1426
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishIllini View Post
The earth's surface is warming exponentially. It's the result of a positive feedback loop. It's very difficult to project weather patterns, but everything we're seeing now indicates that the repercussions of unchecked fossil fuel consumption, agricultural practices, etc. will be far worse than we previously thought.
This sounds like a bit of hyperbole. This is uncharted territory, so we have no idea what the true extent of climate change will be.

Back to the topic of the thread, I believe Philadelphia would be the first to reach its previous peak, though I'm not sure that any of these cities need to.
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:


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 > General U.S. > City vs. City

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