4 ms·

More accurately: people are fleeing the North East.

by brwnll 12y ago

DougWebb 12y ago
If you look at a map of population density, the North East, as a region, has the highest density. (LA is probably similar, but it's a much smaller area.) You can look at this two ways: one is pure physics... particles in a high pressure zone tend to move towards a low pressure zone. In human terms, people can be moving from more-crowded to less-crowded. That may not be the only reason, but the density gradient is high enough that this could be a significant factor that clouds other factors. The other way to look at it is that there are simply more people in the North East who are moving at any given time, and it's likely that there are more people moving out of the region at any time than there are people moving out of less dense regions. That can make it look like a significant flight from the NE, when really it's a random bias effect of the relative densities.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  In 30 years there will be nowhere left to run. If current rates of immigration continue we're looking at over 400 million crammed in. Everywhere will be congested and expensive.
  - lotharbot 12y ago
    400 million in a country the size of the US is not exactly "crammed in". There are plenty of congested and expensive places, mostly big coastal cities. If your view of "everywhere" only includes those places, then it will seem like "everywhere" is congested and expensive. But if you ever drive across Wyoming, Texas, Montana, or Kansas, you'll see plenty of wiiiiiiiide open space too. $50k will get you a decent house in small-town Kansas.
    - a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
      The wide open places where there is no major city lack major cities because they are unsuitable sites. There isn't enough fresh water and/or the energy demands of logistics are unfeasible. Newsflash: we are not building brand new urban areas, and we won't be. People will continue to increase congestion and sprawl at the existing metropolitan areas. The ecology and quality of life will continue to degrade.
      - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
        There is plenty of fresh water and infrastructure in Kansas...it is not Nevada! We can probably double the number of cities in the USA no problem; we have the resources, we just lack the people. The USA is not China, where what you say is actually true (lack of arable land, resources, overcrowded cities, not much ability to build new cities because all the good space is already taken).
  - MisterBastahrd 12y ago
    100 million more residents is a drop in the bucket. The US is gigantic and there's room for easily twice the population without overcrowding.
    - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      The carrying capacity of the USA at our current standard of living (resource consumption) is probably around 1 billion people, more if we can use our resources more efficiently (which is bound to happen in the future). Immigration is usually just moving people around from resource-starved places to resource-rich places. So from a planetary perspective, it is a good thing.
      - a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
        You are delusional. Two separate congressional commissions in the 70s and the 90s concluded the long term sustainable population of the USA is under 200 million. Moving people from poor places to rich places increases the environmental impacts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW-NtQr89u4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW-NtQr89u4 Anyway, "moving people around" is not a useful way to look at American immigration. The numbers of people overseas who would move here are effectively infinite. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
        seanmcdirmid 12y ago
        200 million is ridiculous and obviously not true as we've already broken 300 million without any problems. Japan supports around 130 million people with an American-level lifestyle..it is much smaller with ALOT less arable land (the interior are all mountains!). A billion is really not a problem for a country as resource rich as the USA. We already produce much of the world's food, and our biggest problems usually amount to not being able to water our Kentucky bluegrass lawns whenever we want to. Even if we forget about much of the dry west, we still have lots of space (and the west actually isn't that dry...). Immigration is a great way of allowing for global social mobility. I hate the mentality of the "we got ours, screw the rest of you" mindset of the anti-immigration types. It is not only selfish, but morally wrong.
- danielsju6 12y ago
  NE has lots of universities, I think that's what you are seeing.
mkr-hn 12y ago
They're welcome to come down to Georgia. The only thing that made me want to leave was not having marriage equality, and that'll be solved in 0-2 years.

More accurately: people are fleeing the North East.

by brwnll 12y ago

More accurately: people are fleeing the North East.

If you look at a map of population density, the North East, as a region, has the highest density. (LA is probably similar, but it's a much smaller area.) You can look at this two ways: one is pure physics... particles in a high pressure zone tend to move towards a low pressure zone. In human terms, people can be moving from more-crowded to less-crowded. That may not be the only reason, but the density gradient is high enough that this could be a significant factor that clouds other factors. The other way to look at it is that there are simply more people in the North East who are moving at any given time, and it's likely that there are more people moving out of the region at any time than there are people moving out of less dense regions. That can make it look like a significant flight from the NE, when really it's a random bias effect of the relative densities.

a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
In 30 years there will be nowhere left to run. If current rates of immigration continue we're looking at over 400 million crammed in. Everywhere will be congested and expensive.
- lotharbot 12y ago
  400 million in a country the size of the US is not exactly "crammed in". There are plenty of congested and expensive places, mostly big coastal cities. If your view of "everywhere" only includes those places, then it will seem like "everywhere" is congested and expensive. But if you ever drive across Wyoming, Texas, Montana, or Kansas, you'll see plenty of wiiiiiiiide open space too. $50k will get you a decent house in small-town Kansas.
  - a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
    The wide open places where there is no major city lack major cities because they are unsuitable sites. There isn't enough fresh water and/or the energy demands of logistics are unfeasible. Newsflash: we are not building brand new urban areas, and we won't be. People will continue to increase congestion and sprawl at the existing metropolitan areas. The ecology and quality of life will continue to degrade.
    - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      There is plenty of fresh water and infrastructure in Kansas...it is not Nevada! We can probably double the number of cities in the USA no problem; we have the resources, we just lack the people. The USA is not China, where what you say is actually true (lack of arable land, resources, overcrowded cities, not much ability to build new cities because all the good space is already taken).
- MisterBastahrd 12y ago
  100 million more residents is a drop in the bucket. The US is gigantic and there's room for easily twice the population without overcrowding.
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    The carrying capacity of the USA at our current standard of living (resource consumption) is probably around 1 billion people, more if we can use our resources more efficiently (which is bound to happen in the future). Immigration is usually just moving people around from resource-starved places to resource-rich places. So from a planetary perspective, it is a good thing.
    - a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
      You are delusional. Two separate congressional commissions in the 70s and the 90s concluded the long term sustainable population of the USA is under 200 million. Moving people from poor places to rich places increases the environmental impacts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW-NtQr89u4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW-NtQr89u4 Anyway, "moving people around" is not a useful way to look at American immigration. The numbers of people overseas who would move here are effectively infinite. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
      - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
        200 million is ridiculous and obviously not true as we've already broken 300 million without any problems. Japan supports around 130 million people with an American-level lifestyle..it is much smaller with ALOT less arable land (the interior are all mountains!). A billion is really not a problem for a country as resource rich as the USA. We already produce much of the world's food, and our biggest problems usually amount to not being able to water our Kentucky bluegrass lawns whenever we want to. Even if we forget about much of the dry west, we still have lots of space (and the west actually isn't that dry...). Immigration is a great way of allowing for global social mobility. I hate the mentality of the "we got ours, screw the rest of you" mindset of the anti-immigration types. It is not only selfish, but morally wrong.
danielsju6 12y ago
NE has lots of universities, I think that's what you are seeing.

mkr-hn 12y ago

They're welcome to come down to Georgia. The only thing that made me want to leave was not having marriage equality, and that'll be solved in 0-2 years.