6 ms·

I find it hilarious that even in a worse scenario with the climate crisis, Chicago somehow did not get any migrants .

beefalo 7y ago
Their map doesn't make any sense to me. They show no expected migration to really any of the cities in the midwest but somehow they expect a mass migration of people from Miami to rural western Kentucky?
- goatlover 7y ago
  Why rural Kentucky and not Northern Florida or Georgia?
- tomatotomato37 7y ago
  The whole concept doesn't make sense; 80 years in the future we won't even know if the US exists as a singular entity anymore let alone where its centers of population will end up. Imagine if 1920 Russia tried to predict where its population would end up in 2000; nothing would match up.
- alistairSH 7y ago
  Are the shades of red based on migration relative to that same region's previous numbers, or some national average?
wenc 7y ago
Hilarious and wrong headed. Chicago is the largest city stateside (Toronto on the Canadian side) next to a Great Lake with the infrastructure and hinterland to support a large population. Fresh water supply is going to be critical in a climate crisis.
- cbHXBY1D 7y ago
  Yep the Great Lake region is probably the best situated to weather the storm of climate change.
  - A_Parr 7y ago
    The irony is that it used to be an ocean before climate change covered everything in glaciers.
kitsy 7y ago
> Counties in shades of pink and red will see higher-than-average migration It may be that the extra migration doesn't impact that average comparted to less populous counties.
Tarragon 7y ago
On the map shades of red indicate above average immigration. White is unspecified so some meaning of avaerage; not none, but average. That said I have basically the same question. Why are cities not getting above average immigration? You noticed Chicago, I noticed Buffalo and Rochester, which are the #2 and #3 largest cities in NY.
- goodcanadian 7y ago
  It appears that the colours have more to do with migration compared to historic trends: Many may end up moving to the suburbs in the Midwest, where the model shows a larger-than-average influx of migrants compared to historic trends. So, it is really showing places that have not historically had a lot of people moving in.
  - jellicle 7y ago
    Right. The complaints seem largely about being unable to understand the map. If rural western Kentucky gets 2 climate migrants and Chicago gets 100, this may represent a much greater increase in Kentucky migration rates than Chicago migration rates.
frockington1 7y ago
According to the map, Midwestern cities are immune. Only random rural areas will experience an influx of people. In Ohio for example Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland all are white while middle of nowhere is red

Their map doesn't make any sense to me. They show no expected migration to really any of the cities in the midwest but somehow they expect a mass migration of people from Miami to rural western Kentucky?

goatlover 7y ago
Why rural Kentucky and not Northern Florida or Georgia?
tomatotomato37 7y ago
The whole concept doesn't make sense; 80 years in the future we won't even know if the US exists as a singular entity anymore let alone where its centers of population will end up. Imagine if 1920 Russia tried to predict where its population would end up in 2000; nothing would match up.
alistairSH 7y ago
Are the shades of red based on migration relative to that same region's previous numbers, or some national average?

wenc 7y ago

Hilarious and wrong headed. Chicago is the largest city stateside (Toronto on the Canadian side) next to a Great Lake with the infrastructure and hinterland to support a large population. Fresh water supply is going to be critical in a climate crisis.

cbHXBY1D 7y ago
Yep the Great Lake region is probably the best situated to weather the storm of climate change.
- A_Parr 7y ago
  The irony is that it used to be an ocean before climate change covered everything in glaciers.

kitsy 7y ago

> Counties in shades of pink and red will see higher-than-average migration It may be that the extra migration doesn't impact that average comparted to less populous counties.

Tarragon 7y ago

On the map shades of red indicate above average immigration. White is unspecified so some meaning of avaerage; not none, but average. That said I have basically the same question. Why are cities not getting above average immigration? You noticed Chicago, I noticed Buffalo and Rochester, which are the #2 and #3 largest cities in NY.

goodcanadian 7y ago
It appears that the colours have more to do with migration compared to historic trends: Many may end up moving to the suburbs in the Midwest, where the model shows a larger-than-average influx of migrants compared to historic trends. So, it is really showing places that have not historically had a lot of people moving in.
- jellicle 7y ago
  Right. The complaints seem largely about being unable to understand the map. If rural western Kentucky gets 2 climate migrants and Chicago gets 100, this may represent a much greater increase in Kentucky migration rates than Chicago migration rates.

frockington1 7y ago

According to the map, Midwestern cities are immune. Only random rural areas will experience an influx of people. In Ohio for example Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland all are white while middle of nowhere is red