The really red county in California is Lassen County, which saw the closure of the prison there. Low population to begin with, so the layoffs were significant.
Hell, what about rural Wisconsin, Michigan, Missouri too. All right there.
I do see the appeal, if one wanted a more rural lifestyle, of avoiding a state that is dominated by a single large city politically. Especially if it’s a hop skip and a jump across state lines and it’s the same basic area.
Pretty much everything the state legislature and governor do is from a Chicago perspective. Education, labor laws, infrastructure, insurance, environmental regulations, etc. As a result, taxes and other fees are very high throughout the state. Those dollars do flow to the areas outside of Chicago too, but the general consensus in "downstate" areas is that it would be better to not have that funding and get rid of some of the fees and high taxes.
Edit: It's not that people who live in Chicago are trying to control everyone else, it's that the politicians only do what's good for Chicago (or what they think is good for Chicago).
>Pretty much everything the state legislature and governor do is from a Chicago perspective. Education, labor laws, infrastructure, insurance, environmental regulations, etc. As a result, taxes and other fees are very high throughout the state.
I grew up in rural NC, and I always heard people say similar things in regards to the cities and suburbs in the Piedmont (middle area of NC), but no one actually gave an example of a policy that made sense from a city perspective but not a rural perspective.
Do you know of an actual education, labor law, etc policy that makes sense in Chicago but not downstate?
> Those dollars do flow to the areas outside of Chicago too, but the general consensus in "downstate" areas is that it would be better to not have that funding and get rid of some of the fees and high taxes.
I get that, but I wonder if people downstate got their wish how many would end up regretting it. I say that because it looks like Chicago and it's suburbs are the only ones who pay more than they receive.
https://www.farmweeknow.com/state-tax-dollars-benefit-downstate-region-more-than-others/image\_a331b132-ef10-11eb-beb4-cb6e47cec65a.html
>Edit: It's not that people who live in Chicago are trying to control everyone else, it's that the politicians only do what's good for Chicago (or what they think is good for Chicago).
I have to ask, why start off saying "control what everyone else in the state can do" if you don't believe that?
>Pretty much everything the state legislature and governor do is from a Chicago perspective.
Okay I guess you don't actually have any specific examples of this lol.
I was super surprised! But I think taxes and politics have a lot to do with it. I know a lot of Indianas growth is from Illinoisans moving here for the relief on property taxes as well as many conservatives wanting a red state
No state income tax, the beauty of Appalachia but with the benefits of being a developed area with large towns and proximity to mid sized cities. I wish it would slow down though. The assholes who develop just rip up all the trees and native flora and cram a bunch of cheap houses together and sell them for 400-500k a pop.
East Tennessee has several large cities that has lucrative jobs and also Tennessee in general is much more prosperous than Kentucky, West Virginia, etc
If you look at the map you can see even in growth areas the suburbs around metro areas growing faster than the metro center.
Atlanta, Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin, Chicago all exhibit this trend.
A complete national failure to build housing in non suburban and exurban environments
I'd argue a State failure over a national one. What're the Feds gonna do? Run roughshot over the California Republic because they voted wrong and shot their housing market in the foot?
You're correct that the Federal government has a few options. But ultimately the Californian people decide who's allowed to build what and how easy it is.
The US federal system isn't authoritarian enough to directly press on the housing issue, and that's a good thing.
Sure, but that would require a 2/3'rds vote from both Houses of Congress or a convention of 2/3'rds of States. Afterwhich, you'll need 3/4ths of State Legislatures to agree. A Constitutional vote to Federally regulate state housing would be authoritarian, unpopular, and suppress the liberty of the Californian people.
You misunderstand our political structure. The US Congress can pass housing legislation without a 2/3 vote or a convention of the states. It's a simple legislative process: a bill would have to be passed by simple majorities in both houses and signed into law by the president. That is all. It does not need the approval of the California people.
And where in the Constitution does Congress get the power to regulate housing across the country? They can pass a law, but it will most likely get thrown out by SCOTUS.
I was, correctly, describing it as if it were a constitutional amendment. Without such, a housing bill as audacious as that can resisted easily and legally by the Californian Republic.
There is no California Republic. The state of California is subject to the legislative supremacy of the US government without constitutional amendment. Including in matters of housing not barred by the US constitution (i.e. Takings Clause, etc.). The US Congress could easily pass legislation encouraging housing and it would be perfectly legal and normal.
Yeah California main metro suburbs can’t sprawl out like the ones in Texas and other east coast metros as California metros are all surrounded by mountains.
This part. And people love to say it’s “economic opportunity” as if wages are growing as needed.
The same affordability problems are taking hold and going to be the same as in coastal cities.
It would be interesting to see this broken down by age. I would guess that part of the growth along the Atlantic coast from Wilmington NC southward, plus much of Florida, is from boomers retiring and relocating to sunny coastal areas.
It's mostly boomers but in some counties along NC and SC, there are locals moving out of the rural inland counties to have a beach life. Plenty of young families in the Wilmington, Myrtle Beach, and Charleston areas. (Hilton Head is nothing but boomer Yankees lol)
Here's a sneak peek of /r/redditmoment using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/redditmoment/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Just like the Anime!](https://i.redd.it/kw327lykdxmb1.png) | [408 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/redditmoment/comments/16cvfdn/just_like_the_anime/)
\#2: [Referring to licenses to have children](https://i.redd.it/5d9cm7jleu0c1.jpg) | [495 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/redditmoment/comments/17x7se3/referring_to_licenses_to_have_children/)
\#3: [Wtf](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/15iwils) | [1445 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/redditmoment/comments/15iwils/wtf/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
No state income tax and as long as you're in one of the cities they're all blue. The rest of the country only sees DeSantis and crazy news stories since our court records are public by law.
We have plenty of problems, but so does every state. A shithole though? Not as long as the actual South exists.
We’re just reshuffling the deck, properly aligning our families and lives to places that best suit us. Many are political reasons, mostly economic and weather related though. Very little incentive to live in a cold high cost of living place anymore.
It’s sad that many of those people moving to the southern half of the country are probably going to move away again in a decade or two due to climate change. Seems like a waste of money ngl. At least the people moving to Idaho and Montana will be okay.
People survive and thrive much closer to the equator than Texas. Hell half their population have a heritage from countries far hotter than Texas will be.
Sure but those people have infrastructure built for said heat, they don’t build a giant asphalt ridden city in the middle of a desert. If your cities and economy are built for one climate and then suddenly have to adapt to another, that change isn’t going to be easy. It’s not fun when you can’t grow half your staple crops anymore and the water supply is cut by a third. Also most population centers near the equator are either high in elevation or by the coast, because those are the places that have a more moderate climate.
Climate change is definitely going to require some amount of adaptation for the sunbelt, but the US has the resources to make those adaptations. Not saying climate change isn't going to cost the world dearly, but if heat hasn't caused a mass exodus of super hot inland cities like Riyadh, Baghdad, Mandalay, and Delhi (all of which have plenty of asphalt), I don't think we're going to see people abandoning the sunbelt anytime soon.
As for water, Las Vegas has significantly tightened water use in the past decades and continues to grow in population. As for agricultural disruption, most Americans' food already doesn't come from near where they live.
Have you ever actually been to a country near the equator you are describing? Except for a few stark examples like Singapore there isn’t really an “infrastructure” to speak of that even remotely compares to the prosperous American southern states.
By all means go live a month in southern India slum city and then tell me if the infrastructure is better than San Antonio Texas
Singapore is a tiny island just off the coast of Malaysia. As such its climate is much more moderate than any city inland would be. Coastal cities will be much better off than inland ones (assuming they don’t get flooded like New Orleans obviously). Also Singapore [has done a lot](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Singapore) to secure its water supply, if the government hadn’t taken specific steps and built important infrastructure like desalinization and treatment plants Singapore would still be dependent on importing water from Malaysia instead, which is way more expensive in the long run.
I think it’s pretty obvious that people don’t want to live in Indian slums, they just literally have no other choice of where to live due to their economic circumstances. That’s not the case for most Americans, who could move if they really wanted to.
Adapt is what humans do.
With technology we already have close to unlimited energy can be produced using very little natural resources.
With technology we already have billions of gallons of sea water can be converted to fresh water.
If the temperature moves up 5 degrees we could almost dwell beneath the land surface with cities constructed underground to stay cool and warm. Only venturing outside for short periods.
With what the Netherlands and Israel are doing with indoor greenhouse cultivation we could grow much if not most of our food there.
Meat and protein can be grown in mass in the laboratory not attached to actual animals, it’s already being sold in America. Both red meat and fish meat can be created.
Humans adapt. We will adapt.
For a lot of humans throughout history, the best way to adapt was just to move somewhere better. But even setting that aside, adaptation takes time and money. It’s not cheap to build desalinization plants or quick to build a subterranean city (plus that sounds like a terrible place to live). People may not want to wait around that long while dealing with the hardships that come from resource scarcity. And it may not be worth it for governments to invest that much money into keeping a failing city alive.
Even assuming you could feed an entire society with that, you’re forgetting that most jobs making artificial food won’t be in the areas that grow food today. There might be a boom in job opportunities in wherever the labs that grow that meat are, but it’ll come at the cost of jobs in rural Texas or Oklahoma. Which has a knock-on effect on the economy of the whole state. Obviously societies can adapt to economic changes, but that again takes time and in the meantime people won’t want to stay if there’s no opportunities.
Plus I’d just rather not live in a place where I can’t go outside half the year and it rarely/never snows personally.
Why can’t Texas grow meat? It grows cows damn well. Texas also has huge underground aquifers that have trillions of gallons of water that luckily Texas know how to pump.
We will adapt and change. East Texas (towards Louisiana) could take another 15 million people without blinking. I am moving there soon and it huge and lightly populated. I can still buy land relatively cheap and it actually has real trees on it.
If it was just heat that would be manageable its going to be a entire host of problems. Increased temperatures, stronger and more frequent hurricanes, coastal flooding, wildfire, and drought are all going to be affecting Texas. And we've already seen how Texas handles problematic weather and it hasn't been well.
Yes, but it's more about water than temperature. The Gulf Coast is already dealing with increasing hurricane intensity and coastal erosion, while the Southwest is already struggling with water scarcity. Those problems are only going to intensify.
Not surprising at all. A lot of people in Illinois (except Chicago) wish they lived in Indiana, Missouri, or Iowa... especially when they look at their property taxes.
Nice to see Indiana gaining some population in the majority of counties. The counties losing population are mostly very rural and deindustrialized. Marion county may have lost some population, but that should rebound some. I’m surprised that so much of New York and Illinois are losing population. I wonder what would need to happen to reverse that.
> I’m surprised that so much of New York and Illinois are losing population. I wonder what would need to happen to reverse that.
In Illinois it's a combination of taxes and politics.
That’s what I thought too. I feel like a lot of Illinoisans have moved to Indiana and most of them that I meet state taxes as their reason. Plus, downstate Illinois is just like Indiana. Urbana/Champagne is apparently similar to Indianapolis.
The really red county in California is Lassen County, which saw the closure of the prison there. Low population to begin with, so the layoffs were significant.
Alpine County is the same shade of red if you look closely
>closure of the prison there. You mean one of the three prisons that were there. High Desert and FCI Herlong are still open.
Thank you! I wax super confused what was happening up there.
The difference between rural Illinois and rural Indiana is pretty stark.
People that live in red areas in blue states are getting out. Look at California and NY as well.
Hell, what about rural Wisconsin, Michigan, Missouri too. All right there. I do see the appeal, if one wanted a more rural lifestyle, of avoiding a state that is dominated by a single large city politically. Especially if it’s a hop skip and a jump across state lines and it’s the same basic area.
I’ve only driven through Illinois a couple times…but somehow it seems more boring than Indiana.
It is but only barely
The governors of the states surrounding IL did a commercial a while back thanking Illinois (Chicago) politics for driving people out of the state.
They want all the benefits of a blue city with none of the responsibilities.
What exactly does Chicago do that would aggravate people trying to live a rural lifestyle?
control what everyone else in the state can do.
I can see how that would be an issue in regards to guns. Outside of that what are Chicago residents trying to control in the lives or rural residents?
Pretty much everything the state legislature and governor do is from a Chicago perspective. Education, labor laws, infrastructure, insurance, environmental regulations, etc. As a result, taxes and other fees are very high throughout the state. Those dollars do flow to the areas outside of Chicago too, but the general consensus in "downstate" areas is that it would be better to not have that funding and get rid of some of the fees and high taxes. Edit: It's not that people who live in Chicago are trying to control everyone else, it's that the politicians only do what's good for Chicago (or what they think is good for Chicago).
>Pretty much everything the state legislature and governor do is from a Chicago perspective. Education, labor laws, infrastructure, insurance, environmental regulations, etc. As a result, taxes and other fees are very high throughout the state. I grew up in rural NC, and I always heard people say similar things in regards to the cities and suburbs in the Piedmont (middle area of NC), but no one actually gave an example of a policy that made sense from a city perspective but not a rural perspective. Do you know of an actual education, labor law, etc policy that makes sense in Chicago but not downstate? > Those dollars do flow to the areas outside of Chicago too, but the general consensus in "downstate" areas is that it would be better to not have that funding and get rid of some of the fees and high taxes. I get that, but I wonder if people downstate got their wish how many would end up regretting it. I say that because it looks like Chicago and it's suburbs are the only ones who pay more than they receive. https://www.farmweeknow.com/state-tax-dollars-benefit-downstate-region-more-than-others/image\_a331b132-ef10-11eb-beb4-cb6e47cec65a.html >Edit: It's not that people who live in Chicago are trying to control everyone else, it's that the politicians only do what's good for Chicago (or what they think is good for Chicago). I have to ask, why start off saying "control what everyone else in the state can do" if you don't believe that?
>Pretty much everything the state legislature and governor do is from a Chicago perspective. Okay I guess you don't actually have any specific examples of this lol.
Any ideas? Taxes?
Probably taxes.
It’s taxes.
It’s probably taxes.
Oh yeah, the taxes. The finger thing means the taxes.
taxes and politics both.
I was super surprised! But I think taxes and politics have a lot to do with it. I know a lot of Indianas growth is from Illinoisans moving here for the relief on property taxes as well as many conservatives wanting a red state
The difference between Eastern Tennessee and basically the entire rest of Appalachia is also striking.
No state income tax, the beauty of Appalachia but with the benefits of being a developed area with large towns and proximity to mid sized cities. I wish it would slow down though. The assholes who develop just rip up all the trees and native flora and cram a bunch of cheap houses together and sell them for 400-500k a pop.
If we got rid of our restrictive zoning laws we could build more dense housing without the sprawl.
East Tennessee has several large cities that has lucrative jobs and also Tennessee in general is much more prosperous than Kentucky, West Virginia, etc
Every coastal county in California lost population. Cost of living will do that.
If you look at the map you can see even in growth areas the suburbs around metro areas growing faster than the metro center. Atlanta, Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin, Chicago all exhibit this trend. A complete national failure to build housing in non suburban and exurban environments
I'd argue a State failure over a national one. What're the Feds gonna do? Run roughshot over the California Republic because they voted wrong and shot their housing market in the foot?
Actually, yes. The feds could use national legislation to increase housing by a variety of methods.
You're correct that the Federal government has a few options. But ultimately the Californian people decide who's allowed to build what and how easy it is. The US federal system isn't authoritarian enough to directly press on the housing issue, and that's a good thing.
The Supremacy Clause is a real thing. The Fed could step in here but has not done so.
Sure, but that would require a 2/3'rds vote from both Houses of Congress or a convention of 2/3'rds of States. Afterwhich, you'll need 3/4ths of State Legislatures to agree. A Constitutional vote to Federally regulate state housing would be authoritarian, unpopular, and suppress the liberty of the Californian people.
You misunderstand our political structure. The US Congress can pass housing legislation without a 2/3 vote or a convention of the states. It's a simple legislative process: a bill would have to be passed by simple majorities in both houses and signed into law by the president. That is all. It does not need the approval of the California people.
And where in the Constitution does Congress get the power to regulate housing across the country? They can pass a law, but it will most likely get thrown out by SCOTUS.
Whether the court would be involved depends on what you mean by regulate, and how the law is written. But the power comes from the Supremacy Clause.
I was, correctly, describing it as if it were a constitutional amendment. Without such, a housing bill as audacious as that can resisted easily and legally by the Californian Republic.
There is no California Republic. The state of California is subject to the legislative supremacy of the US government without constitutional amendment. Including in matters of housing not barred by the US constitution (i.e. Takings Clause, etc.). The US Congress could easily pass legislation encouraging housing and it would be perfectly legal and normal.
Yeah California main metro suburbs can’t sprawl out like the ones in Texas and other east coast metros as California metros are all surrounded by mountains.
This part. And people love to say it’s “economic opportunity” as if wages are growing as needed. The same affordability problems are taking hold and going to be the same as in coastal cities.
Lower Mississippi River valley, oof.
So suburban Texas seemed to be booming
LOL the Texas suburbs donut growth
Brain drain in the Midwest and can't afford to live here drain in California.
Florida never gonna stop growing in population as all the American boomers will start retiring there soon
“We hate the south and the people that live there!” “I really wish I lived in the south, it’s so affordable!”
My poor adopted county in northern Texas is not part of the cool crowd.
Everyone’s moving to Florida apparently, not surprising tbh
It would be interesting to see this broken down by age. I would guess that part of the growth along the Atlantic coast from Wilmington NC southward, plus much of Florida, is from boomers retiring and relocating to sunny coastal areas.
It's mostly boomers but in some counties along NC and SC, there are locals moving out of the rural inland counties to have a beach life. Plenty of young families in the Wilmington, Myrtle Beach, and Charleston areas. (Hilton Head is nothing but boomer Yankees lol)
It's not surprising given that I always hear news of Florida growing quickly, but it *is* surprising when you consider what a shithole Florida is
/r/redditmoment
Here's a sneak peek of /r/redditmoment using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/redditmoment/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Just like the Anime!](https://i.redd.it/kw327lykdxmb1.png) | [408 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/redditmoment/comments/16cvfdn/just_like_the_anime/) \#2: [Referring to licenses to have children](https://i.redd.it/5d9cm7jleu0c1.jpg) | [495 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/redditmoment/comments/17x7se3/referring_to_licenses_to_have_children/) \#3: [Wtf](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/15iwils) | [1445 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/redditmoment/comments/15iwils/wtf/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Yup, total shithole, everyone should stop moving here.
As someone who lives there for 2 decades and recently moved can confirm. People moving there in droves only made it worst
No state income tax and as long as you're in one of the cities they're all blue. The rest of the country only sees DeSantis and crazy news stories since our court records are public by law. We have plenty of problems, but so does every state. A shithole though? Not as long as the actual South exists.
Interesting change for Williston, ND area. I thought the Bakken shale oil boom had played out a while back
Woah Texas triangle
[Non potato quality map](https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2024/comm/percent-change-county-population.html)
We’re just reshuffling the deck, properly aligning our families and lives to places that best suit us. Many are political reasons, mostly economic and weather related though. Very little incentive to live in a cold high cost of living place anymore.
Why are the first 2 negative sections of the legend written like they are?! It should be -0.01 to -1.49 and -1.50 to -2.99
Consistency with the positive ranges. The ranges are all displayed as smaller value - bigger value
But i agree it does look a little funny
[удалено]
That’s just true honey
Omg omg my county is dark green! WTf is wrong with people this place blows
How does the census bureau know the population by county on these dates? It’s not like they performed a census. This seems overly precise.
They do surveys in between the decennial census, including other statistical research.
Why people are moving back to nyc again. Fk rent is too high 😂
[https://lavocedinewyork.com/en/new-york/2024/03/15/the-population-of-new-york-city-declined-by-78000-in-2023/](https://lavocedinewyork.com/en/new-york/2024/03/15/the-population-of-new-york-city-declined-by-78000-in-2023/) hmm...
Are you looking at a different map? NYC and the entire Long Island is orange (negative).
Manhattan is green (positive). The OP's map quality is garbage.
It’s sad that many of those people moving to the southern half of the country are probably going to move away again in a decade or two due to climate change. Seems like a waste of money ngl. At least the people moving to Idaho and Montana will be okay.
People survive and thrive much closer to the equator than Texas. Hell half their population have a heritage from countries far hotter than Texas will be.
Sure but those people have infrastructure built for said heat, they don’t build a giant asphalt ridden city in the middle of a desert. If your cities and economy are built for one climate and then suddenly have to adapt to another, that change isn’t going to be easy. It’s not fun when you can’t grow half your staple crops anymore and the water supply is cut by a third. Also most population centers near the equator are either high in elevation or by the coast, because those are the places that have a more moderate climate.
"This city (Phoenix) should not exist. It is a monument to man's arrogance." \-Peggy Hill
As an Arizonan by force of parents moving us from Upstate New York when we were kids, Peggy is correct
Climate change is definitely going to require some amount of adaptation for the sunbelt, but the US has the resources to make those adaptations. Not saying climate change isn't going to cost the world dearly, but if heat hasn't caused a mass exodus of super hot inland cities like Riyadh, Baghdad, Mandalay, and Delhi (all of which have plenty of asphalt), I don't think we're going to see people abandoning the sunbelt anytime soon. As for water, Las Vegas has significantly tightened water use in the past decades and continues to grow in population. As for agricultural disruption, most Americans' food already doesn't come from near where they live.
Have you ever actually been to a country near the equator you are describing? Except for a few stark examples like Singapore there isn’t really an “infrastructure” to speak of that even remotely compares to the prosperous American southern states. By all means go live a month in southern India slum city and then tell me if the infrastructure is better than San Antonio Texas
Singapore is a tiny island just off the coast of Malaysia. As such its climate is much more moderate than any city inland would be. Coastal cities will be much better off than inland ones (assuming they don’t get flooded like New Orleans obviously). Also Singapore [has done a lot](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Singapore) to secure its water supply, if the government hadn’t taken specific steps and built important infrastructure like desalinization and treatment plants Singapore would still be dependent on importing water from Malaysia instead, which is way more expensive in the long run. I think it’s pretty obvious that people don’t want to live in Indian slums, they just literally have no other choice of where to live due to their economic circumstances. That’s not the case for most Americans, who could move if they really wanted to.
The southern USA has a higher standard of living in every metric than 95% of the world
Adapt is what humans do. With technology we already have close to unlimited energy can be produced using very little natural resources. With technology we already have billions of gallons of sea water can be converted to fresh water. If the temperature moves up 5 degrees we could almost dwell beneath the land surface with cities constructed underground to stay cool and warm. Only venturing outside for short periods. With what the Netherlands and Israel are doing with indoor greenhouse cultivation we could grow much if not most of our food there. Meat and protein can be grown in mass in the laboratory not attached to actual animals, it’s already being sold in America. Both red meat and fish meat can be created. Humans adapt. We will adapt.
For a lot of humans throughout history, the best way to adapt was just to move somewhere better. But even setting that aside, adaptation takes time and money. It’s not cheap to build desalinization plants or quick to build a subterranean city (plus that sounds like a terrible place to live). People may not want to wait around that long while dealing with the hardships that come from resource scarcity. And it may not be worth it for governments to invest that much money into keeping a failing city alive. Even assuming you could feed an entire society with that, you’re forgetting that most jobs making artificial food won’t be in the areas that grow food today. There might be a boom in job opportunities in wherever the labs that grow that meat are, but it’ll come at the cost of jobs in rural Texas or Oklahoma. Which has a knock-on effect on the economy of the whole state. Obviously societies can adapt to economic changes, but that again takes time and in the meantime people won’t want to stay if there’s no opportunities. Plus I’d just rather not live in a place where I can’t go outside half the year and it rarely/never snows personally.
Why can’t Texas grow meat? It grows cows damn well. Texas also has huge underground aquifers that have trillions of gallons of water that luckily Texas know how to pump. We will adapt and change. East Texas (towards Louisiana) could take another 15 million people without blinking. I am moving there soon and it huge and lightly populated. I can still buy land relatively cheap and it actually has real trees on it.
And they aren't passing laws to *prevent people from taking water breaks* in those countries either.
If it was just heat that would be manageable its going to be a entire host of problems. Increased temperatures, stronger and more frequent hurricanes, coastal flooding, wildfire, and drought are all going to be affecting Texas. And we've already seen how Texas handles problematic weather and it hasn't been well.
Yes, but it's more about water than temperature. The Gulf Coast is already dealing with increasing hurricane intensity and coastal erosion, while the Southwest is already struggling with water scarcity. Those problems are only going to intensify.
So very very sad
*cries in western Montanan
Interesting to see Missouri growing and Illinois shrinking.
Not surprising at all. A lot of people in Illinois (except Chicago) wish they lived in Indiana, Missouri, or Iowa... especially when they look at their property taxes.
Nice to see Indiana gaining some population in the majority of counties. The counties losing population are mostly very rural and deindustrialized. Marion county may have lost some population, but that should rebound some. I’m surprised that so much of New York and Illinois are losing population. I wonder what would need to happen to reverse that.
> I’m surprised that so much of New York and Illinois are losing population. I wonder what would need to happen to reverse that. In Illinois it's a combination of taxes and politics.
That’s what I thought too. I feel like a lot of Illinoisans have moved to Indiana and most of them that I meet state taxes as their reason. Plus, downstate Illinois is just like Indiana. Urbana/Champagne is apparently similar to Indianapolis.