U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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 11-10-2017, 04:21 PM
 
3,961 posts, read 3,493,210 times
Reputation: 6361

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TPetty View Post
Will you could be right on this one, but one fact remains. Metro Cleveland and Metro Buffalo are both still losing population. Have a reference cited:

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tistical_Areas

Look at Noís. 32 and 50.
I don't think anyone is disputing they have had declining populations. This is well known, still trying to understand what you're underlying point is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-10-2017, 09:09 PM
 
387 posts, read 368,452 times
Reputation: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjlo View Post
I don't think anyone is disputing they have had declining populations. This is well known, still trying to understand what you're underlying point is.
Iím still trying to figure out how declining populations can be resolved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2017, 07:11 AM
 
3,961 posts, read 3,493,210 times
Reputation: 6361
Quote:
Originally Posted by TPetty View Post
I’m still trying to figure out how declining populations can be resolved.
Pretty simple answer, economics. There is an over emphasis on climate being the primary growth driver of the Sun Belt. People never seem to make the connection of the aggressive incentives and cheap labor marketed in Sun Belt boomers like Houston, Nashville, and Atlanta, that also corresponds to the time their populations started to explode. Truly only the Floridian cities(Phoenix to a lesser extent) can have a direct line drawn to climate being the primary driver of growth.

Below is a snapshot of 30 metro areas that are in what is largely considered the Rust Belt. There are some cities on this list that people may not consider Rust Belt, but they are included for either similarities either regionally or economically.

I chose the 1970 metro populations as the benchmark because it's the census where most of the declining metros hit their population peak. Pittsburgh actually started it's metro decline by or before the 1960 census. Traditional legacy core cities started showing population declines during the 1950's due to the rise of the suburbs. However their regions continued growing for another two decades as manufacturing, and heavy industry didn't hit their peaks until the mid 1960s to early 70s. The data represents the last 46 years of population trends. To be fair even the strongest growth metro's on this list would pale in comparison to the population explosions of the Sun Belt cities. The comparison in growth rates, and what is healthy growth, or desired growth is another discussion.

Myth: People are abandoning these areas due to climate.
-The top 4 cities on this list are also either the coldest, or near the top of the cold. In the case of Grand Rapids it competes with the Upstate New York metros for the moniker of snowiest major metropolitan area. Snow which is often cited as the single biggest deterrent by the membership of this website, hasn't stopped any of those cities from emerging as strong performers.

Myth: These cities all fell into decline due to their signature industries declining and disappearing.
-The major commonality with the cities at the bottom of the list is that they all had a heavy tradition of organized labor. (That statement is not an indictment for or against unions). 2016 was a year that saw the highest volume of automobile sales in the history of the industry. With that came more steel being produced and consumed than at any point in history. What's the difference? During the economic crisis' of the 1970s bloated american heavy industries found themselves unable to adjust quickly to changing times. In order to stay profitable they had to look for ways to save money. Queue affordable labor and incentives in the American south. As the high paying union jobs started shifting to areas that were less friendly to unions, the manufacturing strongholds were left with a huge population that had no skill set or education beyond what they had on the assembly lines. There was nothing to replace the comfortable middle class lifestyle they were used to. They did what most people in their situation did, they followed the jobs. (You can guess based on trends where they followed them to).

The population the Rust Belt is seeing is a correction. Just as when the stock market goes through periods of high gains, it has to go through a period of correction. The economics of the future are based in corporate, knowledge, and STEM based industries. The cities at the top of this list that are performing well all have economies strongly rooted in them. The exception being Grand Rapids which is somewhat anomalous given that its had more in common with places like Dayton and Toledo in the 1970s.

The places at the bottom of this list that are showing signs of turning around have placed an emphasis on these sectors and are starting to see the dividends. You can argue that they are still declining, but I see no evidence they will perpetually decline. Population trends can shift in a matter of years. The cities on this list at one point saw population explosions for a century. They all assumed they would only ever see gains and nothing would change. They did nothing to adapt until it was the only option. It would be naive for the cities that have seen the population surges over the last 50 years to think that it will continue forever as well. If they don't remain competitive, even the best weather on earth won't be enough to stop a decline.



Last edited by mjlo; 11-11-2017 at 07:39 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2017, 07:35 AM
 
387 posts, read 368,452 times
Reputation: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjlo View Post
Pretty simple answer, economics. There is an over emphasis on climate being the primary growth driver of the Sun Belt. People never seem to make the connection of the aggressive incentives and cheap labor marketed in Sun Belt boomers like Houston, Phoenix, and Atlanta, that also corresponds to the time their populations started to explode. Truly only the Floridian cities(Phoenix to a lesser extent) can have a direct line drawn to climate being the primary driver of growth.

Below is a snapshot of 30 metro areas that are in what is largely considered the Rust Belt. (I included Birmingham AL due to its industrial ties and under performing population growth). People may agree or disagree with this list as applying the term "Rust Belt" to some of these cities will be seen as a possible insult to their homers and how they define the term. What they all have in common is that in some form or another they have core cities that went through a period of decline during the suburban decentralization of at least the 1950s-1980s. (Though many continued to decline into later decades or are still currently declining). The other commonality is regional designation. For instance Des Moines and Omaha may not traditionally be considered Rust Belt, they both are firmly rooted in the Midwest.

I chose the 1970 metro populations as the benchmark because it's the census where most of the metro's in decline hit their population peak. Pittsburgh actually started it's metro decline by or before the 1960 census. Traditional legacy core cities started showing population declines during the 1950's due to the rise of the suburbs. However their regions continued growing for another two decades as manufacturing, and heavy industry didn't hit their peaks until the mid 1960s to early 70s. The data represents the last 46 years of population trends. To be fair even the strongest growth metro's on this list would pale in comparison to the population explosions of the Sun Belt cities. The comparison in growth rates, and what is healthy growth, or desired growth is another discussion.

Myth: People are abandoning these areas due to climate.
-The top 4 cities on this list are also either the coldest, or near the top of the cold. In the case of Grand Rapids it competes with the Upstate New York metros for the moniker of snowiest major metropolitan area. Snow which is often cited as the single biggest deterrent by the membership of this website, hasn't stopped any of those cities from emerging as strong performers.

Myth: These cities all fell into decline due to their signature industries declining and disappearing.
-The major commonality with the cities at the bottom of the list is that they all had a heavy tradition of organized labor. (That statement is not an indictment for or against unions). 2016 was a year that saw the highest volume of automobile sales in the history of the industry. With that came more steel being produced and consumed than at any point in history. What's the difference? During the economic crisis' of the 1970s bloated american heavy industries found themselves unable to adjust quickly to changing times. In order to stay profitable they had to look for ways to save money. Queue affordable labor and incentives in the American south. As the high paying union jobs started shifting to areas that were less friendly to unions, the manufacturing strongholds were left with a huge population that had no skill set or education beyond what they had on the assembly lines. There was nothing to replace the comfortable middle class lifestyle they were used to. They did what most people in their situation did, they followed the jobs. (You can guess based on trends where they followed them to).

The population the Rust Belt is seeing is a correction. Just as when the stock market goes through periods of high gains, it has to go through a period of correction. The economics of the future are based in corporate, knowledge, and STEM based industries. The cities at the top of this list that are performing well all have economies strongly rooted in them. The exception being Grand Rapids which is somewhat anomalous given that its had more in common with places like Dayton and Toledo in the 1970s.

The places at the bottom of this list that are showing signs of turning around have placed an emphasis on these sectors and are starting to see the dividends. You can argue that they are still declining, but I see no evidence they will perpetually decline. Population trends can shift in a matter of years. The cities on this list at one point saw population explosions for a century. They all assumed they would only ever see gains and nothing would change. They did nothing to adapt until it was the only option. It would be naive for the cities that have seen the population surges over the last 50 years to think that it will continue forever as well. If they don't remain competitive, even the best weather on earth won't be enough to stop a decline.

Iíve noticed with that chart posted some metros are still declining. And that chart seems pretty up to date as you are showing the 2016 populations. The last chart you posted showed Metro Detroitís population rebounding but this one shows it declining some more. But anyway if the future is based on STEM and knowledge based industries, exactly what compromises would we face. Would everyone be required to work a job on the professional level and no manual labor jobs be available.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2017, 07:50 AM
 
3,961 posts, read 3,493,210 times
Reputation: 6361
Quote:
Originally Posted by TPetty View Post
I’ve noticed with that chart posted some metros are still declining. And that chart seems pretty up to date as you are showing the 2016 populations. The last chart you posted showed Metro Detroit’s population rebounding but this one shows it declining some more.
Detroits overall metro population based on current county alingment declined from the overall 1970-2016 time frame. A 46 year snap shot doesn't necessarily represent current conditions. Naturally any metro area that experienced a decline and has started rebounding may not have regained it's peak population. For clarity the Detroit area peaked in 2000. If you would like to split hairs I can post the 2010-2016 numbers from Detroit showing an increase.

Also Detroit is unique in that one county immediately adjacent to the core county is considered statistically separate from the Detroit area. Washtenaw County(Ann Arbor metro.) is cut off from Detroit's western suburbs and considered "independent" of Detroit because between 15-25% of it's population commutes into Wayne county, but not over 25%. It's one of the examples of statistically dividing counties that I consider to be an inaccurate representation. If Washtenaw County which is closer to the city of Detroit than more than half of it's metro population were counted as metro Detroit, it would only be off 3000 people from it's peak and creates a very different story.


Quote:
But anyway if the future is based on STEM and knowledge based industries, exactly what compromises would we face. Would everyone be required to work a job on the professional level and no manual labor jobs be available.
It's hard to give the answer to that question. However if that's the direction things are going, the Sun Belt would be disproportionately affected by the loss off low skill positions, as the Rust Belt has been going through that transition for 50 years now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2017, 08:06 AM
 
387 posts, read 368,452 times
Reputation: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjlo View Post
Detroits overall metro population based on current county alingment declined from the overall 1970-2016 time frame. A 46 year snap shot doesn't necessarily represent current conditions. Naturally any metro area that experienced a decline and has started rebounding may not have regained it's peak population. For clarity the Detroit area peaked in 2000. If you would like to split hairs I can post the 2010-2016 numbers from Detroit showing an increase.

Also Detroit is unique in that one county immediately adjacent to the core county is considered statistically separate from the Detroit area. Washtenaw County(Ann Arbor metro.) is cut off from Detroit's western suburbs and considered "independent" of Detroit because between 15-25% of it's population commutes into Wayne county, but not over 25%. It's one of the examples of statistically dividing counties that I consider to be an inaccurate representation. If Washtenaw County which is closer to the city of Detroit than more than half of it's metro population were counted as metro Detroit, it would only be off 3000 people from it's peak and creates a very different story.




It's hard to give the answer to that question. However if that's the direction things are going, the Sun Belt would be disproportionately affected by the loss off low skill positions, as the Rust Belt has been going through that transition for 50 years now.
I just came across one reference, and itís entails that the Rust Belt may no longer be suitable for its long time working class population and that five best cities for the working class are in the Sun Belt except for one. And the five worst cities are also some of the most liberal cities in the US, though they are not part of the Rust Belt. So as far as Iím concerned the working class seems to be flocking out to the Sun Belt more and more.

MAPPED: Where the working class can't afford to live - Business Insider
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2017, 08:16 AM
 
3,961 posts, read 3,493,210 times
Reputation: 6361
Quote:
Originally Posted by TPetty View Post
I just came across one reference, and it’s entails that the Rust Belt may no longer be suitable for its long time working class population and that five best cities for the working class are in the Sun Belt except for one. And the five worst cities are also some of the most liberal cities in the US, though they are not part of the Rust Belt. So as far as I’m concerned the working class seems to be flocking out to the Sun Belt more and more.

MAPPED: Where the working class can't afford to live - Business Insider
That's exactly what I was just saying. Having a statistic that shows the bulk of your population growth is in unskilled labor is not necessarily a positive. During economic downturns this portion of the population gets affected harder. Anyone who doesn't realize that style of population growth creates a bubble hasn't learned the lessons of the Rust Belt.

Last edited by mjlo; 11-11-2017 at 08:25 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2017, 08:17 AM
 
56,613 posts, read 80,910,543 times
Reputation: 12506
Quote:
Originally Posted by TPetty View Post
I just came across one reference, and it’s entails that the Rust Belt may no longer be suitable for its long time working class population and that five best cities for the working class are in the Sun Belt except for one. And the five worst cities are also some of the most liberal cities in the US, though they are not part of the Rust Belt. So as far as I’m concerned the working class seems to be flocking out to the Sun Belt more and more.

MAPPED: Where the working class can't afford to live - Business Insider
None of those cities listed as the worst are in the "Rust Belt" and many in the "Sun Belt" don't seem to do as well according to the article.

Also, 3 of the top 5 in terms of affording to live are 3 big/highly populated Phoenix area suburbs. Newark would actually fit in terms of being "Rust Belt" as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2017, 08:51 AM
 
387 posts, read 368,452 times
Reputation: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod View Post
None of those cities listed as the worst are in the "Rust Belt" and many in the "Sun Belt" don't seem to do as well according to the article.

Also, 3 of the top 5 in terms of affording to live are 3 big/highly populated Phoenix area suburbs. Newark would actually fit in terms of being "Rust Belt" as well.
That was my point exactly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2017, 09:06 AM
 
56,613 posts, read 80,910,543 times
Reputation: 12506
Quote:
Originally Posted by TPetty View Post
That was my point exactly.
What point? Basically you are saying that Phoenix is the way to go?
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.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top