Posted on 09/01/2010 9:31:43 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Boston has lost about a third of it’s population. San Fran the same. They are depopulating.
I’m not sure of the demographics but I believe Boston anyways, is getting older. In short young people are not moving in and having young children.
Boston might not be dying, but it’s fading.
Exporting the dollars nullifies them. Clearly, when those dollars are invested here, that un-nullifies them, unless you’re a protectionist, when the only un-nullification that works is not exporting them in the first place or getting them back in exchange for exports.
*Actually, an American named W. Edwards Deming built the Japanese up after WWII.*
“No, dude, he asked about World War 11 [Eleven]”
Didn’t catch the “11” because I was wearing my telepathy helmet this morning. It told me he “meant” II.
The simple truth is........ they are no longer required. Their day is over. There is no reason for them to continue to exist
Exception: Galveston. Galveston is in Texas and occupies a great coastal location. It will continue to thrive in spite of the recurring hurricanes.
“Black culture sucks on a massive scale.. it poisons everything it touches..”
Think about those cities that are “dead”, or “dying”.
Then, consider their demographic makeups.
Once, cities were centers of manufacturing _and_ culture. With current demographics, how can many of them ever reclaim either of these?
These same cities now serve as “containers” for large cohorts of “the entitlement classes”. Perhaps this may become their only funtional future.
Should we really care how bad Detroit is within its city limits, so long as we can keep those social ills reasonably confined to within such limits?
Boston Historical populations Year Pop. %± 1722* 10,567 — 1765* 15,520 46.9% 1790 18,320 18.0% 1800 24,937 36.1% 1810 33,787 35.5% 1820 43,298 28.1% 1830 61,392 41.8% 1840 93,383 52.1% 1850 136,881 46.6% 1860 177,840 29.9% 1870 250,526 40.9% 1880 362,839 44.8% 1890 448,477 23.6% 1900 560,892 25.1% 1910 670,585 19.6% 1920 748,060 11.6% 1930 781,188 4.4% 1940 770,816 −1.3% 1950 801,444 4.0% 1960 697,197 −13.0% 1970 641,071 −8.1% 1980 562,994 −12.2% 1990 574,283 2.0% 2000 589,141 2.6% 2009* 645,169 9.5% Population has been on an upswing for twenty years. Furthermore many of the poor overpopulated neighborhoods have been gentrified by less populated wealthier people. Compared to my youth during the 60’s and 70’s, Boston is thriving. Boston is getting younger as well. San Francisco population 808,976. Highest ever.
Well, they ought to clean the crap hole of Galveston up and then some of us may go down there....
We can’t stomach the nasty place.......
Then, consider their demographic makeups.
Once, cities were centers of manufacturing _and_ culture. With current demographics, how can many of them ever reclaim either of these?
In all of the cities mentioned in the article, the dying came before the demographic concentration. But, yes, the demographics plus all the other problems of dead and dying cities will make it hard to turn things around.
Should we really care how bad Detroit is within its city limits,
Back when people cared about their cities, the cities weren't dead.
I’m suprised the greater St. Louis area (including East St. Louis IL) aren’t
on the list.
It may not be dead yet, but the auto industry has just about left the place,
unions run the asylum and Democrats wonder why the place keeps sliding downhill.
Maybe once all the liberals in St. Louis run out of “other peoples’ money”,
it will be a nice place to shoot the next version of “I Am Legend”.
the nano-second a bussing order would hit a neighborhood all the parents would put their houses up for sale. Judges went frantic with efforts to circumvent white flight. I think NJ even banned real estate signs then changed to have them be tiny postcard sized signs.
they knew they could not stop so they tried to manipulate.
some school disctricts went so far as to object to zoning changes to prevent competing private schools.
Fail.
Yes, you are right. I tested it.
Sometimes, though, I think people re-post an old image link by copying source without even re-viewing it. It could have changed.
Make sure you're posting the pic you think you're posting and clear cache if there is any chance the site may not allow remote linking.
OK. Just teasin’ :0)
Hmmm....these look like good places to build...a city.
I just wonder how people can even make that error. The 1 and I keys are nowhere near each other.
1950 801,444 Mass population, 4.5 million (17%)
2009 645, 169 Mass population , 6.4 million (10%)
So Boston is down 58%, as a percentage of the state population, since it’s high. That’s a growing, healthy city?
And a gentrified, yuppie, urban professional, gay population is going to what, ‘grow’ the city?
I don’t think so.
No kids, poor or not, no future.
*** Well wait just one minute there buster! Entepreneurs built our industrial base because of forward thinking and intellegently applied taxes and tariffs! So there!! ***
Thank you, but free traders will ignore any and all factual evidence that doesn’t support their position. It’s a shame.
Urban reservations for the neo-tribes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.