Challenge: Prevent New York State's Population Drain

[Emperor Norton I]

Since the 60s, New York has been losing population at a high number. Since 1960, it has lost 7.3 million residents to the rest of the country, offset by an influx of 4.8 million immigrants, for a net decline of 2.5 million. Once the most populace state in the Union, New York has been surpassed by California and Texas.

The challenge is to prevent New York from losing population, or to at least curb the loss so it is not so great.

 

[Hrvatskiwi]

I think for this, it requires no take-over of the West, and preferably no Liousiana purchase. Although the East Coast will probably eventually want to expand inland due to population density, and immigration will be smaller, I still believe significant numbers will go to America, and NY will probably be the major point of entry.

 

[karl2025]

Eliminate Rent Controls. With higher prices being allowed in NYC the laws of supply and demand will have a freer reign and you'll see more improvement of buildings and more new buildings being built since there's more return for property owners. The urban poor will be pushed from the city center, of course, but the suburbs in New York State will be built up more as well, instead of an exodus of people to New Jersey. Not that people won't move to Jersey, just fewer.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

I think for this, it requires no take-over of the West, and preferably no Liousiana purchase. Although the East Coast will probably eventually want to expand inland due to population density, and immigration will be smaller, I still believe significant numbers will go to America, and NY will probably be the major point of entry.

The population loss didn't happen in like 1860. It happened since the 1960s. And not just by a small amount; by a rather sizable amount. Its lost 16 electoral votes since 1960; down from 45 in 1960 to 29 today. And those people are apparently migrating to Texas and California.

 

[Hrvatskiwi]

The population loss didn't happen in like 1860. It happened since the 1960s. And not just by a small amount; by a rather sizable amount. Its lost 16 electoral votes since 1960; down from 45 in 1960 to 29 today. And those people are apparently migrating to Texas and California.

If the USA doesn't have Texas and California, Americans will be less likely to move there.

 

[Devolved]

The population loss didn't happen in like 1860. It happened since the 1960s. And not just by a small amount; by a rather sizable amount. Its lost 16 electoral votes since 1960; down from 45 in 1960 to 29 today. And those people are apparently migrating to Texas and California.

In 1860 people couldn't just jump into a car or get the bus to Phoenix.

The Eastern Seaboard generally had the highest population because it was the disembarkation point for European immigrants for 3 centuries. Until the 20th century most people stayed close to where they landed due to lack of mobility and transport infrastructure. Once the standard of living goes up and you've opened up the continent with freeways and inter city flights why would everyone stay put?

Also there's the issue of crime, pollution and the weather. Why should everyone stay in New York when there are so many other places to go. It's not Hong Kong.

 

[SlideAway]

Your numbers are wrong - per Wikipedia, New York State's population in 1960 was 16.8 million. It is currently 19.8 million, which is itself a small increase from 2000 (just shy of 19 million).

The main reason it has lost congressional representation is because it has grown at a smaller pace than the Western and Southern states.

By and large the problem isn't New York City -- the problem is upstate, which is gripped by a lot of the same problems as the rest of the industrial Midwest/Great Lakes states. Find a way to prevent de-industrialization or have some other industries become prominent, keeping the population and tax base of the rest of the state healthy.

 

[BlairWitch749]

you also have the out of control property prices and taxes in the suburbs to thank for lots of young people leaving the state.

you would need a pod that sets aside a number of towns and cities with good commuting access but with much more reasonable prices and taxes

 

[UrbanRedneck]

The people I know who move out of NYC do it because they hate the weather, crowds, the poor public schools, and the high cost of living. Oh and the squeegee gangs.

Now for a young single person NYC is great. Cool things to do. Many great jobs for the young and ambitious. Yet when they have kids and think of trying to get a stroller onto a subway or a bus they change their minds.

 

[GrandpaTanaka]

No Air Conditioning. No growth of southern cities since the 60s. That would help, but you would still see migration west, especially to California.

Not sure what 'it's not Hong Kong' is supposed to mean. NYC is a much larger and more important city than HK, and personally I'd prefer the weather in NYC although both get very humid.

EDIT: Btw, we are talking about the STATE. So arguments against alleged pollution, crime, and not wanting to bring kids on the subway aren't really valid. There is still Westchester, Long island, etc. Not to mention all of upstate New York.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Your numbers are wrong - per Wikipedia, New York State's population in 1960 was 16.8 million. It is currently 19.8 million, which is itself a small increase from 2000 (just shy of 19 million).

The main reason it has lost congressional representation is because it has grown at a smaller pace than the Western and Southern states.

Well I'm a silly ninny. I created the thread when I just woke up, so forgive my sloppiness there (I was actually going to create a thread on trying to massively increase Alaska's population, but this topic distracted me). You are correct though. New York has been losing population by a high amount as people leave, but it has gained population as well (though influx is lesser than the number of people who have left), though it is not growing as fast as other states, which is problematic. So it is not as extreme as I made it sound, though the topic still holds water if you read it like I wasn't being a dimwit; New York has lost people, and the population immigrating into the state has been lesser than the population leaving, but people have been born here as well. However, there has still been those 7.3 million who did leave, and New York's population growth has not been as great as much of the nation, and it is indeed no longer the most populated state and is seemingly quite quickly being outmatched by California and Texas. So the challenge is to keep it from hemorrhaging population, and to get greater immigration into the state.

 

[BlairWitch749]

Well I'm a silly ninny. I created the thread when I just woke up, so forgive my sloppiness there (I was actually going to create a thread on trying to massively increase Alaska's population, but this topic distracted me). You are correct though. New York has been losing population by a high amount as people leave, but it has gained population as well (though influx is lesser than the number of people who have left), though it is not growing as fast as other states, which is problematic. So it is not as extreme as I made it sound, though the topic still holds water if you read it like I wasn't being a dimwit; New York has lost people, and the population immigrating into the state has been lesser than the population leaving, but people have been born here as well. However, there has still been those 7.3 million who did leave, and New York's population growth has not been as great as much of the nation, and it is indeed no longer the most populated state and is seemingly quite quickly being outmatched by California and Texas. So the challenge is to keep it from hemorrhaging population, and to get greater immigration into the state.

A couple of things I can think of

1. Oyster Bay to Rye Bridge gets built in the 60's or early 70's creating more commuting and economic opportunities in Westechester and Long Island whilst relieving pressure on the cross bronx expressway (the traffic there is a serious economic handicap and a big reason why the bronx sucks so much)
2. Shoram nuke plant opens along with a second one in westchester and is able to keep NY's energy prices from being so much higher than neighboring and competing states
3. Less aggressive state income tax to keep the upper and upper middle class from bailing to NJ and commuting from there
4. Massive expansion of metro north and lirr (with major auditing of their books and caps on their pension plans and salaries) in the 70's and 80's with better service to steadily expanding suburbia and well planned access to the airports along with an actual subsidy regime that encourages rail use
5. Early moderate property tax cap with special allowances for younger families

 

[Admiral Ackbar]

You guys know that New York City isn't the only city in New York State, right? Cities like Buffalo have lost half it's population since 1960, and Rochester and Syracuse have lost almost a third. These upstate cities are part of the rust belt, so the best bet is to stop the rust belt from happening or at least reduce the effects.

Here is a map of the change in manufacturing jobs between 1958-2002. Maroon is a loss of more than 56%, Red is a 43-56% loss, and pink is a 31-43% loss.

​

The areas surrounding NYC looks bad, but the growth in the financial sector helped make up for the loss in manufacturing, so the per capita income still increased there. However, the upstate cities still haven't recovered from the loss in manufacturing jobs. Here is a map of per capita income growth compared to US average between 1980-2002.

To prevent the rust belt you'd need to either prevent or quickly overturn Taft-Hartley, and get the South to unionize. You also need to prevent the US government from becoming such crazy free trade zealots over the last half century. Free trade with countries that don't share our values like a democratically elected representative government, workers rights, and environmental protections, would only lead to a race to the bottom and put downward pressure on our workers wages and create an incentive for companies to move manufacturing away from our country.
​

 

[UrbanRedneck]

No Air Conditioning. No growth of southern cities since the 60s. That would help, but you would still see migration west, especially to California.

Not sure what 'it's not Hong Kong' is supposed to mean. NYC is a much larger and more important city than HK, and personally I'd prefer the weather in NYC although both get very humid.

EDIT: Btw, we are talking about the STATE. So arguments against alleged pollution, crime, and not wanting to bring kids on the subway aren't really valid. There is still Westchester, Long island, etc. Not to mention all of upstate New York.

Then I dont know. The people I've known who moved from NY to Kansas were from NYC. And boy, do they bring their NY attitudes with them. They have trouble seeing that here one doesnt need to act tough all the time.

As for Buffalo, how can a city with a football team who's made it to the playoffs so many times be losing people?

 

[SiddFinch1]

For all the points people have raised about the problems in nyc and the suburbs the population downstate keeps pace. The loss is upstarted which is rust belt economically devastated. If a silicon vley type expansion took place in Rochester or buffalo it could have helped

 

[TheMann]

Admiral Ackbar's points are valid, but even that is something of a challenge, but I think its possible.

My Transport America TL (shameless plug ) is one option. Long and short there is that in the aftermath of WWII, social and cultural changes happen in America. In most of the union, World War II and the huge number of black servicemen who fought with honor massively reduces the problems with racism in America, and many GIs enter the police forces of numerous major cities, which reduces racial tensions, and also leads to gradual reductions in restrictions on where black people could live in US cities. President Eisenhower, well aware of both the autobahns and America's railroads carrying so much in WWII, builds the Interstate Highway System but at the same time enacts numerous programs to rail transit in America of all forms, from small intermodals to massive freight railroads, resulting in much-increased mass transit, which both slows the growth of suburbs somewhat and also improves America's economic state. In the 1960s, the white flight still happens but many newer arrivals to neighborhoods stay put and clean up communities, resulting in nearly all major American cities staying much better on the inside. The 1970s is not nearly as bad of an economic malaise as IOTL, and the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s sees a major movement to integrate the needs of business and labor, resulting in massive improvements to the United States' industrial infrastructure and yet huge growth in unionism, and it also results in massive wage growth for the poorer and middle classes in American society in the 1980s and 1990s. Combined with the reduction of crime in major cities of IOTL and much better mass transit, American cities see a huge renaissance in the 1990s and 2000s.

New York in that world has a good transit infrastructure before Robert Moses, and while Moses is still able to advance the automobile, he does not do the damage to New York's transit that he did IOTL. In addition to that, this world does not see New York's middle-class hollowed out as much as IOTL, which means that the city is not effectively bankrupt by the middle of the 1970s. Thus, New York is one of the first places to see a massive revival in the 1980s, a revival that keeps going right up to now. In addition to that, the much less hollowing out of manufacturing industries means that things are much better in places like Buffalo, Niagara Falls, Rochester, Syracuse and Albany. In the city of New York, the chaos of the John Lindsay and Abe Beame years is much less than OTL, and the local authorities are also part of the much less confrontational style between public sector unions and the government in the 1980s and 1990s. How much that helps, I'm not exactly sure, but I can't see it being a hinderance.

 

[Malta]

Yep. My family left due to cost of living back in 97.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Yep. My family left due to cost of living back in 97.

Did you live in or around NYC or in Upstate/Western New York?

 

[Slacker]

Bring down the cost of living, perhaps with the things Blair Witch mentioned.

 

[UrbanRedneck]

Yep. My family left due to cost of living back in 97.

Well one young man I knew who left NYC talked about the high cost of living and he couldnt believe he could rent an apartment here in Kansas City for $350 a month plus the wages between here and NYC were about the same. Even some actors and dancers have said its easier to get work on stage here in KC than in NYC or LA.

One thing though, many jobs ONLY exist in places like New York and LA plus many corporate headquarters are there.