Posted on 05/11/2010 3:51:57 PM PDT by Lorianne
White flight? In a reversal, America's suburbs are now more likely to be home to minorities, the poor and a rapidly growing older population as younger, educated Whites move to cities for jobs and shorter commutes.
An analysis of 2000-08 census data by the Brookings Institution highlights the demographic "tipping points" seen in the past decade and the looming problems in the 100 largest metropolitan areas, which represent two-thirds of the U.S. population.
The findings could offer an important road map as political parties, including the tea party movement, seek to win support in suburban battlegrounds in the fall elections and beyond. In 2008, Barack Obama carried a substantial share of the suburbs, partly with the help of minorities and immigrants.
The analysis being released today provides the freshest detail on the nation's growing race and age divide, now feeding tensions in Arizona over its new immigration law.
Ten states, led by Arizona, surpass the nation in a "cultural generation gap" in which the senior populations are disproportionately White and children are mostly minority.
This gap is pronounced in suburbs of fast-growing areas in the Southwest, including those in Florida, California, Nevada, and Texas.
Calling 2010 the "decade of reckoning," the report urges policymakers to shed outdated notions of America's cities and suburbs and work quickly to address the coming problems caused by the dramatic shifts in population.
Among its recommendations: affordable housing and social services for older people in the suburbs; better transit systems to link cities and suburbs; and a new federal Office of New Americans to serve the education and citizenship needs of the rapidly growing immigrant community.
Other findings:
• About 83 percent of the U.S. population growth since 2000 was minority, part of a trend that will see minorities become the majority by mid-century. Across all large metro areas, the majority of the child population is now non-White.
• The suburban poor grew by 25 percent between 1999 and 2008 - five times the growth rate of the poor in cities. City residents are more likely to live in "deep" poverty, while a higher share of suburban residents have incomes just below the poverty line.
(exerpted)
That would be a problem. Take care. Maybe I’ll stop in for a slice next time before I get a tooth pulled at Harwood & Cahaly on 31st Ave
What? You don't want Applebys, the "garden apartment," and soccer moms?
An even bigger laugh for me are the schmucks who DRIVE 1.5 or even two hours from places like Jackson, NJ or Hunterdon County to their jobs in the city, just so they can have a big, half-empty tacky Toll Brothers House and (mediocre, but safe) schools for the kids.
Suburbia makes sense when your kids are school aged, but the LONG commutes I see some people do just so they can have the new Toll Brothers house boggles the mind. A smaller house in the inner ring at the same price makes more sense.
The coming huge rise in energy costs due to Cap N Tax will really hurt commuters and work to depress suburban house prices. It’s all part of the plan I’m afraid.
Not to be too critical, I saw a draw in cities when I was younger...but my thought now is, they may be educated, but they aren't wise.
But for me, ultimately, I had to live in an area with trees and grass and open space and streams and lakes etc. Living in the city is death to me. And living in the "outer ring" is the same to me. It boggles my mind that someone with all that money would buy a big mansion in a craphole like West Orange or Montclair. But then, those must be city people. To each his own.
Education kills wisdom.
Not always, but it sure isn't synonymous. Maybe delays it. I think it did in my case.
Ok, it doesn’t KILL wisdom—it delays the onset. Let’s say education makes you retarded.
I have to live in a city. I’m allergic to grass cuttings, dried leaves and weeds. That stuff makes me itch. Barking dogs and insects are an annoyance too, not to mention having to go to a mall. It’s the city for me.
Families abhor cities. They seek to PROTECT their children. This is bunk.
The Brookings Institution is a liberal "think tank" and therefore, of course, cannot be trusted. Its hypothesis that "educated Whites move to cities for jobs and shorter commutes" makes no sense on the face of it.
First, why would the kinds of companies that "educated whites" would want to work for deliberately locate (or expand) in a Democrat parasite nest ("city")? And why would whites want to move into cities to work for them? What, they like the taxes, smog, corruption, crime, and filth? Please...
Second, "telecommuting" has become exponentially more popular during the past decade and continues to grow as a normal employment arrangement for many businesses. Some people rarely leave home during the working week these days, and plenty of other people "work from home" one or more days per week.
No sale on this story.
Allergic to nature. That sucks.
Astoria used to be Irish and Italian, then a lot of Greeks moved in-later a lot of Eastern Europeans.
There’s “ethnic” and there’s “ethnic, ain’t there? At least “Chad and Heather” won’t trash your neighborhood or put a hole in your head like “Shemequa and Quantalvius” might.
1. The Irish were more towards Woodside and the Dutch Kills section of Long Island City. In the 1950s-60s, Astoria was more Italian/Czech/German/Slovak, with a growing population of Greeks. By "ethnic" I meant the Greeks/Montegrans/Arabs/Latinos/Italians who were dominant there in my youth/young adulthood. Chad and Heather are turning into another bland, milky, limp-wristed Williamsburg. Why can't they go to the Bronx instead?
2. PLEASE don't put the "Irish and Italians" together like so many people do. Historically, they did NOT live in the same neighborhoods in the first generation and the Irish did nothing but discriminate against Italians, Poles, and Jews. Besides, what have the Irish ever given us besides bitter beer, bad food, and pederast priests?
“If there are hardly any nonwhites at conservative events, the obvious reason is that there are hardly any nonwhites who are conservatives. The nonwhites all on the left. So why are you criticizing conservatives for the fact that liberals are liberals? More to the point, why are you criticizing white conservatives for the fact that virtually all nonwhites reject conservatism? Why aren’t you criticizing nonwhites for being exclusively liberal? The fact is that whites are pretty evenly divided between liberals and conservatives. But nonwhites are virtually all liberal. Why aren’t you asking why this is so? Why aren’t you asking why nonwhites universally reject small government, individual responsibility, and traditional American patriotism?
“Again, you make monstrous insinuations against conservatives for being disproportionately white (which is not true, since whites are divided between conservative and liberal), while you decline to raise the slightest critical question about nonwhites for being almost exclusively liberal. If there is any ‘disproportionality’ or ‘exclusiveness’ here, it’s not among the whites, it’s among the nonwhites. But you treat the nonwhite liberals as victims, because they reject conservatism, which is something they have a choice about, while you accuse the white conservatives of being racists, simply because they are white, which is something they don’t have a choice about. In short, you are calling whites morally evil, simply because they are white. So YOU are the racists. YOU are the ones who paint people in hateful terms, because of their race. YOU are the ones who stir up hatred against a group, solely because of its race.”
Of course it doesn’t occur to a single white conservatives in America to ask these questions and put the left on the defensive, for reasons I’ve given many times.]
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.