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.
With the exception of Chicago, the Rustbelt has a huge lack of Hispanic residents. The Sunbelt has an overabundance of Hispanic residents. Hispanic residents have a much higher birth rate than Caucasians which make up the bulk of the Rustbelt.
Then you have to think of international growth. Outside of Chicago and the Arabs and a sprinkling of Mexicans to Detroit, the Rustbelt gets very, very few international immigrants. Where as the Sunbelt contains immigration magnets like Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, and Miami.
Could that be part of the explanation of the population growth?
Not completely true, as it would depend on the “Rust Belt” area. Some may get refugees/immigrants and have Hispanic communities in parts of the city/metro area.
With the exception of Chicago, the Rustbelt has a huge lack of Hispanic residents. The Sunbelt has an overabundance of Hispanic residents. Hispanic residents have a much higher birth rate than Caucasians which make up the bulk of the Rustbelt.
Then you have to think of international growth. Outside of Chicago and the Arabs and a sprinkling of Mexicans to Detroit, the Rustbelt gets very, very few international immigrants. Where as the Sunbelt contains immigration magnets like Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, and Miami.
Could that be part of the explanation of the population growth?
The Rust Belt lack of growth is primarily the result of the loss of a generation of late baby boomers who were 20 to 30 year-olds in the late 1970s and 1980s due to the major recession and lack of jobs due to de-industrialization. That meant the birth rate continued dropping thru the 90s and 00s, as fewer and fewer people were of were of child-bearing age. Pittsburgh now still has fewer births than deaths, and most other cities still have significantly lower birth rates than the US average. One generation leaving means all of their children and grandchildren also never arrived. Two people leaving in 1978 could potentially mean that another 10 would never have been born by 2018.
Thanks for the input Chicago60614! I'm happy to hear that about Chicago. It's interesting, in Detroit we hear all about the "New" Detroit and its economic rebirth, but not much about Chicago. Really nothing at all, outside of the national media which still unfairly paints Chicago as dangerous and scary or whatever. I imagine that in Chicago what you see is similar to what we see in Detroit with lots of generally positive news, but once you get outside of either city you only hear the bad, because the media cycle hasn't really caught up with the demographic shift, and it probably won't for a number of years.
You'd think the GDP per-capita growth in the cities (and their peers like Cleveland/Pittsburgh) would be a pretty clear sign, but it isn't as easy to see. Population growth is the easy one that makes sense to us, and with these regions being stagnant in population it's tough to report either city as being in a good place going forward.
I am curious if you think Chicago's debt will play a role in suppressing the city's future. Detroit's debt was really holding the city back for two decades, but they were able to discharge much of that in 2013. There are still some concerns with bonds coming due in 2024, but the city has made some significant payments toward that already to decrease the bond liability when they have to start paying on them. Will Chicago ever face a bankruptcy, or is the city itself still in good enough shape that it'll be able to set things straight on its own given the economic improvement and what will likely result in population growth 5-10 or so years from now?
Between 2010 and 2016, Chicago out gained Houston in number of 6+ figure earning households by over 20,000 households despite Houston out gaining Chicago by over 200,000 total people in the same period of time. Actually, Chicago out gained every single city in America in this category other than NYC and Los Angeles despite overall population being fairly stagnant and nearly every other city in America out gaining it in percentage (and actually a lot of the time in just pure population change).
There's a lot of stuff going on in Chicago right now that looking at one number would never, ever tell you (not to mention that just looking at one number and thinking it tells you the entire story is dumb no matter what city you are looking at). The city and economy are doing a lot better than most people realize.
But anyway, I'll let you and everyone else do the math on that one.
There's a flaw in that analysis. Per capita GDP growth isn't created by the 10-19 year old cohort. The abundance of them in fast growing sunbelt metros opposed to the lacking of them in the rustbelt affects that metric.
However, Late-20 and 30-somethings tend to have 0-9 year olds tagging along. I should know, My two 0-9 year olds don't contribute jack! While Millennials may not be known for their large families, neither was/is Gen-X. I'm not saying it entirely offsets it, but I'm not sure how GDP growth per capita isn't valid regardless. There are still more people with a more slowly increasing economy. The same argument could be made about the retirees from Michigan/Illinois/Ohio all moving to states like Florida/Arizona/Texas, and that was part of the point in the article.
With the exception of Chicago, the Rustbelt has a huge lack of Hispanic residents. The Sunbelt has an overabundance of Hispanic residents. Hispanic residents have a much higher birth rate than Caucasians which make up the bulk of the Rustbelt.
Then you have to think of international growth. Outside of Chicago and the Arabs and a sprinkling of Mexicans to Detroit, the Rustbelt gets very, very few international immigrants. Where as the Sunbelt contains immigration magnets like Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, and Miami.
Could that be part of the explanation of the population growth?
That's not completely true though. Latino/Hispanic people are the largest minority group in the Grand Rapids MSA. They make a sizeable population subset in the Milwaukee area as well. There as to be other Rust Belt cities that have similar trends.
That's not completely true though. Latino/Hispanic people are the largest minority group in the Grand Rapids MSA. They make a sizeable population subset in the Milwaukee area as well. There as to be other Rust Belt cities that have similar trends.
Yes. Milwaukee has had a long-established Puerto Rican community, as does Detroit, Cleveland and Rochester.
Yes. Milwaukee has had a long-established Puerto Rican community, as does Detroit, Cleveland and Rochester.
Buffalo could be added to that as well.
Ironically, the first Hispanic mayor of a city in NY State is the current mayor of Dunkirk, a small city on Lake Erie in between Buffalo and Erie PA. It is about 25% Hispanic(pretty much completely PR's). So, people may be surprised in regards to the demographics of some Rust Belt cities.
Between 2010 and 2016, Chicago out gained Houston in number of 6+ figure earning households by over 20,000 households despite Houston out gaining Chicago by over 200,000 total people in the same period of time. Actually, Chicago out gained every single city in America in this category other than NYC and Los Angeles despite overall population being fairly stagnant and nearly every other city in America out gaining it in percentage (and actually a lot of the time in just pure population change).
There's a lot of stuff going on in Chicago right now that looking at one number would never, ever tell you (not to mention that just looking at one number and thinking it tells you the entire story is dumb no matter what city you are looking at). The city and economy are doing a lot better than most people realize.
But anyway, I'll let you and everyone else do the math on that one.
Yeah Chicago is a very tough city to pinpoint these days, it has an extremely fast growing downtown/corporate/college educated sector, but an urban poor/black/rust belt sector that's doing extremely bad. Mix them together and it looks more flat, but look at them separately and it's like two entirely different cities.
Chicago was just named the #1 city in the USA for new and corporate expansions for the fourth year in a row. Just this week alone AT&T announced 500 new jobs, and KPMG and GE Healthcare announced 1,000 new jobs. In 2016 there were 350 business expansions in the city and metro.
Even with a population that hasn't really budgeted in 8 years, the city comes in behind NYC, Dallas, LA and San Francisco, cities most people would agree are doing very well economically, but ahead of Houston, Atlanta, Boston and DC, cities that are growing quickly in population and most people would agree also have a booming economy. All I hear about Chicago is it's the next Detroit or a failed violent city - but on sheer numbers it's still pulling out better performance than some other "on fire" and very quickly growing metro areas.
That's not completely true though. Latino/Hispanic people are the largest minority group in the Grand Rapids MSA. They make a sizeable population subset in the Milwaukee area as well. There as to be other Rust Belt cities that have similar trends.
I guess it depends on definition of scope. The Rust Belt simply has a much, much lower number of Hispanics. See the numbers below. Ive done them by CSA and concentration:
Im sorry but the numbers dont lie. I do stand by my original statement. Of all the Rust Belt cities, only Chicago has more than the national average in concentration of Hispanics. Where as about 2/3 of the major metro areas in the Sunbelt are over the national average. In perspective, if Charlotte was in the Rust Belt, it would have the 2nd largest Hispanic population. That says a lot.
With that and high birth rates especially in Texas.
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.
While Millennials may not be known for their large families, neither was/is Gen-X. I'm not saying it entirely offsets it, but I'm not sure how GDP growth per capita isn't valid regardless. There are still more people with a more slowly increasing economy. The same argument could be made about the retirees from Michigan/Illinois/Ohio all moving to states like Florida/Arizona/Texas, and that was part of the point in the article.
