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.
I looked at some census numbers and it looks like the population is projected to go from 321 million people to 359 million people by 2030.
I wonder how the nations urban areas can handle it. Not that the nation isn't rural but rural areas and smaller cities tend to have outmigration.
There is also a near recession in much of rural America with the low commodity prices.
The massive growth has been in urban areas that have tended to benefit massively short-term economically from the structure of the jobs that is in the country now.
With the massive affordable housing shortage, need for more and more schools and roads I wonder how urban America can handle another 38 million people by 2030.
There is already a severe lack of housing in most major metropolitan areas. With the construction labor shortage at current wage rates I wonder how unaffordable these metropolitan areas can get with the increasing influx of people into major cities.
The urban areas in general it seems like are already in constant gridlock, there is an evident lack of police in most cities, the hospital emergency rooms already have extremely long waits.
Most of these urban areas also have huge pension liabilities by 2030 and will also have to have all new employees to take over for the retirees.
More big corporations need to start setting up shop in rural areas. There are plenty of towns all across America with 25k-50k people that could use the economic boost. But no, we have millions of square miles of open land yet me are trying to shove everything into a few dozen cities, stupid.
Likely replacing those that leave the cities to suburbs/exurbs/small towns/rural areas(if they exist as they are). This has been happening across the country for decades and looks like it will be a pattern that will continues until further notice.
I looked at some census numbers and it looks like the population is projected to go from 321 million people to 359 million people by 2030.
I wonder how the nations urban areas can handle it. Not that the nation isn't rural but rural areas and smaller cities tend to have outmigration.
There is also a near recession in much of rural America with the low commodity prices.
The massive growth has been in urban areas that have tended to benefit massively short-term economically from the structure of the jobs that is in the country now.
With the massive affordable housing shortage, need for more and more schools and roads I wonder how urban America can handle another 38 million people by 2030.
There is already a severe lack of housing in most major metropolitan areas. With the construction labor shortage at current wage rates I wonder how unaffordable these metropolitan areas can get with the increasing influx of people into major cities.
The urban areas in general it seems like are already in constant gridlock, there is an evident lack of police in most cities, the hospital emergency rooms already have extremely long waits.
Most of these urban areas also have huge pension liabilities by 2030 and will also have to have all new employees to take over for the retirees.
Cities have been growing (and sometimes shrinking) for centuries to handle the population changes. Why should 38M more people be any different?
This link has a map that's 15 years old but valid for sharing (usage rights) and indicates population density in the US. As one can see nearly half of the country is very lightly populated (or at all). Already we're seeing accelerated economic growth in areas not known for it which would include places like Omaha, Des Moines, Sioux Falls, Ogden, Missoula and Bozeman to name a few. I for one feel pretty confident the population increase is going to occur in a manner that's not going to choke our existing high density population centers further.
Corporations need to start having headquarters and offices in cities like Syracuse, Youngstown, Little Rock, Norwich and Jackson, MS.
Some do.....National Grid has offices in Syracuse. So does Bank of NY, the Hartford and there's the locally based Syracuse Research Corporation, among some others. A lot of them are smaller corporations though.
This link has a map that's 15 years old but valid for sharing (usage rights) and indicates population density in the US. As one can see nearly half of the country is very lightly populated (or at all). Already we're seeing accelerated economic growth in areas not known for it which would include places like Omaha, Des Moines, Sioux Falls, Ogden, Missoula and Bozeman to name a few. I for one feel pretty confident the population increase is going to occur in a manner that's not going to choke our existing high density population centers further.
It is quite amazing the difference in density throughout the country. I like road trips and it's amazing how rural most of the country is but the employment bases with the medium to high wage jobs tend to very concentrated.
It seems as though the majority of the growth will be a couple dozen metropolitan areas.
With the business services, finance and intangible economy is in style where networking means every thing the growth will be more and more concentrated.
Omaha and Des Moines have been economically doing well for a very long time. They almost always have very low unemployment rates relative to the national economy.
Even in 1990 when the nation was in a recession, the unemployment rate in Omaha was 2.4 percent.
Sioux Falls even during the 1991 recession nationally had unemployment rate of 1.8 percent
Des Moines has been a huge center for insurance for a long time.
I like to take lots of road trips and it is amazingly how rural this country is. It is also amazing how many empty homes there are in much of the country.
I have read similar articles about Montana also. But it seems to be overall an aging state that has similarities to New England states demographically.
Bozeman and Missoula are college towns. Missoula for example has 21,000 out of it's 60,000 jobs in government, health and education and much of the remainder is tourism.
Despite all this with the service-oriented economy it seems like population growth in urban areas has escalated much more then smaller and medium sized cities.
The very urban areas with all the population growth also tend to have very high barriers of entry and a massive construction shortage.
Another thing is that there was a spike in births in the late 1980s and early 1990s and many, many of those people will be starting families. The number of births is expected to increase in the coming years and household formation will skyrocket also. This at a time when many of the new construction projects are multi-family as opposed to single-family housing units in larger metropolitan areas.
I think it would be great to maybe have the government come in a pick a few smaller towns to help manage the growth. America somehow needs to build LOTS more living areas even now. The governments should do that since I guess no one else is?
I think technology will solve this problem as more companies embrace telecommuting. Obviously they want to be based where the talent is (NY for finance and media, Silicon Valley for tech, Boston for education, LA for entertainment, etc.), and most will remain in urban centers for that reason, but they'll create more remote opportunities as well.
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.
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.
