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 was going to post something else in regards to your sheeple comment but then I noticed you were in Seattle. I'll just chalk it up to you being a really cool woke individual.
Pittsburgh has a world class anchor university with CMU. The University of Rochester is an anchor university almost as strong. Case Western in Cleveland is strong. I think that rust belt cities with top-50 universities will fare well. I’m not so optimistic about the rest of the rust belt. To compete in the 21st century global economy, you need to be able to create intellectual property. That’s normally universities and companies that form near those universities. So you can point at a few cities and think they have a pretty good shot. Everywhere else is at a competitive disadvantage because of the skill level of the workforce and the relative labor and business cost.
I agree that having a top 50 university helps but I don't think it's that simple. I think Grand Rapids is the counter argument. No top 50 university and isn't a state capitol. I feel like to a smaller extent Milwaukee and Cincinnati are on the path to a recovered rust belt city and neither have a top 50 university (Marquette is sort of close). I would think its more about jobs then any other reason.
Pittsburgh has a world class anchor university with CMU. The University of Rochester is an anchor university almost as strong. Case Western in Cleveland is strong. I think that rust belt cities with top-50 universities will fare well. I’m not so optimistic about the rest of the rust belt. To compete in the 21st century global economy, you need to be able to create intellectual property. That’s normally universities and companies that form near those universities. So you can point at a few cities and think they have a pretty good shot. Everywhere else is at a competitive disadvantage because of the skill level of the workforce and the relative labor and business cost.
I agree. Larger cities with the University anchors will do fine such as the cities you listed. Places like Youngstown, OH…Flint, MI…Erie, PA…will continue to struggle as they were built on mostly blue collar manufacturing jobs and did not diversify their industry/economy for the modern world.
All I can tell you is that I visited family in Ohio last December and nearly froze my arse off. I am southern born and bred and I have always preferred hot weather over cold weather. It's a personal preference - it has nothing to do with being "sheeple" or whatever. I don't like much cold or ice or snow - I just don't like it. Can I "deal" with it? Sure I can, but that doesn't mean it's my preference.
I keep trying to talk myself into moving to the Cincinnati area but dang it, it's chilly up there.
I think that there is going to be major population shifts in the next few decades as climate change makes parts of the US inhospitable or even more expensive than they are now.
I think the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts are going to take a major hit between sea level rise and more severe tropical storms. People may move inland, but that will likely significantly raise housing costs. It will probably start with the barrier islands that will either disappear or become uninhabitable, but I would not be surprised to see as much as a half mile or more of current coastal areas disappear or become salt marsh within 20 years in some areas. This loss is going to impact much of the economy in the states that border the ocean/gulf. I don't think ocean front property anywhere along the Atlantic or Gulf is a good investment at present.
My guess is that much of the West is also going to lose significant population because of water issues. Aquifiers under the Great Basin, Arizona, and the Great Plains have been significantly depleted since WW II because growing populations and irrigation annually remove more water from the aquifiers than seeps back in from rainfall. There's not enough annual rainfall/snowmelt to support the population and agriculture that's already there even before the megadrought which is in about its 30th year. Western agriculture, which mostly cannot exist without irrigation, is going to be the first casualty, probably within the next few years, even if the drought conditions were to improve dramatically which seems unlikely. California will likely turn to desalinization to provide water for people but the Central Valley depends economically upon irrigated agriculture. As long as the megadrought continues, the threat of wildfires will also make life in California and other places in the West remain problematical.
Will these changes result in a resurrection of "the Rust Belt"? I think it's probable. I think that right now, the small upticks in population in Rust Belt cities/metros is probably being driven by their relatively low housing costs, but as climate change makes more popular areas less attractive economically and weather-wise, the small upticks are likely to grow into medium ones.
This is something I hear people up north say a lot. I think it may happen, but probably not in our life times. We aren't going to see a trend reversal anytime soon. After were dead, maybe so.
Climate change is a three-fold challenge:
1) Carbon reduction
2) Engineering
3) Economic
If any one of those three are not addressed were doomed to fail to fight it.
Overall people would rather be hot than cold. A Pew survey showed that about 60% of Americans prefer living in hot environments vs. 30% for cold. That makes a difference as well.
Hard to say.
I doubt the current issues surrounding weather will change things anytime soon.
My opinion: the weather patterns are going through a cycle. Droughts end. Floods subside.
These catastrophes have happened before. People will take a wait and see attitude.
Climate change? .... our little blip on the radar is too little to go on and most people seem to understand that regardless of their political beliefs. Some would rather not admit it.
No doubt there are people who are heading for the mountains or rushing to the Great Lakes to ride out impending doom, but they're still in the minority.
I like the rustbelt because it's cheap and it flies under the radar, not much of one to follow crowds. It also has a high quality of life for the most part outside of some inner-city areas.
Living near the lakes is great, but water security isn't why we do it. I'll admit it's comforting to some extent though, especially when reading about the rationing and regulations out west.
The south is still cheap outside the trendy areas. Until all the non-trendy becomes trendy and nothing else is affordable anymore, I don't expect people to move on from the sunbelt to the rustbelt to any great degree.
That could take a while, if it ever does happen.
The whole cold-hot thing seems more of a modern concern. Historically, people went where there were jobs and they could put food on the table.
Weather is one of the easier things to adapt to and deal with. It's not like there are a lot of true extremes in the lower 48 anyway. North Dakota? Southern Arizona? Mountaintops? Death Valley? No, the rustbelt is not on that list.
The rustbelt just needs to continue to focus on jobs and the economy, clean up the inner cities, reduce crime in those areas, and some states could restructure their taxes to make them more welcoming.
Till then, the success stories will be a mixed bag.
I think that there is going to be major population shifts in the next few decades as climate change makes parts of the US inhospitable or even more expensive than they are now.
I think the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts are going to take a major hit between sea level rise and more severe tropical storms. People may move inland, but that will likely significantly raise housing costs. It will probably start with the barrier islands that will either disappear or become uninhabitable, but I would not be surprised to see as much as a half mile or more of current coastal areas disappear or become salt marsh within 20 years in some areas. This loss is going to impact much of the economy in the states that border the ocean/gulf. I don't think ocean front property anywhere along the Atlantic or Gulf is a good investment at present.
My guess is that much of the West is also going to lose significant population because of water issues. Aquifiers under the Great Basin, Arizona, and the Great Plains have been significantly depleted since WW II because growing populations and irrigation annually remove more water from the aquifiers than seeps back in from rainfall. There's not enough annual rainfall/snowmelt to support the population and agriculture that's already there even before the megadrought which is in about its 30th year. Western agriculture, which mostly cannot exist without irrigation, is going to be the first casualty, probably within the next few years, even if the drought conditions were to improve dramatically which seems unlikely. California will likely turn to desalinization to provide water for people but the Central Valley depends economically upon irrigated agriculture. As long as the megadrought continues, the threat of wildfires will also make life in California and other places in the West remain problematical.
Will these changes result in a resurrection of "the Rust Belt"? I think it's probable. I think that right now, the small upticks in population in Rust Belt cities/metros is probably being driven by their relatively low housing costs, but as climate change makes more popular areas less attractive economically and weather-wise, the small upticks are likely to grow into medium ones.
Totally agree. Climate change and extreme politics as is happening in Texas and Florida, along with increased housing prices which made some of those areas that lack cultural amenities look good, none the less will eventually swing the pendulum north. Areas like Arizona simply cannot support continued growth, and areas like New Orleans cannot rebuild over and over again thinking that this will be the last time. The rust belt cities with Great Lakes water resources and existing infrastructure will begin to look good, and as you said, now are starting to grow again slowly, perhaps because of people there taking a second look at what cliff they are about to dive off of and move into.
Totally agree. Climate change and extreme politics as is happening in Texas and Florida, along with increased housing prices which made some of those areas that lack cultural amenities look good, none the less will eventually swing the pendulum north. Areas like Arizona simply cannot support continued growth, and areas like New Orleans cannot rebuild over and over again thinking that this will be the last time. The rust belt cities with Great Lakes water resources and existing infrastructure will begin to look good, and as you said, now are starting to grow again slowly, perhaps because of people there taking a second look at what cliff they are about to dive off of and move into.
A lot of people move to Texas and Florida for their politics, not in spite of them. Politics are a part of the equation, not just the warm weather. Liberals are too busy fawning over the next Austin to pack the rustbelt with growth. I don't see the next Austin being in the rustbelt just yet.
I like the purple of the rustbelt (...most days), but there's enough old-school liberalism here to make folks think twice. Pensions are pricey, and, uh, government "amenities" (whatever that is) don't come cheap. Thankfully the cheap real estate offsets the taxes for now.
Really it comes down to jobs and affordability for places like the rustbelt.
Totally agree. Climate change and extreme politics as is happening in Texas and Florida, along with increased housing prices which made some of those areas that lack cultural amenities look good, none the less will eventually swing the pendulum north. Areas like Arizona simply cannot support continued growth, and areas like New Orleans cannot rebuild over and over again thinking that this will be the last time.
Nah. Too much wishful thinking here.
Texas and Florida are growing at a fever pitch. They show no signs of slowing.
Pittsburgh has a world class anchor university with CMU. The University of Rochester is an anchor university almost as strong. Case Western in Cleveland is strong. I think that rust belt cities with top-50 universities will fare well. I’m not so optimistic about the rest of the rust belt. To compete in the 21st century global economy, you need to be able to create intellectual property. That’s normally universities and companies that form near those universities. So you can point at a few cities and think they have a pretty good shot. Everywhere else is at a competitive disadvantage because of the skill level of the workforce and the relative labor and business cost.
I may be incorrect but I think University of Buffalo is also a top. 50 (maybe top 60 school.
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.
