Here’s what you’ll learn when you read this story:
- By studying population trends and forecasting models, researchers have come to believe that nearly 15,000 U.S. cities will face noticeable depopulation by 2100.
- Populated areas of the cities in question could experience a decline of up to 44 percent.
- Projections call for the biggest drops in city populations to occur in the Northeast and Midwest.
Total lack of social/ecoomic context as I’d expect from PM.
But sociology and economics are soft sciences, so obviously it’s pointless to use and never reflects reality. Unlike physics and engineering, where if it works on paper it will always work for real /s
Yeah, I really wonder about the mentality of people that would read that article and not wonder “what’s actually going on.” Like shit just kinda happens and we measure it when it does?
Sounds like the USA needs more immigration.
The USA has plenty of immigration, they just choose to not live where all these towns are depopulating. No one can figure out why.
/S
Two men were standing under a tree when it began to rain. One said to the other, “good thing this tree will keep us dry.”
“But what happens when the treek is soaked, and it can no longer keep us dry?” Asked the second.
“Don’t worry,” said the first, “we’re in a forest. We’ll just run to another tree.”
I long to join them by moving to Canada.
The US is also suffering from a low fertility rate, at 1.79 (population replacement rate is 2.1), which we made up for in the 20th century by lots of immigration.
(This is one of the factors that informs the great replacement myth, as non-whites approach outnumbering whites in the US. A vocal minority sees this as a bad thing, especially since whites tend to vote Republican and Blacks tend to vote Democrat).
I find it odd and fascinating that the ownership class is terrified by the notion of a lowering population – babies allegedly grow up to be workers after all – but are not willing to pass policy to support child rearing, and depend entirely on tradwife propaganda and restricting contraception access and abortion access.
It’s especially a problem since our economy is based entirely on growth, with lots of young people providing support for elders.
The US is not unique with this problem. South Korea, Japan and Italy (actually the whole EU) also have low rates and are trying to implement changes to improve fertility, and so far to little effect.
They want more babies, but don’t want to pay anything for it, hence the laws restricting contraception and no support that would potentially increase taxes.
But, the question is, why do they want us to have more babies? And, yes, I mean even specifically white babies. They’re hell-bent on replacing workers with machines. More angry people banging at the mansion door seems like a bad idea.
I don’t think billionaires are particularly smart.
I live in a city that 10 years ago was losing population and nowadays it’s growing in population.
I honestly preferred ot better when it was losing pops.
Eternal growth is unsustainable
50,000 people used to live here… Now, it’s a ghost town
What I don’t understand is that the most desirable areas (home price, population growth) in the US are also very prone to natural disasters: floods in Carolinas, fires in S California, hurricanes in Florida, extreme heat in Texas and the southwest. Meanwhile, Great Lakes / rust belt area does not get many disasters, still has seasons, has access to fresh water, and yet, cities/areas populations are slowly decreasing or staying flat.
As someone who loved living in the Midwest, the severity of the winters are usually enough to scare people off. And it got kinda muggy in the summer.
I’d love to end up there, as I didn’t mind the weather, but I also worked from home and didn’t have to go outside more than when I wanted to.
This is probably a good thing, it’s more efficient if people live within larger municipal areas closer to amenities. It’s very inefficient if we have small towns everywhere that need their own supplies. I’m not saying we should all live in one massive city, just that at scale, things become more accessible to people.
It was unsustainable without a lot of forethought and planning.
And they’ll still have more representation due to our antiquated electoral college
I live in a city and it sucks and I cannot wait to get back to the burbs. I don’t live in downtown, so it is not walkable, despite it being a dense area. So I pay more, own less, and do less than if I was back in the burbs. I have no idea why anyone over the age of 25 wants to live in a city. I cannot fathom being an elderly person living in a city. How do you put up with that? I absolutely cannot stand it. I’m glad I tried it, because now I know for sure how much I despise it. I’m not even 30 yet.
The problem with cities is exactly the reason I’d want to move there: cars. I don’t want to be tied to cars, car payments, car traffic, car repairs. The only way to get out of that is to move to the city, where I can walk, ride, or take public transit.
Problem: I’m always constantly less than 5 feet away from a fucking road and fucking cars in a city, I hear them when I’m awake and when I’m asleep–there is no escaping cars in a city.
Reality: I’d rather be in a car than next to one if those are my only two options.
We need to get cars the fuck out of cities and give people real choices.
Your usage of city and their usage of city differs.
They are talking about cities like Cameron with a declining population not even hitting 1,000.
That’s a very unconventional use of the word “city”.
Yeah, I don’t know what defines a city. I’m guessing each state has it’s own definition based on population.
I’d personally call less than 1,000 a village.
Varies by jurisdiction.
In the US a lot of places are defined by the structure of the government rather than anything to do with their size.
Obviously below “subway” population levels, which is the only place I’d want to live. Because life with a subway is awesome; and life without rail transit is abysmal.
I live on the edge of urban/suburban in a small city and absolutely love it. 10 minutes to bike into downtown, tons and tons of businesses and job opportunities, and just a much better community atmosphere. Anytime I go into more suburban/exurban areas, it’s downright depressing at this point knowing that it takes 5 minutes in a car to get to literally anything that’s not another identical house.
The less Americans there are the better.
are you calling us fat
Canadian says dumb shit, more at 11
I mean, with 54% ‘barely literate’, there’s a pot-kettle issue coming.
Brother literacy rates in Canada aren’t doing so hot either.
they must all be coming to Seattle. The city council here worships the gods of Density, and bends over backwards to give density developers anything they want. Den-sit-tee! Den-sit-tee! No escaping that for me!
silence landlord
me? I’m no landlord I just get to live with moar density. Most of my favorite restaurants are gone because their rents doubled, and donuts at one of the new places are $5. Yay, density!
