Working U.S. Citizens abound in the suburbs and fly-over country. With the ACORN-types running the Census, you KNOW that representation and Districts will show MORE voterbase-favorable zones being packed, to assure electoral votes, and to assure more Entitlements-dependent goodies in the future.
Lot of truth here. Most every young adult I worked with recently and know through my daughter want to move into NYC.Nabes like Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Astoria are overflowing with young white suburban types,single or married. Becoming a bit like Europe where the burbs are for the immigrants and the cities for the well to do.
I could see single white people moving to the cities, but I cannot imagine families moving there.
Somewhat true as cities build “lofts” the younger crowd loves them along with the clubbing.
This report is probably put out by a bunch of crappy New Urbanists. I’m sure many of the young people moving to the city will move back to the burbs when it’s time to settle down and raise a family.
This isn’t new - yutes always like the city. They move to the suburbs when they get married, have kids and purchase homes.
From a political perspective, the lesson learned is that we should not regard any territory as “safe” ... nor write off any area or the people in it.
Just as there is economic and social mobility, there is political mobility. Just as we had Reagan Democrats so we now have Tea Party Democrats. For example, in Chicago running against Jan (socialist) is Joe Pollack (R label) who can only be described as an ex-Democrat now a Tea Party Democrat. Being a recent convert, he lacks some of the traditional/country club attributes of Republicans.
We can welcome these converts or alienate them because they are not yet perfect (as if our country club Republicans were).
maybe things will return to the way they once were, before the 20th century surburban exodus, fueled by the oil boom happened. Before, didn’t the wealthy live in the cities and the less affluent live on the outskirts?
Not exactly a roll call of our most populous cities. There have been articles about this supposed back to the cities movement before, going back at least twenty years, almost anytime some young whites decide to buy a loft apartment in the city, or some developer coverts an old, multi-story office building to high end condos.
Of course, many such folks leave the city when the get into their 30s and get sick of paying $3,000 a month for a closet.
The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 34 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest it has been in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U.S. will be foreign-born.
What you will find is that most of these “young Whites” moving to cities are either singles, with no kids, or DINKS. They are in the city to party after working hours and are not interested in raising families right now.
Many plan to have kids “someday,” and *then* will move back to the ‘burbs. At least that’s what they tell themselves. But then they put off having kids until later, and later and later. Kind of a “Children of Men” situation. . .
|
We have plenty of suburbs that have large minority populations here in Los Angeles. One in particular comes to mind right away, south-central LA now called south LA. The locals have another name for this wonderful suburb, its called “the hood” and I’m sure that this study identified many many suburban “hoods” to make this sound all warm and fuzzy to idiot liberals that read this kind of BS.
This is news? What is in the suburbs for a young unmarried person? He’ll I won’t live in the suburbs.
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.
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.
“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.]