|
View Poll Results: Do you think Texas would ever have #1 in population?
|
|
yes
|
  
|
18 |
31.03% |
|
no
|
  
|
40 |
68.97% |
 |
|
|

01-11-2010, 04:19 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: In them thar hills
6,548 posts, read 6,262,113 times
Reputation: 2811
|
|
|
It's a difficult question.
While overall US population is still rising, that will not continue for much longer.
So in the end, it becomes a marketing game to attract the largest slice of a shrinking pie.
However, I believe CA is in a secular decline, owing it its embrace of utopian, and dare I say, perhaps even millenarian, ideology, which is now scaring business and investment away.
Whereas TX has the basic classical American "can do" ideology.
So, even with an ultimately shrinking pie, TX will win.
(If you are unclear on why the overall pie will ultimately shrink, you should delve a bit into global demographics - world population will probably peak and enter into a general decline some time over the next 30 to 40 years - maybe even sooner, even the current projection is radically different than the 70s Malthusian and erroneous projections.)
|
|

01-11-2010, 04:36 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: Underneath the Pecan Tree
15,265 posts, read 14,436,039 times
Reputation: 5914
|
|
|
The difference between Texas and California is Texas has LOTS of land to build on. California has lots of mountains stopping sprawl.
|
|

01-11-2010, 09:53 PM
|
|
|
|
517 posts, read 569,699 times
Reputation: 185
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jluke65780
The difference between Texas and California is Texas has LOTS of land to build on. California has lots of mountains stopping sprawl.
|
California still has tons of land to spare.Most of the population lives along the coast. Also Central California is as flat as a pancake, no moutains stopping sprawl there.
|
|

01-11-2010, 10:01 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: Sarasota, Florida
15,295 posts, read 8,782,356 times
Reputation: 10659
|
|
|
I do not forsee Texas supplanting California unless there is some natural disaster....i.e. a major earthquake.
|
|

01-11-2010, 10:08 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: SF Bay Area
8,539 posts, read 9,518,266 times
Reputation: 4333
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcee510
California still has tons of land to spare.Most of the population lives along the coast. Also Central California is as flat as a pancake, no moutains stopping sprawl there.
|
Most of the jobs are along the coast and not in the Central Valley. Once you get away from commuting distance from the Bay Area and LA those communities will only grow so much b/c of the lack of jobs. Also water is a major issue in Ca, not sure how much more sprawl in can take w/o some serious fundamental changes in its water supply system.
Due to the taxes, regulations, general cost of living here, etc.. CA will not experience the DOMESTIC population growth anywhere close to what TX experiences ever again. It will look more like Northeastern states in terms of population growth imo. And that's a good thing. If TX wants the #1 most populated state title they can have for all I care.
|
|

01-11-2010, 10:13 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: Mid-Atlantic
6,418 posts, read 6,772,461 times
Reputation: 4449
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PITTSTON2SARASOTA
I do not forsee Texas supplanting California unless there is some natural disaster....i.e. a major earthquake.
|
This.
|
|

01-11-2010, 10:29 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: Northridge, Los Angeles, CA
2,685 posts, read 2,613,803 times
Reputation: 2130
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
Most of the jobs are along the coast and not in the Central Valley. Once you get away from commuting distance from the Bay Area and LA those communities will only grow so much b/c of the lack of jobs. Also water is a major issue in Ca, not sure how much more sprawl in can take w/o some serious fundamental changes in its water supply system.
Due to the taxes, regulations, general cost of living here, etc.. CA will not experience the DOMESTIC population growth anywhere close to what TX experiences ever again. It will look more like Northeastern states in terms of population growth imo. And that's a good thing. If TX wants the #1 most populated state title they can have for all I care.
|
I wholeheartedly agree with this post. California's Central Valley grows a HUGE chunk of the US' produce. Why would we want to lose that to urban sprawl? It already has the highest foreclosure rates in the nation (San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, and Kern Counties) with some of the worst air in the US from pesticides, smog, and other particulates (something about those cows at Harris Ranch) and increasing social problems FROM population growth.
(Source: Interactive Map: The Economy Where You Live : NPR)
I honestly wouldn't mind if California stopped growing at this point to deal with the problems of having around 31 million people (Greater LA + Bay Area + San Diego + Sacramento) in around 10,000 square miles combined or an area a little more than the size of Maryland (source: List of United States urban areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Anyways, population growth rates change all the time. It's a dynamic process. That's why I never read projections anymore because they are rarely correct, no matter what type of algorithm for calculation is used. If current growth rates hold, it will take until 2052, using simple math. It's hard to project what will happen a year from now, never mind decades ahead.
I will say this: as of this point in American history, Texas' star is shining brighter than California's. How long will this last, only time can tell.
|
|

01-12-2010, 01:19 AM
|
|
|
|
517 posts, read 569,699 times
Reputation: 185
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
Most of the jobs are along the coast and not in the Central Valley. Once you get away from commuting distance from the Bay Area and LA those communities will only grow so much b/c of the lack of jobs. Also water is a major issue in Ca, not sure how much more sprawl in can take w/o some serious fundamental changes in its water supply system.
Due to the taxes, regulations, general cost of living here, etc.. CA will not experience the DOMESTIC population growth anywhere close to what TX experiences ever again. It will look more like Northeastern states in terms of population growth imo. And that's a good thing. If TX wants the #1 most populated state title they can have for all I care.
|
I do agree that's its not the best idea to sprawl into the central valley but some were under the assumption that California didn't have the land left to sprawl if it wanted it when in fact most of our land isn't even built on.But I do agree that if Texas wants to take the title from us go ahead and enjoy those long commutes to work.
|
|

01-13-2010, 08:11 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: Under a bridge.
3,196 posts, read 2,646,183 times
Reputation: 939
|
|
|
I want Texas to BUY the #1 title from us. It's for sale--just make an offer!
|
|

01-14-2010, 09:58 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: Houston
2,037 posts, read 1,880,168 times
Reputation: 429
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcashley
I want Texas to BUY the #1 title from us. It's for sale--just make an offer!
|
Texas gets even more of an ego boost and California gets out of debt, so everyone wins. I like it. Lets do this! Who do we call to get this deal made?
|
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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.
|
|
Similar Threads
-
Texas vs. Florida vs. California!, City vs. City, 115 replies
-
California cities population in 2010, City vs. City, 21 replies
-
Texas vs California, City vs. City, 6 replies
-
California VS. Texas, City vs. City, 3 replies
-
Texas Vs California, City vs. City, 147 replies
-
Texas vs California, City vs. City, 52 replies
|