|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> demographics /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1363263060 Message started by WebsterMark on 03/14/13 at 05:10:59 |
|
Title: demographics Post by WebsterMark on 03/14/13 at 05:10:59 You can't stop this big ole' wheel from turning once it starts.... WASHINGTON (AP) -- A record number of U.S. counties - more than 1 in 3 - are now dying off, hit by an aging population and weakened local economies that are spurring young adults to seek jobs and build families elsewhere. New 2012 census estimates released Thursday highlight the population shifts as the U.S. encounters its most sluggish growth levels since the Great Depression. The findings also reflect the increasing economic importance of foreign-born residents as the U.S. ponders an overhaul of a major 1965 federal immigration law. Without new immigrants, many metropolitan areas such as New York, Chicago, Detroit, Pittsburgh and St. Louis would have posted flat or negative population growth in the last year. "Immigrants are innovators, entrepreneurs, they're making things happen. They create jobs," said Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican, at an immigration conference in his state last week. Saying Michigan should be a top destination for legal immigrants to come and boost Detroit and other struggling areas, Snyder made a special appeal: "Please come here." The growing attention on immigrants is coming mostly from areas of the Midwest and Northeast, which are seeing many of their residents leave after years of staying put during the downturn. With a slowly improving U.S. economy, young adults are now back on the move, departing traditional big cities to test the job market mostly in the South and West, which had sustained the biggest hits in the housing bust. Census data show that 1,135 of the nation's 3,143 counties are now experiencing "natural decrease," where deaths exceed births. That's up from roughly 880 U.S. counties, or 1 in 4, in 2009. Already apparent in Japan and many European nations, natural decrease is now increasingly evident in large swaths of the U.S., much of it rural. Despite increasing deaths, the U.S. population as a whole continues to grow, boosted by immigration from abroad and relatively higher births among the mostly younger migrants from Mexico, Latin America and Asia. "These counties are in a pretty steep downward spiral," said Kenneth Johnson, a senior demographer and sociology professor at the University of New Hampshire, who researched the findings. "The young people leave and the older adults stay in place and age. Unless something dramatic changes - for instance, new development such as a meatpacking plant to attract young Hispanics - these areas are likely to have more and more natural decrease." The areas of natural decrease stretch from industrial areas near Pittsburgh and Cleveland to the vineyards outside San Francisco to the rural areas of east Texas and the Great Plains. A common theme is a waning local economy, such as farming, mining or industrial areas of the Rust Belt. They also include some retirement communities in Florida, although many are cushioned by a steady flow of new retirees each year. In the last year, Maine joined West Virginia as the only two entire states where deaths exceed births, which have dropped precipitously after the recent recession. As a nation, the U.S. population grew by just 0.75 percent last year, stuck at historically low levels not seen since 1937. Johnson said the number of dying counties is rising not only because of fewer births but also increasing mortality as 70 million baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964 move into their older years. "I expect natural decrease to remain high in the future," he said. Among the 20 fastest-growing large metropolitan areas last year, 16 grew faster than in 2011 and most of them are located in previously growing parts of the Sun Belt or Mountain West. Among the slowest-growing or declining metropolitan areas, most are now doing worse than in 2011 and they are all located in the Northeast and Midwest. New York ranks tops in new immigrants among large metro areas, but also ranks at the top for young residents moving away. In contrast, the Texas metropolitan areas of Dallas, Houston and Austin continued to be big draws for young adults, ranking first, second and fourth among large metro areas in domestic migration due to diversified economies that include oil and gas production. Phoenix, Las Vegas and Orlando also saw gains. By region, growth in the Northeast slowed last year to 0.3 percent, the lowest since 2007; in the Midwest, growth dipped to 0.25 percent, the lowest in at least a decade. In the South and West, growth rates ticked up to 1.1 percent and 1.04 percent, respectively. "The brakes that were put on migration during the Great Recession appear to be easing up," said William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution who analyzed the migration data. "Native migrants are becoming more `footloose' - following the geographic ups and downs of the labor market - than are immigrants, who have tended to locate in established ethnic communities in big cities." "Immigration levels are not where they were a decade ago, but their recent uptick demonstrates the important safety valve they can be for areas with stagnating populations," he said. Mark Mather, an associate vice president at the Population Reference Bureau, noted that political efforts to downsize government and reduce federal spending could also have a significant impact on future population winners and losers. Since 2010, many of the fastest-growing U.S. metro areas have also been those that historically received a lot of federal dollars, including Fort Stewart, Ga., Jacksonville, N.C., Crestview, Fla., and Charleston-North Charleston, S.C., all home to military bases. Per-capita federal spending rose from about $5,300 among the fastest-growing metros from 2000 to 2010, to about $8,200 among the fastest-growing metros from 2011 to 2012. "Federal funding has helped many cities weather the decline in private sector jobs," Mather said. Other findings: -Roughly 46 percent of rural counties just beyond the edge of metropolitan areas experienced natural decrease, compared to 17 percent of urban counties. -As a whole, the population of non-metropolitan areas last year declined by 0.1 percent, compared with growth of 1 percent for large metro areas and 0.7 percent for small metropolitan areas. -In the last year, four metro areas reached population milestones: Los Angeles hit 13 million, Philadelphia reached 6 million, Las Vegas crossed 2 million and Grand Rapids, Mich., passed 1 million. -Chattahoochee County, Ga., home to Fort Benning, was the nation's fastest-growing county, increasing 10.1 percent in the last year. The census estimates are based on local records of births and deaths, Internal Revenue Service records of people moving within the United States and census statistics on immigrants. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by Dane Allen on 03/27/13 at 17:19:57 I want to read this over a couple more times before I dig in to it but it seems kinda Schizophrenic to me in that one section will say how the young are following the economy, which is great in conservative regions and yet the liberal regions need all these immigrants to replace the people they chased away with their failed liberal policies. The article seems to be pushing the pro-illegal alien perspective while simultaneously undercutting it's own argument. Better stop here and go back over it, there is a lot of meat in there ;D |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/27/13 at 18:45:16 WAIT! Do NOT go in there unprepared! I recommend toothpicks & dental floss be packed in your away bag before launching this expedition.. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by Dane Allen on 03/27/13 at 19:33:54 716E686F72754474447C6E62291B0 wrote:
;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 03/28/13 at 07:34:44 Younger adults today are just more mobile. Perhaps the ease, and relatively low cost of transportation may have something to do with it. I grew up in Columbus, OH. After college, and returning from the Army, I came back home to attend law school, and have stayed in the Columbus area all of my life. I often say that had I known at age 25 what I know now, I'd have settled in California, Texas, or maybe Arizona. But back then in the early 1970s, when airline fares were very expensive, had I left Ohio, I would have seen my family maybe once every 2 or 3 years; not 2 or 3 times a year like people can do now. With today's cheap airfares, especially if purchased well in advance of a trip, ordinary people look at a trip across the country like we looked at a trip from one state away from home back 40 years ago. Why would an educated young adult today want to stay in some urban area where employment is declining, the weather is horrible 1/2 of the year, and there seems to be few prospects for better times when a sunny climate and great economy, like Texas for instance, is very attractive? Just a thought to explain migration, and population migration has almost always followed to where the jobs are, and life looks a lot better. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by Dane Allen on 03/28/13 at 08:24:47 48474B414A474C404750454750220 wrote:
That is an excellent point at the end there about people following jobs and a better life. Southern California has great weather, coastal attractions, amusements and an established retail environment but people have been clawing their way out of California for at least three years now and the reason is government mismanagement, high taxes and fees and job scarcity. What bothers me is that liberals believe that to solve this problem they just need to bring in more illegal aliens, first to take the jobs that "nobady wants" and now to live in the places "nobody wants" to live. The state is collapsing and Texas is booming and it is clear as day as to why. I have a great job but I am always reminded how at risk it is and am living day to day under the attituded that I am blessed to have a job at all so I better not complain about anything. We are laying off about 20% of our workforce so maybe I could be next. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by oldNslow on 03/28/13 at 08:53:54 Dane, Change Southern California to New York in your post, and leave out the part about the nice weather, and you're talking about where I live. My son actually stayed here when he graduated from college (Got a terriffic job) but he talks about leaving all the time. The north west corner of NY is WAY better than the rest of the state right now, but it's slowly sliding into the abyss of Albany and NYC. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by Dane Allen on 03/28/13 at 09:38:13 5866676B7965640A0 wrote:
That is really too bad and after reading this it sparked a thought on what Jerry said earlier about "Young adults today are just more mobile". I think people have always been mobile, it is the incentive to exercise that mobility that changes over time and by circumstance. I like to see new places and have lived in Washington, Nevada and California and I would love to experience Texas as I would some other States but I had no real reason to do so until now. I am to the point that if I get laid off from my current job I won't even bother looking for work in California. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by Paraquat on 03/28/13 at 11:07:21 It would probably be the kick I need to leave CT. ...but this is my home. I know these roads... Or if they pass any silly 2nd amendment encroaching bills. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by srinath on 03/28/13 at 13:07:00 1D38373C1835353C37590 wrote:
Yea, except texas is none of those things, and man is it even worse off to be filled with illegals. I've lived in both states CA and TX, TX has way more illegals as a percentage. Nothing is right with texas that is wrong with CA ... except, the oil boom has benifitted TX and they have been able to glaze over all the issues. BTW lots of west texas towns are into wind power of late. East texas is oil. Houston (where I lived) is a split town. East houston is a forest, west is a desert, the ship channel is really bad for people with breathing problems. Commutes in Houston will rival the worst of CA mile for mile, and motorcycles dont help, cos you cant lane split. You can use the HOV center lane, just follow a bus. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/28/13 at 13:19:29 As usual, sri hasnt a clue. Texas population is growing as the people abandon the "Liberal Utopias" that have been decimated by the lefty lawmaking,Sadly, theyre bringing the philosophy that destroyed their home with them., OUr taxes are more business friendly, so we are seeing growth in areas other than just oilfield. Longview constantly amazes me. Driving around, construction, construction. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 03/28/13 at 13:29:36 JOG - I noticed that he doesn't know, but I've quit responding to him as it's pointless. Dallas is also booming - I was there all last week. Every high class restaurant to which we went with clients was full. Dallas may well be my favorite city, but for the heat for the 3 hot months of the summer. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/28/13 at 13:48:31 Im waiting for his reply to a post someone else made. Should he fail to provide links to facts that support his claims I will cease to even REad his posts & should he reply to a post I will not respond. He will soon become 100% invisible to me unless he mans up & shows some actual facts that his claims & opinions are based on. Sadly, IM sure the NRA has managed to eliminate from the WWW all supporting documentation that he would otherwise provide. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by bill67 on 03/28/13 at 14:03:54 Texas is a great state for illegal Mexicans ,they get a free collage education.They don't worry about the people who have paid taxes for years. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/28/13 at 16:32:12 Free? REally, Bill? Care to show that one? I will agree that they get In State costs on tuition,, but FREE? If the education you speak of is being taught enough to pass the GED & enough English to pass the citizenship test,, ehh,, I dont care,, let them,, If someone will assimilate I welcome them. If theyre here to plop out babies & get a welfare check, they can leave, |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by WD on 03/28/13 at 17:36:32 JOG, you sure you aren't talking about where I live? Walls MS is mostly Mexican, Raleigh/Frayser TN are getting there, Cordova TN goes back and forth from white to black to Mexican... with the Mexicans popping out anchor babies as fast as they can. Local INS/ICE finally said to hell with it and is trying to chase all the Sikhs, Hmongs, Ethiopians, Somalis and Slavs back to Seattle WA and Vancouver BC. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by WebsterMark on 03/28/13 at 17:47:17 Just missed you Jerry; I'll be in Dallas all next week. Was there a month or two ago also. I'm like you, I like Dallas, but like you said, it's hot sometimes. i was there either last year or the year before when they were going for their record 100 days over 100 or something like that. They missed it by a day. Hotel blew a transformer and it was 110 in the rooms and no elevators. Beer was cold however, they brought in ice. Give the Texans this; they got their priorities straight!... |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by Dane Allen on 03/29/13 at 13:07:17 66797F7865625363536B79753E0C0 wrote:
Well, I gave it the ole college try and have come up short. You can't have any kind of meaningful discussion when all parties aren't able to make themselves open to reason. There is just no benefit to a one sided effort to have a learning moment, so this goes now, for me, as well. :( |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/29/13 at 15:35:56 Jerry warned me weeks ago. I thot if I just gave it more effort & posed some ideas,,,, but, no.,. brick wall,, |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by bill67 on 03/29/13 at 16:14:41 5C4345425F5869596951434F04360 wrote:
No free college educations,It came up in the republican debates with the Texas governor,That one reason Texas is growing fast,It Mexican growth. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by Dane Allen on 03/29/13 at 16:20:29 252E2B2B7170470 wrote:
No free college educations,It came up in the republican debates with the Texas governor,That one reason Texas is growing fast,It Mexican growth.[/quote] Hi Bill, in looking back I probably should have specified I was talking economic growth, if you are responding to something I said. If not, nevermind. Yes, it illegal population is growing there too but I don't believe the State is embracing it like California is. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by WD on 03/29/13 at 17:41:28 Or Washington, Seattle and Bellingham are "sanctuary cities". Or were when I was out there. Mostly for Mexicans, Africans, Slavs and Asians. No western Europeans allowed... well, it sure seemed that way... and it was basically against the law to be anything other than a bleeding heart... |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/29/13 at 18:39:33 This place is sure gonna get quieter with "that guy" not being the center of attention..But,, theres always Bill. Of course, once he gets enough heat, he will make tracks back to the cafe. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by srinath on 03/29/13 at 20:28:30 514E484F52556454645C4E42093B0 wrote:
I lived in Houston for 6 months in 2008-2009. I actually liked houston, my wife could not stand it, and I was not impressed with the schooling for special needs - apparently we were not in spring branch school district so we were screwed ... or something like that. Texas population is growing cos there are many many illegals, who are having anchor babies. You see they have anchor babies @ nearly 3X the rate @ which white americans have babies, so a 3X growth rate just from that ... Anyway I didn't post this thread cos I never read the original post ... However to be really fair, we need to kick all the illegals and their anchor babies out, and replace them with people who have helped our troops on the ground in Iraq and afghanisthan. You see they ahve already sacrificed by being our true friends, not broken any laws, kept a lot of soldiers alive and in effect still have babies at the same rates. Anyway I still didn't read the first post. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by WebsterMark on 03/30/13 at 05:43:59 here's another interesting number: Over half the babies born to mothers under 30 are now "illegitimate" (to use a quaintly judgmental formulation). For the first three-and-a-half centuries of American settlement the bastardy rate (to be even quainter) was a flat line in the basement of the graph, stuck at 2 or 3 percent all the way to the eve of the Sixties. Today over 40 percent of American births are "nonmarital," which is significantly higher than in Canada or Germany. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by WebsterMark on 03/30/13 at 05:48:08 ..and here's where it all leads to... The most reliable constituency for Big Government is single women, for whom the state is a girl's best friend, the sugar daddy whose checks never bounce. A society in which a majority of births are out of wedlock cannot be other than a Big Government welfare society. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by srinath on 03/30/13 at 07:36:07 I'm afraid you're right webster. But I'd like to separate the anchor baby numbers from the american numbers and yes even the american numbers are higher. However a social trend tends to spread. If you see unwed people (illegal or not) having babies, you lose the "stigma". Worse yet if its someone prominent ... That is one reason I am against giving illegals anything. I'd toss em all out. There is a few million people wanting to take their place who are waiting, and atleast that many in countries we are "fighting the insurgency" - based on lies or not, those soldiers have put themselves on the line, and so have the locals people who have embeded with them. Its easy to "insinuate" yourself into someone's life when you have proximity. My son plays with several of our neighbors ... white, black, catholic, protestant etc etc ... I can easily see a day when it gets to be a lot more than a play date. That will easily lead to someone's "values" getting altered. If your "values" include sneaking across the border and hiding from the authorities, or having babies out of wedlock without a job or any way to earn yourself a living - there it will be your new family value. I wanted to open a baby food company, and my logo will be an anchor. I'll sell Anchor Baby food. Mostly tortillas and beans. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by Dane Allen on 03/30/13 at 08:49:00 063433222534231C30233A510 wrote:
And this is just a marker on the road to total decline.This is the cancer of socialism/liberalism/marxism and the damage it has on societies. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by srinath on 03/31/13 at 04:53:46 76535C57735E5E575C320 wrote:
And this is just a marker on the road to total decline.This is the cancer of socialism/liberalism/marxism and the damage it has on societies.[/quote] Yes and coming right on the heels of the cancer of Runaway crony capitalism/oligarchism/robber baronism its like getting 2 cancers on top of each other. And it still beats europe's austerity (AKA - Your smaller govt agenda) and the imminent collapse of that system. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by srinath on 03/31/13 at 06:30:19 0F3D3A2B2C3D2A15392A33580 wrote:
Well I guess the wife beaters and other abusers of women and children need to be rewarded. I didn't realize they were a core republicon demographic. PS: Since I've been told I am rather incomprehensible ( and the fact that this message was very cryptic and covered in sarcasm) ... you need to separate intent from fraud and abuse. The intent of the provision to put single women and with children on welfare was to get them to safety from an abusive husband. The fraud and intent is where they spit out babies and put in the sort of excuses that we saw in that other post few weeks ago about who their baby daddy was. Here is the killer news for you guys though ... these welfare queens are far more in red states vs blue. Look it up. The inflow in the form of welfare vs the federal taxes collected - the top 10 are red states. Once again - intent vs abuse. Good and evil man. And before blaming the democrats for the "welfare state" keep in mind the welfare queens are all republicon states. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by WebsterMark on 03/31/13 at 10:37:42 I don't believe that so you're going to have to prove it. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by srinath on 03/31/13 at 11:38:56 0B393E2F28392E113D2E375C0 wrote:
Oowww geez this again - didn't star or serowbot post this 2-3 months ago. Anyway this didn't take too long to find - The site: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union In that is a color chart by state. Black or dark blue/grey is ones where they send a lot of $$$ and get very little back. NY, CT, NJ, DE, MA, WA, NH, CA and surprise TX. The red/pink is where they suck $$$ and dont send nothing back. Obviously WV, MS, AL, NM, ND, SD, MT are all the big red states ... Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by WebsterMark on 03/31/13 at 13:56:02 Aren't the two states with largest upside down numbers Virginia and Maryland? |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by srinath on 03/31/13 at 17:10:58 784A4D5C5B4A5D624E5D442F0 wrote:
Not even close - 9th worst and 11th worst. Its the fact that govt employees paychecks in some cases get into the numbers. If you look actually WA., DC is the worst. Possibly the same reason. I guess working for the govt your whole paycheck is a hand out :D. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by WebsterMark on 03/31/13 at 17:27:58 am I reading this wrong? Maryland took in 1,038 billion and spent 1,604 for a difference of 573 billion Virginia took in 848 and spent 1.441 for a difference of 592 billion. Aren’t’ these far and away the two largest? |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by srinath on 03/31/13 at 18:48:48 754740515647506F435049220 wrote:
They dont rank but 9th worst and 11th as a percentage of GDP. That is state GDP. See California had a surplus of 1,849 billion but is 15th or so on the list. Those numbers in VA and MD are also skewed by the fact that all the Washington DC govt lives there. DE is an anamoly - its the top of that list. Guess the freeloaders live in VA and MD but right over the border DE is all milk and honey. Oooo DE is the headquarters of a lot of banking giants. Some bogus loophole in their tax code lets them charge something - I dont recall now, dont ask me to prove it. The surprises in that list are nevada - I guess gambling pays off for the feds too, and Michigan and rhode island ? how is that state blue, all I've heard about Michigan is rust and death. Same with RI. Maybe its got worse since 09. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by WebsterMark on 04/01/13 at 04:45:39 I think my point would be that adding those two together makes up for a lot of those ‘backward’ Red States and secondly, you’d be hard pressed to call either Virginia or Maryland hardcore red or blue states. I think the original point, which any reasonable person would tend to agree with, is you can’t have demographic shifts and not have corresponding effects elsewhere. If more and more children are born to single households, there will be a change in society. You can’t get around that fact. Good or bad is up to debate, but there will be a change. Right now, the current administration seems to push policy changes / benefits that make this change easier to deal with. I’d rather see these shifts harder to deal with. Having a baby out of wedlock will never carry the stigma it once did, which is too bad, but at least we shouldn’t increase government safety nets further than they already are. (makes for a handy voter base for democrats come November however….) Now Sirnath, you should do yourself a favor and shut up on this topic for a couple days and see if a few others will weigh in with their opinions. You comment on practically every single post and honestly, if most people are like me, when they open the tall table up and see your name on every topic, they shut down and go elsewhere. I know I do. Give some people space to breath. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by Dane Allen on 04/01/13 at 09:53:33 4B797E6F68796E517D6E771C0 wrote:
And I think the article misses several points, the largest being government mismanagement is driving a lot of the migration and illegal immigration isn't a saving grace. Quote:
I've never liked how government likes to get in the way. Quote:
And there it is, the impetus behind the whole debacle, the "I will give you stuff with other people's money if you vote for me" mentality of government and the "I want what that rich guy has but I don't want to do any of the work or take any of the risk the rich guy did" kind of envy that the welfare recipients are encouraged to believe. Quote:
Nuff said. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by srinath on 04/01/13 at 20:34:11 6D5F58494E5F48775B48513A0 wrote:
Not with you 2 windbags re hashing every thing over and over in the hopes that people have forgotten what happened last week. Maybe they see your or Dane allen and say jeez, I dont want to post in this republicon thread ... I may just have a larger stink tolerance. Anyway Percentage of GDP is what we normalise things to, or per capita, or per sq mile. The reason VA and MD is pink is that our federal govt lives there. WA DC is blood red BTW - I dont know where I saw that. The anamoly is DE. I believe that is cos credit card companies are based there so they can charge interest rates that make your eyes bleed ... Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: demographics Post by WebsterMark on 04/02/13 at 19:57:01 guess that answers that... |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |