HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted May 22, 2019, 9:33 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 4,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
LOL, why do comments like this always come from Americans? Are they so insular they just can't imagine being interested in anywhere else?
Yes, one can be interested in anywhere else, in fact many Americans are, including myself.

My question was directed at Capsicum, because he often asks about US-related stuff, and hardly anything about other countries, including his own.

So that's where my question was coming from. It's like, why (on his part) all the interest in the US? I thought that was clear when I asked that the FIRST time.
__________________
"If the climate were a bank, the U.S. would have already saved it."

---Hugo Chávez
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted May 22, 2019, 9:54 PM
liat91 liat91 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Metropolis
Posts: 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
the sooner we're all one brown androgynous blob the better humanity will be
That won’t happen. Identity in the future will be based on one’s virtual skin and desire/capability for gene editing. Even in Africa they have preferences for lighter skin and eyes. White skin won’t be preferable. This will be the look of the future, IMO.



__________________
WATCH OUT!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted May 30, 2019, 7:36 PM
RST500 RST500 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 443
What does Trump’s “merit-based” immigration plan mean for Indians?

https://qz.com/india/1622593/beyond-...-help-indians/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted May 30, 2019, 7:52 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
the sooner we're all one brown androgynous blob the better humanity will be

So essentially what you're saying is, homogeneity is good; diversity is bad.
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted May 30, 2019, 8:02 PM
Buckman821's Avatar
Buckman821 Buckman821 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
the sooner we're all one brown androgynous blob the better humanity will be
I know this comment was tongue in cheek but this is a looooong way into the future.

What I do think will happen within a shorter time frame is that being mixed race is going to be associated with high education levels, affluence and cosmopolitanism whereas racial "purity" will be associated with populations the undeveloped world or provincial areas within the developed world. My guess is we're only a few generations away from this sort of natural association being commonplace. This just seems to be a natural outcome of the current pattern of which types of people are mixing races and which ones are not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted May 30, 2019, 9:35 PM
Capsicum's Avatar
Capsicum Capsicum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 2,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckman821 View Post
I know this comment was tongue in cheek but this is a looooong way into the future.

What I do think will happen within a shorter time frame is that being mixed race is going to be associated with high education levels, affluence and cosmopolitanism whereas racial "purity" will be associated with populations the undeveloped world or provincial areas within the developed world. My guess is we're only a few generations away from this sort of natural association being commonplace. This just seems to be a natural outcome of the current pattern of which types of people are mixing races and which ones are not.
Attitudes would still have to shift a long way for that.

If we look at the places in the world that do have mixed race people as majority or a large percentage (where "mixed race" means a combination of ancestries from different world regions separated geographically but then coming together in the last few centuries) like Latin America, the Caribbean, you don't see that quite yet.

You still see, for instance people favoring one side -- for example, in Latin American places where many people are mixed European and African descent or European and Native American, or both, the more European-looking people are favored in terms of beauty standards. And that's not even getting into things like the "one drop rule" in places like the US or other parts of the west that (even though it's "officially" long gone, informally people still act like traces of that mindset remain) act so that mixes between white and black (or white and non-white) are typically seen more as the black side or non-white than white.

So long as people still cling to categorization, and treat the categorizations as different in some way, we won't solve that problem. You might get "colorism", treating people differently based on the spectrum of shades of variation, rather than "racism" in the categorical way we know it, but that's not good either.

Even when mixed race people look "brown", they are not homogenous, by luck some people look more like one parent than another, and until we stop favoring which "side" is treated more like the ideal beauty "standard", and until all kinds of variation in racial appearance are treated fairly equally, the prejudice won't go away.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted May 30, 2019, 9:43 PM
Capsicum's Avatar
Capsicum Capsicum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 2,138
And this may be even further off, but when genetic engineering as previously mentioned makes people be able to choose their kids' looks, that might be even more of a wild card.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2019, 1:12 PM
liat91 liat91 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Metropolis
Posts: 553
Genetic engineering is here already, it’s just being kept low key because of ethical considerations.

The comment about mixed race and level of affluence/education is interesting. I wouldn’t exactly reference Brazil as a counter argument, because Brazil’s mixed race society was built under extremely different circumstances than modern day America.

There is a natural inclination in the US for modern mixed race people to excel significantly in comparison to the overall population. It will be interesting to see how that phenomena interacts with the seeming global preference for fairer skin.

A very simplistic and unsophisticated preference at that. Rooted from feudal times. Poor field worker = dark skin from sun, wealthy not work in field = light skin. Wealthy = better. Light = better, dark = bad. Nighttime = scary (can’t see) = dark. Not clean = darker. Put it all together Watson.

Thoughts from humans with darker tones due to environmental adaptation = The gods must be crazy!

Comical really.
__________________
WATCH OUT!

Last edited by liat91; Jun 3, 2019 at 1:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2019, 10:18 PM
RST500 RST500 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 443
If the US enters a new Cold War with China that might be a factor in terms of immigration.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2019, 6:39 PM
park123 park123 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 18
If Trump wins a 2nd term, Asian immigration to the USA may have already peaked. It's lower this year than before. There are procedural crackdowns on all immigration into the USA, not only illegals from south of the border. It's harder to get a visa for anyone, and that's started to effect immigration levels from China, India, etc.

Chinese immigration will probably slow down anyway, because China is not that poor anymore, and the birthrate there is far below replacement level.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2019, 8:09 PM
llamaorama llamaorama is online now
Unicorn Wizard!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,462
I have a suspicion that immigration will slow down substantially in the next few years. The Trump admin has done a lot to crimp legal immigration, and then regardless of what happens in 2020 there is likely to be a recession. Beyond that is anyone's guess, but with immigration such a hot topic politically, it could be impossible to bring numbers back up to what they were originally.

This could be the beginning of the US's long predicted population peak, IMO. Coming a lot sooner than anticipated, which is worrying. I was hoping we'd crack 400 million but I guess not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2019, 9:23 PM
RST500 RST500 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by llamaorama View Post
I have a suspicion that immigration will slow down substantially in the next few years. The Trump admin has done a lot to crimp legal immigration, and then regardless of what happens in 2020 there is likely to be a recession. Beyond that is anyone's guess, but with immigration such a hot topic politically, it could be impossible to bring numbers back up to what they were originally.

This could be the beginning of the US's long predicted population peak, IMO. Coming a lot sooner than anticipated, which is worrying. I was hoping we'd crack 400 million but I guess not.
As far as current legal immigration levels go I have heard different things from different sources. Some publications say that legal immigration has declined under Trump while restrictionist will say Trump has kept the status quo.

I'd like to see the official numbers we let in each year. Trump's seems to be in favor of a merit based immigration system, and as Canada shows would probably lead to an increase in overall Asian immigration.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2019, 4:38 PM
Baronvonellis Baronvonellis is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 841
400 million yikes, there's already way too many people in the US and in the world! I think the US was alot better when it was around 200 million. Land and housing were cheaper, and people had room to breathe. I don't want to cram hundreds of millions of more people here. The world environment wont support hundreds of millions of more people living a US lifestyle.

Just from my company I work in IT, and only 2 years ago it used to be 90% Indian, now all the Indians are gone from my project. The Indian managers are gone, now we have American managers and the new people they are hiring are American. It seem like it's much hard to get a work visa here now. I'm glad they are hiring American people now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2019, 5:54 PM
llamaorama llamaorama is online now
Unicorn Wizard!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baronvonellis View Post
400 million yikes, there's already way too many people in the US and in the world! I think the US was alot better when it was around 200 million. Land and housing were cheaper, and people had room to breathe. I don't want to cram hundreds of millions of more people here. The world environment wont support hundreds of millions of more people living a US lifestyle.

Just from my company I work in IT, and only 2 years ago it used to be 90% Indian, now all the Indians are gone from my project. The Indian managers are gone, now we have American managers and the new people they are hiring are American. It seem like it's much hard to get a work visa here now. I'm glad they are hiring American people now.

It’s only a 23 pct increase.

Saying there should be fewer people in the US to combat climate change assumes the developing world won’t develop. Or that they won’t have fewer kids here than there.

More people boosts our GDP and domestic market size, which insulated us from the influences of globalism and the soft power of rivals like China, so it’s ironic that the right doesn’t like population growth from immigration. Small countries are burdened by the overreach of other nations laws and can’t protect the rights of their citizens. If a foreign country dominates your economy, you can end up being forced to adopt their regulations and laws over your own because otherwise they can pull the rug out from under you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2019, 4:51 PM
Baronvonellis Baronvonellis is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 841
Quote:
Originally Posted by llamaorama View Post
It’s only a 23 pct increase.

Saying there should be fewer people in the US to combat climate change assumes the developing world won’t develop. Or that they won’t have fewer kids here than there.

More people boosts our GDP and domestic market size, which insulated us from the influences of globalism and the soft power of rivals like China, so it’s ironic that the right doesn’t like population growth from immigration. Small countries are burdened by the overreach of other nations laws and can’t protect the rights of their citizens. If a foreign country dominates your economy, you can end up being forced to adopt their regulations and laws over your own because otherwise they can pull the rug out from under you.
Only 23%? The absolute number is more relevant that the percentage. That's 72 million more people. That's almost 2 more California's worth of people. Where are they going to go? I don't think Montana is suddenly going to have 50 million more people. They are going to cram into already expensive cities.

No other countries will develop the way the US does with sprawl. What makes you assume the rest of the world will ever develop to US standards? The world doesn't have enough resources to support that. China can barely take enough resources from Africa and South America as it is to support their population. If Africa ever developed to 1st world standards, it s
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2019, 5:02 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 19,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baronvonellis View Post
Only 23%? The absolute number is more relevant that the percentage. That's 72 million more people. That's almost 2 more California's worth of people. Where are they going to go? I don't think Montana is suddenly going to have 50 million more people. They are going to cram into already expensive cities.
The U.S. is pretty empty. The country could easily handle another 100 million and still be much emptier than Western Europe.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2019, 9:21 PM
llamaorama llamaorama is online now
Unicorn Wizard!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,462
Easy. The fastest growing regions will expand by over a 1/3 or so. Dallas will grow from
7 million to 10 million and it will be more of the same. Nobody will move to Montana.

And it’s not about the whole works reaching American living standards, but an additional 1% of its population doing so. Whether that happens inside our borders or across countries that are bigger than us. Look at China and India, they may be poor overall but their size means they have hundreds of millions of people living a near middle class lifestyle already. This increase for the US is a rounding error compared to all of the Earth but meaningful for our own interests.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2019, 1:02 AM
RST500 RST500 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
The U.S. is pretty empty. The country could easily handle another 100 million and still be much emptier than Western Europe.
With that much growth. Say adding 100 Million in the next three decades, it's inevitable a lot of that would be sprawl. So many urban areas are not adequately zoned so that population growth would be pushed further out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2019, 7:22 PM
bossabreezes bossabreezes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: NYC/SP/RJ
Posts: 113
The US could fit a lot more people in it, but I think it would be detrimental to have a population of over 500M.

Even though some cities in the US are urbanizing due to free market, the government of most cities in the US is very behind on keeping up on infrastructure. This will end up lowering the quality of life for everyone, and cost of living will become even more difficult in the largest cities.

Also, back to the original question: Asian Immigration. From what I can see, crudely based off of my own two eyes, Indian Immigration in the NYC metro region is extremely high. Most of the time on transit, the passengers are 85% Indian. NYC metro area is definitely becoming Indian faster than any other kind of East Asian, I think that flow has slowed down significantly in the past decade and has been taken over by Indian and South Asian immigrants. Same goes for the Philadelphia metro region, there are Indian ethnoburbs forming all over the place.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2019, 12:14 AM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 19,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossabreezes View Post
Also, back to the original question: Asian Immigration. From what I can see, crudely based off of my own two eyes, Indian Immigration in the NYC metro region is extremely high. Most of the time on transit, the passengers are 85% Indian. NYC metro area is definitely becoming Indian faster than any other kind of East Asian, I think that flow has slowed down significantly in the past decade and has been taken over by Indian and South Asian immigrants. Same goes for the Philadelphia metro region, there are Indian ethnoburbs forming all over the place.
I assume you live in Central NJ, which, yes, has Indian-dominated areas. But I can't imagine that 85% of people on any NJ Transit route are Indian, or South Asian.

On the NY side, there are plenty of Indian enclaves, especially in Queens and Nassau, but I can't think of any area that is absolutely dominated by Indians. Certainly no subway or LIRR line will be Indian-dominated.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:47 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.