2012 July 23 Monday
Fastest Growing American Cities Poorer
America's lower classes are growing more rapidly than its upper classes. Anyone care to state obvious reasons why?
Los Angeles, CA (July 19, 2012) As communities seek new ways to emerge from the recession, many may look to growing their population as a strategy. However, the belief that population growth will bring jobs and economic prosperity for local residents is a myth. These findings are published in a new study in the latest issue of Economic Development Quarterly (published by SAGE).
"Growth may be associated with economic development success; however, it is not the cause of that success," wrote study author Eben Fodor.
Fodor examined the relationship between growth and economic prosperity in the 100 largest U.S. metropolitan areas from 2000 to 2009 to determine whether certain benefits commonly attributed to growth are supported by statistical data. He found that the slowest-growing metro areas had lower unemployment rates, lower poverty rates, higher income levels, and were less impacted by the recession than the fastest-growing areas. In fact, in 2009, local residents of slower-growing areas averaged $8,455 more per capita in personal income than those of the fastest-growing areas.
"The successful economic development program is typically the one that creates new jobs," Fodor wrote. "The new jobs tend to stimulate population growth as people move into the area seeking to take advantage of the new employment opportunities … But growth is not creating employment opportunities. Instead it is reducing them as newcomers fill job openings."
This new study used information taken from the U.S. Census to study 100 of the largest metro areas, representing 66% of the total U.S. population. It concluded with a comparison of the 25 slowest-growing metro areas with the 25 fastest growing from 2000 to 2009. The slowest growing areas were located in 13 different states, including Connecticut, New York, and Ohio while the fastest-growing areas came from 12 different states, dominated by California, Florida, and Texas.
I predict declining per capita income in the US in the coming years.
Why doesn't the US create new cities from scratch, like China does?
Here in California, we've just made existing population centers less pleasant to live in.
Building a new city from scratch would create a lot of jobs, and save people from having to spend 4 hours each day commuting to work in a needlessly overpopulated urban center.
"Why doesn't the US create new cities from scratch, like China does?"
Because there's no money to build new cities.
Amazing, this issue has been fully explored, with the same conclusions, repeatedly, since at least the late 1960s. Academics began writing about it prior to WW I. The causes of the continual problem are not obscure: our industrial material culture, human nature, and a market economy.
Mthson, to answer your question, we don't do it by mandate, as you suggest, because we are not yet, completely, a totalitarian state. However, the phenomenon does exist. Examples would be the greater Los Angeles area, Las Vegas Obviously, it solves nothing. The paradigm of continual growth only leads to a dead end.
Britain created many new Brasilia-style planned cities from scratch in the 1960s--like Milton Keynes, and Britain was not and is not a totalitarian state.
>>Why doesn't the US create new cities from scratch, like China does?
In addition to chewing up what little is left of our natural wilderness and rural landscape the new cities will turn out just like the old ones have. Garbage in, garbage out.
• "Obviously, it solves nothing. The paradigm of continual growth only leads to a dead end."
But the growth is here anyway; it's just added onto existing cities, reducing quality of life and artificially inflating living expenses. Better to shift that growth to new cities.
• "In addition to chewing up what little is left of our natural wilderness and rural landscape the new cities will turn out just like the old ones have. Garbage in, garbage out."
So surround cities with national parks, as has been done around San Francisco and Santa Cruz, and create new cities beyond that green belt. People then get to experience more wilderness because it's nearby.
Our cities are only garbage because we've been adding endless amounts of unskilled workers, instead of building new cities for them.
Mthson wrote> "Why doesn't the US create new cities from scratch, like China does?"
So what kind of cities should there be Mthson? Cities without unskilled workers? Is that it? You don't want garbage collectors, brick layers or dishwashers? Do you want to separate unskilled workers in other cities???? Sounds a little Nazi to me.
After you put all those "unskilled workers" in "their cities" why don't we then continue with cities for Blacks, cities for Hispanics, cities for homosexuals, cities for criminals, cities for white criminals, cities for fat ones. How about cities for dumb teenagers?
Where should you be "put" Mthson?
Mthson, your ideas are childish. Get real.
>"surround cities with national parks, as has been done around San Francisco and Santa Cruz, and create new cities beyond that green belt. People then get to experience more wilderness because it's nearby."
The problem with our existing cities is not a lack of wilderness nearby. The problem is that the new Americans, whose numbers are growing rapidly, are less productive than the old ones. You can't fix that with a trip to Yosemite.
Liberals don't like Singapore (probably the nicest city on Earth) because it proves that conservatism (orderly societies) can work far better than liberalism (everybody should do whatever they feel like).
• "Your ideas are childish. Get real."
It's worth it to look at what works well in China and Singapore. Policies like creating intentional cities aren't as dependent on HBD (human biodiversity) as things like academic performance.
• "The problem is that the new Americans, whose numbers are growing rapidly, are less productive than the old ones."
Yes, but why add them onto existing cities, turning them into garbage dumps? I'd rather they live in their own city 50 miles south. We do that already a tiny bit in San Francisco.
There's order, and then there's order. The order of the police state is not the order of conservatism.
>"liberalism (everybody should do whatever they feel like)"
Do what they feel like as long as what they feel like is what liberalism believes they should feel like. Liberalism does not believe people should own guns and go to (a Christian) church, regardless of how people feel about the matter.
1. Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)is a political ideology or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
2. Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal. Modern liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment. From: http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Liberalism
See Mthson, the word Liberalism has a real meaning, even if it's a broad one. It is not about doing whatever you feel like as you childishly believe. I think you confuse the terms Liberal with Anarchist or perhaps Liberal with Spoiled Brat. I don't see how anybody could like or dislike Singapore -or any other city- simply by being a liberal or a conservative. My advise would be not to try to guess what a Liberal might like.
How can we ever agree on what is good for us if we don't even know the meaning, implication and reach of words?
I assume Mthson is using "liberal" in the modern sense, which does not have much to do with what it meant two hundred years ago. These days "liberal" means something rather like "totalitarian socialist who wants the state to regulate all aspects of peoples lives".
In other news, announcing that "I feel gay" will not typically be taken to mean "I am happy, cheerful, joyful" in the year 2012.
Did someone take the name Britain in vain? No, i would not call the UK a totalitarian state, now that you mention it. However, it is as close to being a totalitarian state as I would ever want to visit. Two of my close friends won't book a flight that even stops over in the UK, and they are the expat British ones. If you want out, while you still can, i would suggest Portugal, you'll like it better, but i don't think you can get on the "dole" there.
It seems to me that the only thing of value that Milton Keynes has produced is Donna Ewin. It is interesting to compare it to Brasilia in the sense that it also enjoys a Brazilian level of criminal violence. I wonder it that was in the plan. In any case, it is certainly not a solution to any problem that i can think of.
"I assume Mthson is using "liberal" in the modern sense, which does not have much to do with what it meant two hundred years ago. These days "liberal" means something rather like "totalitarian socialist who wants the state to regulate all aspects of peoples lives"."
No, not really. I also checked Zamman's definitions on Wiki and that's what I got. It is not two hundred years old, and that is simply because Wikipedia did not exist two hundred years ago. In fact Wiki's definition provided by Zamman is pretty updated an accurate on what it is generally understood by liberal or liberalism, so I'll stick to that one. Therefore it makes more sense than the "totalitarian socialist who wants the state to regulate all aspects of peoples lives" definition.
Solaris "definition" of liberal, #if we could dignify it with such a term# is not really a definition. It s a phrase rather loaded with emotion and bias. Solaris has never read #or understood# Marx or any other Socialist writer. He still believes that Socialism means Stalinism. He doesn't know that today, France's president is Socialist, just as Miterrand was back in the 80s; Felipe Gonzalez in Spain, and most of the presidents in Sweden back in the 70's, and neither one of them was a "totalitarian socialist who wants the state to regulate all aspects of peoples lives".
Let's get real.
Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterised by social ownership and cooperative management of the means of production, and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them. They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organised within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.
A socialist economic system would consist of an organisation of production to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital, and accounting would be based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time. Distribution of output would be based on the principle of individual contribution.
As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism. Libertarian socialism proposes the traditional view of direct worker's control of the means of production and opposes the use of state power to achieve such an arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership over the means of production. Democratic socialism seeks to establish socialism through democratic processes and propagate its ideals within the context of a democratic system. And so on
"It's worth it to look at what works well in China and Singapore."
I didn't know China was very conservative. Last I heard they still called themselves socialist.
re: "Called themselves socialist."
Think about it, though.
• Builds skyscrapers in 15 hours, instead of 10 years, because they preference the well-being of humans over tadpoles.
• Rational death penalty for corruption and other crimes.
• No endless low-IQ immigration. This is the biggest one because it affects everything: academic performance, crime rates, medical outcomes, no money for modern high-speed rail etc., fragmentation of society, and so on).
Most of the features of Chinese society that work better than the West are conservative features.
"Why doesn't the US create new cities from scratch, like China does?"
The U.S. has long had a program (let's call it "Detroitification") to build new cities and it HAS built thousands of new cities from scratch in America since the 1960s, with the concurrent reduction in many old city populations. Hasn't seemed to have made any improvements to the old cities for some reason, though.
Funny that Americans now look up to the Chinese, while back in the eighties it was only despise. Perhaps what Americans need to do is get rid of all those good-for-nothing wall streeties and get back to real productive work.
idiot: it's not immigration but the policy of you WASP bastards who spent 2 trillion dollars on stealing asian mineral and oil reserves thats the problem. with the 2 trillion you'd have cities on mars by now!
"it's not immigration but the policy of you WASP bastards who spent 2 trillion dollars on stealing asian mineral and oil reserves thats the problem. with the 2 trillion you'd have cities on mars by now!"
Lovely, Faruq. Are you using "WASP bastards" here the way they use "Scots-Irish" over at Steve Sailer's site, i.e., to refer to Jews?
Cities aren't built from scratch because it takes far too much planning to get a city right; and to build them you have to have a workforce; and to have a workforce you have to have someplace nearby to house them and provide for the needs of them and their families; and those places are usually referred to as "cities." Where I live we just opened a major downtown mall. The mall cost $1.5 billion to build. A *mall*. How much capital would you need to build an entire city, and where would you get it? What would any business stand to gain from building it? It's far cheaper and more efficient for cities to grow naturally.
Randall, declining income is masked by inflation, of course. But the phenomenon we see, of young adults in their 20s living with their parents longer, is proof that it's already happening. These young adults will be further happy to know that time spent living with their parents will be extended on the other end of their lives, as well, as aging parents move in with them to make up for shortfalls in their 401(k)s and now non-existent pensions. There is a lot of logic in this: we always needed to be more frugal than we were. It was always silly to believe that a 23-year-old could raise enough money for a house while at the same time paying a large fraction of his/her income in rent.
People aren't widgets; we aren't interchangeable. But the government has treated its *citizens* exactly as that. If it wants more widgets it imports more, even though a "widget" maufactured in Mexico or El Salvador is both more expensive and has more defects than a widget made in, say, Omaha. In the space of 240 years Americans have gone from being treated as subjects, to citizens, to consumers/producers - i.e., a slightly nicer form of serfdom. Our job is to produce wealth for government and those who pull its strings and then to spend what little we earn buying back what we have produced, while the owners of capital keep an ever larger share of the revenues. And don't dare to ever speak for yourself, or violate the dogma of political correctness. Thanks to the ever-growing power of big business, anyone who dares to violate that dogma will get fired by his employer #even doctors these days are mostly just employees#, or by the government. Unless, of course, you're a leftist. This is why, despite all the things companies *don't* have the right to fire you for, what they *do* have the right to fire you for is political speech.
No you can build a city on Mars using pre-fabricated units and robotic assemblers for not compartively much. also with that 2 trillion: cures for depression,ocd,anxity and insomnia. And the third world travel infra-strcture could be corrected.
also with 2 trillion you could invent new safer forms of street drugs,such as cocaine and heroin. Ensuring less drug deaths and more pleasureable,longer-lasting highs. That reminds me,anyone in london want to treat me to an hedonsitic night of coke and beer?
>"Wiki's definition provided by Zamman is pretty updated an accurate on what it is generally understood by liberal or liberalism"
A "liberal" in America does not denote a person who considers individual liberty to be the most important political goal. (Although that's an incoherent definition in any case, since "individual liberty" can mean anything you want it to mean) "Liberals" in America stand in direct intellectual descent from Marx, Engles, Saint-Simon, and other socialists. A "liberal" in America is the opponent of the ideas of Burke, Mill, Smith, and other "classical liberals". This is what is generally understood by liberal or liberalism.
So "Liberals" are the opposite of "Classical Liberals"
No wonder we can never know what the hell we're talking about. If what you say "liberal" means in America is right, then Wiki is wrong and cannot be trusted.
Liberal also means the opposite of Conservative. Chomsky, Carlin and Maher can be considered as liberals; while Buckley, the Pope and Bill O'Reilly could be considered as conservatives.
That might give you an idea of the sad intellectual level of most conservatives... I mean, they tend to be pretty religious, among many other vices.
I agree spending a couple of trillion dollars on Middle Eastern wars is a very foolish waste of limited resources. We could have spent that money on many ways to use energy more efficiently and to generate energy in new ways for example. Two tril will build a lot of nuclear reactors.
But I do not see Mars colonization as a solution. The energy costs of moving each person to Mars exceeds what that person is going to use on Earth. Plus, we have very little capital base on Mars and the lack of atmosphere would make mining operations expensive. Transportation will be much more expensive without oceans thru which ships can travel.
Maybe money spent to grab asteroids and move them to Earth's orbit would be worth it. I don't know. I would concentrate sources of energy to replace fossil fuels. I'd also build a wall on the southern US border and deport all the illegal aliens and make immigration heavily skills-based.
NO Duh, growing the population does not mean economic growth will follow. China and India have had populations in the Billions living in squalor until they brought in manufacturing. why would anyone need a study to show what we already know? All it does do is increase the amount of labor and decrease the pay via competition. this is really the plan in nearly every field that the elite's require. They hate paying full retail for services and luxury goods, "keep labor cheap" is their mantra. This is the plan for the huge immigration, the illegal immigration, the H1B, etc. All designed to lower wages of American workers and force them to compete globally against Billions of 3rd world poor.