Steady Staten (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 09, 2024, 03:53:38 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 100% pro-life no matter what)
  Steady Staten (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Steady Staten  (Read 4391 times)
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


« on: September 30, 2016, 07:59:32 PM »

The same is true for the collar counties of Cook in IL. DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will have all grown in every Census since 1840. McHenry is down by 0.5% since 2010, so the string might be broken this decade.

Do you think that's really true though?  McHenry grew by almost 20% in the 2000s.  It's hard to believe it's lost population, especially with the economy picking back up.

The loss of the suburban tax base is the unspoken cause of much of the impasse in IL. Kendall's growth rate is one tenth of what it was in the last decade. McHenry lost about 600 people from 2010 to 2015. The collars are where the tax base lives, without its growth the state cannot sustain the growth of its schools, roads, and social safety net.
I wouldn't say "loss of suburban tax base"... loss of momentum.  Illinois has been under investing in its infrastructure for a while... instead revenues brought in by new growth were being invested into already existing, ongoing expenses.  Which is a mighty stupid thing to do.

As soon as the music stopped back in 2008, Illinois was left with 10 players and 9 chairs.  And now Illinois has 9 chairs, but about 25 chairs worth of deferred maintenance and infrastructure investments to make in order to make living in the state worth it.  

So, a lot of Illinois' problems are, yes, a lack of growth... but that's not a death knell unless the politicians have been mismanaging things.  And I can see why Muon might be reluctant to admit that Wink

I don't think things in the U.S. will be all that different than places in Europe with populations that have aged earlier and faster than us (thus providing a general picture of where things are headed).

The inner cities are the most desirable... and in the case of Japan or Germany... are the only places where a viable real estate market as we  know it continues to exist.  Most of the rest of Germany, for example, is full of vacant properties with bargain basement prices and almost no chance of being sold.

This has happened in rural areas for a long time.  But rather than start in the inner city and fan outward... it will creep inward from the edges.  The exurbs and outer suburbs will stagnate and decline slowly and people who own houses there will have a hard time selling them.  As the kids graduate off and move out... you'll see inevitable abandonment of homes as the parents living there can't sell and want something smaller closer in.  Others will be "stuck".

It's an inevitable, sad, long process that won't be reversed unless

1)  People start moving to Illinois
2)  People have more babies that stay in Illinois

I doubt either will happen in any meaningful way.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2016, 12:47:46 AM »

JimrTex.. You might have better access than I do to county level population data.  (I have to check them on wikipedia individually).

I wonder what counties have had the longest stretch of declining population.

In Minnesota it looks to be Kittson County in the far NW.  It has lost population in 9 of the past 10 censuses.  It actually last grew in the 1930s, regaining the population it had lost in the 1920s. 

But there must be counties that lost in every census since before 1920.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2016, 08:46:44 PM »

JimrTex.. You might have better access than I do to county level population data.  (I have to check them on wikipedia individually).

I wonder what counties have had the longest stretch of declining population.

In Minnesota it looks to be Kittson County in the far NW.  It has lost population in 9 of the past 10 censuses.  It actually last grew in the 1930s, regaining the population it had lost in the 1920s. 

But there must be counties that lost in every census since before 1920.
Population of States and Counties of the United States: 1790 to 1990

I have the print version (available as PDF) at above. If you use the PDF file, be sure to also get the Errata. But there are also Excel/ASCII files. What is particularly useful is that it has formation histories.

I have been using Wikipedia for 2000 and 2010 and 2015 estimates.

Maine: Aroostook since 1960 (32.8% loss 1960-2010)

New Hampshire: Coos since 1980

Massachusetts: Berkshire since 1970

Thank you for the link!  I'll take a look.  It would seem that Kittson county is one of the longest losing counties.  In fact, I'd wager the longest losing is somewhere on the plains or deep south.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 12 queries.