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.
Does it really matter anyway? People will move to a region so long as there are strong industries there. The idea that people move to places like the Research Triangle, Dallas or Atlanta simply because it's "cheap" is a ridiculous oversimplification of things. So long as the industries there continue to be productive, people will move there. When they stop being productive, or lose their competitive advantage, then people stop moving there. Simple.
I could be wrong, but I don't think the Research Triangle became what it is because of low housing costs. A lot of it, to my understanding, had to do with good leadership and bold vision, both of which are in short supply no matter where you go. The same applies, to a large extent, to the City of Atlanta under the leadership of Hartsfield and successive mayors and members of the business community. And then luck plays a role too. Had Duke University not been endowed with tons of tobacco money, the RT would likely be a very different place.
The Triangle is clearly a result of vision and leadership that goes all the way back to the 1950s. At its core was goal to stop the brain drain of the state's university graduates. The problem we have today is a lack of willingness on the part of politicians to put forth any idea that can't be measured before the next election.
I wouldn't say that Duke's endowment made RTP. While a big player in the area, The Triangle isn't a one trick pony when it comes to higher education and the state leaders of the day were primarily interested in retaining state university graduates (UNC & NC State primarily) and providing employment for them while leveraging the power of all three universities' relative co-location.
If there is one event (post creation of RTP by the state's leaders) that I could point to that energized the region, I'd say it was IBM's decision to establish major operations in RTP by expanding its small Raleigh operation. This goes all the way back to the 1960s and there are many stories (legends) about how it came about. The most consistent thread in all the stories is that the process was cut throat and competitive. Part of the IBM deal included the state creating a freeway to link RTP to Raleigh where most of their local employee base was working and living. This first freeway later became a piece to I-40 and the first section of Interstate that eventually linked Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill. IBM's entrance into RTP gave the "Park" validity and became the impetus for subsequent operations to establish a presence in the area. Since then, the Triangle area has just continued to grow and expand and it's really just now hitting the radar of many as its total population has now exceeded 2 million. I wouldn't be surprised to see the next million come before the next 15 years is over.
I wouldn't say that Duke's endowment made RTP. While a big player in the area, The Triangle isn't a one trick pony when it comes to higher education and the state leaders of the day were primarily interested in retaining state university graduates (UNC & NC State primarily) and providing employment for them while leveraging the power of all three universities' relative co-location.
The same could be said for a lot of North Carolina (and Virginia) institutions of higher learning. Not just Duke. Without tobacco money, those schools likely wouldn't be what they are today, and the RT would probably be a different place. Of course, there's no way to create a time machine and play the "what if" game, but I don't think there's much doubt that Duke, Wake, and other NC schools tremendously benefited from tobacco money the same way Emory University benefited from Robert Woodruff and the Coca Cola Company. The one thing all exceptional institutions have in common is some type of industry bankrolling them.
To further illustrate why the South is unlikely to be equal in economic power to the North in the foreseeable future, here is a GDP chart for the 3 regions (North, South, West) 1997-2013.
If you'll notice, the 3 were actually closer together earlier in the period than they are now. For example, in 1997, the North lead by 1.54 trillion, but that lead grew to 2.05 trillion in 2013. And in 1997, the North lead the West by 0.58 trillion, but that lead grew to 1.24 trillion in 2013.
This doesn't exactly suggest that the Sunbelt states are in any way closing the total economic gap. The North continues to be dominant in totals and will likely keep being so as long as this trend continues. The % gap has closed slightly, but the North is still between 13-14 percentage points higher.
It sounds like there's a lot of hate and jealousy towards the West and especially the South.
The following study gives different scenarios for population growth among the states up to 2050. Using the data for the "high trend," the different regions of the country will look something like this.
South - 169,749,621 (36.7%) (+48%)
West - 131,179,962 (28.4%) (+77%)
Midwest - 84,646,011 (18.3%) (+29%)
Northeast - 75,968,711 (16.5%) (+36%) Total - 461,543,905
The South's share of the population remains virtually unchanged under this scenario. The Midwest and the Northeast continue to lose ground relative to the rest of the U.S. The West comes out as the big winner in the population gains sweepstakes. California alone would be the size of the entire Northeast.
It sounds like there's a lot of hate and jealousy towards the West and especially the South.
The following study gives different scenarios for population growth among the states up to 2050. Using the data for the "high trend," the different regions of the country will look something like this.
South - 169,749,621 (36.7%)
West - 131,179,962 (28.4%)
Midwest - 84,646,011 (18.3%)
Northeast - 75,968,711 (16.5%) Total - 461,543,905
The South's share of the population remains virtually unchanged under this scenario. The Midwest and the Northeast continue to lose ground relative to the rest of the U.S. The West comes out as the big winner in the population gains sweepstakes. California alone would be the size of the entire Northeast.
1. Population projects are notoriously awful, much worse than your average annual estimate, and as 2010 showed, even those can be way off. For example, the US Census did a state population projection in 2005 for 2030. Ohio surpassed in 2013 what the census had them reaching 17 years into the future. Take projections with a fantastically large grain of salt.
2. Your report is from 2006. Things have changed since then.
3. It's not so much hate or jealousy so much as trying to bring the hype back down to earth. It's been in the stratosphere for about 3 or 4 decades now.
4. I don't understand why the Northeast and the Midwest are separated when comparing them to the West/South. If you want to compare more similarly sized regions, you'd have to add them together.
1. Population projects are notoriously awful, much worse than your average annual estimate, and as 2010 showed, even those can be way off. For example, the US Census did a state population projection in 2005 for 2030. Ohio surpassed in 2013 what the census had them reaching 17 years into the future. Take projections with a fantastically large grain of salt.
2. Your report is from 2006. Things have changed since then.
3. It's not so much hate or jealousy so much as trying to bring the hype back down to earth. It's been in the stratosphere for about 3 or 4 decades now.
4. I don't understand why the Northeast and the Midwest are separated when comparing them to the West/South. If you want to compare more similarly sized regions, you'd have to add them together.
1. These projections are better than the non-mathematical conjecture of C-D posters who believe that fads can reverse demographic trends and economic fortunes.
2. So what? The report is looking to 2050, not 2020.
3. No, it's hate. Sitting here in the Northeast, and reading some of these comments, it's definitely hate.
4. Because there is no "North" region. Either way, both regions will lose ground relative to the South and West. California will probably be bigger than the Northeast so I guess we might as well get these C-D poll victories in while the getting's good. LOL.
1. These projections are better than the non-mathematical conjecture of C-D posters who believe that fads can reverse demographic trends and economic fortunes.
2. So what? The report is looking to 2050, not 2020.
3. No, it's hate. Sitting here in the Northeast, and reading some of these comments, it's definitely hate.
4. Because there is no "North" region. Either way, both regions will lose ground relative to the South and West. California will probably be bigger than the Northeast so I guess we might as well get these C-D poll victories in while the getting's good. LOL.
They still seem to be based on little more than guessing or assuming that past trends equal exact long-term future trends, which is very unlikely.
Estimates aren't even right in a single decade, yet we're supposed to take seriously a projection 35 years into the future, or in the case of when the report was completed, 44 years into the future? States were growing differently in 2006 than they are now. They've all slowed down, and domestic migration has changed significantly since the mid-2000s regionally. Many assumptions in 2006 are already way off less than a decade later.
Perhaps it's inevitable. You keep hearing how your region sucks and how awesome another is, there's going to be some backlash. However, as with the GDP graph I posted above, there is quite a bit of hype and falsehoods involved in the Sunbelt boom story. It's not hate to point that reality out.
Again, "will lose ground" is written like an inevitability, and that is far from the case. Second, of course there's a North. That it's sometimes broken up into a few smaller regions doesn't make that less true. The point is, even if it wasn't, comparing relatively tiny Northeast with the giant South is not exactly fair, is it, and serves only to artificially inflate one region's population over another.
Florida will be underwater by 2050 though, so forget about it. And the West will not have enough water supply to sustain much more growth. They're already having severe water issues as we speak. Phoenix and Las Vegas will be ghost towns by 2050.
California's Water issues will not effect Washington and Oregon besides population growth.
This is insane and extremely unlikely. Washington will not go from 6.9 million to 20 million in 3 and a half decades...are you kidding me? You're literally talking the Seattle metro growing 2-3 a million a decade. That's not going to happen....ever. Immigration is slowing down and birthrates are dropping...where are all those people coming from? Unless you attract a significant amount of minorities, you're not going to be growing 4 million a decade...ever. Stupid.
Expect Georgia to be top 7. This is pure wish casting and dreaming.
Though 20 million does seem for fetched. I think population growth may boom outside of the Seattle area. Tri-Cities has potential for even further growth. Spokane is emerging. Yakima is working to develop an industry outside of agriculture. Even Coastal areas of the state may see growth by then.
Yes. Were you talking about 50 years from now, from 2000 or just ten year increments? I'd forgotten about Colorado's nickname. What's that got to do with any of this?
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.
