60 million Californians by 2050

Mayfuck · 07-10-2007, 04:05 PM

the fuck where we gonna fit all these people!?

Future Boy · 07-10-2007, 04:06 PM

You'll have sunk into the ocean by then.

Ihaman · 07-10-2007, 04:08 PM

into the condo i plan on buying within the year!

I'M GONNA BE RICH!

bardy · 07-10-2007, 04:08 PM

in the central valley is where a large percentage of the growth is predicted.

Ihaman · 07-10-2007, 04:11 PM

Ew, why the central valley?

Nimrod's Son · 07-10-2007, 04:14 PM

Riverside is expected to have by far the most growth and almost rival LA for population.

bardy · 07-10-2007, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ihaman

Ew, why the central valley?

because its cheaper

Shapan · 07-10-2007, 04:18 PM

riverside is a pretty cheap place right now, its a shithole now but it'll get better as time goes along.

the campus at ucr was nice but the further you got from it the shadier it was

Mayfuck · 07-10-2007, 04:20 PM

with proper planning riverside might be a nice place but i highly doubt it. the inland empire and central valley will grow the fastest but nothing is being done about infrastructure and i predict disaster. if roads aren't repaired and rail lines not built you can say bye bye to the middle class. arizona is the new inland empire.

Mayfuck · 07-10-2007, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shapan

riverside is a pretty cheap place right now, its a shithole now but it'll get better as time goes along.

the campus at ucr was nice but the further you got from it the shadier it was

i'm sorry shapan but you're gonna have to leave the state. no more room. all the lame-os have to leave. sorry dude.

Ihaman · 07-10-2007, 04:23 PM

Everyone I know from Rancho Cucamonga is fucked up.

Shapan · 07-10-2007, 04:31 PM

maybe if i lock myself in my apartment for the next 3 years i can see where its at julio

bardy · 04:49 PM

this is actually something I have to consider with my line of work so I feel I must defend what I stated.

County and the associated increase in population between 2000 and 2050

see post below

Nimrod's Son · 07-10-2007, 04:34 PM

Also reports indicate that due to the lack of a valid border policy hispanics will become the majority in CA by 2009

bardy · 07-10-2007, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

Also reports indicate that due to the lack of a valid border policy hispanics will become the majority in CA by 2009

population by race in 2050

Mayfuck · 07-10-2007, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bardy

this is actually something I have to consider with my line of work so I feel I must defend what I stated.

County and the associated increase in population between 2000 and 2050

SUTTER 355.25%
YUBA 332.23%
MADERA 331.66%
KERN 316.45%
SAN JOAQUIN 313.48%
MERCED 308.47%
RIVERSIDE 303.45%
PLACER 297.83%
TULARE 277.60%
MONO 277.27%
KINGS 270.93%
SAN BENITO 269.94%
IMPERIAL 269.72%
STANISLAUS 264.04%
MODOC 250.16%
FRESNO 239.70%
GLENN 237.58%
TRINITY 229.64%
TEHAMA 221.76%
COLUSA 218.96%
BUTTE 216.40%
SAN BERNARDINO 212.68%
SOLANO 205.42%
DEL NORTE 203.10%
SHASTA 201.30%
NAPA 201.07%
EL DORADO 198.04%
CALAVERAS 196.78%
AMADOR 193.70%
YOLO 192.72%
CONTRA COSTA 189.47%
LAKE 182.02%
SACRAMENTO 176.44%
CALIFORNIA 174.48%
SONOMA 164.89%
LASSEN 164.15%
MARIPOSA 163.80%
VENTURA 162.05%
MONTEREY 160.03%
SAN DIEGO 158.96%
SANTA CLARA 155.02%
MENDOCINO 154.90%
SISKIYOU 149.19%
NEVADA 147.10%
SAN LUIS OBISPO 146.89%
ALAMEDA 140.92%
ORANGE 139.24%
INYO 138.12%
PLUMAS 136.47%
LOS ANGELES 136.36%
TUOLUMNE 133.59%
SANTA BARBARA 133.24%
SANTA CRUZ 129.76%
MARIN 123.92%
HUMBOLDT 120.10%
SAN MATEO 115.20%
SAN FRANCISCO 109.43%
ALPINE 109.20%
SIERRA 95.84%

uhh 100%+ for all of these? i made this thread cause i read the article in today's L.A times but they reported a 70% increase for the whole state, how could all these double and triple in size?

Nimrod's Son · 07-10-2007, 04:46 PM

let's all stop questioning the racial/monetary differentials. white folks aren't overbreeding.

bardy · 07-10-2007, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mayfuck

uhh 100%+ for all of these? i made this thread cause i read the article in today's L.A times but they reported a 70% increase for the whole state, how could all these double and triple in size?

a 100% woudl be just staying the same, I didnt feel like thinking about the numbers, I just divided the ending population by the beginning population

Nimrod's Son · 07-10-2007, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bardy

a 100% woudl be just staying the same, I didnt feel like thinking about the numbers, I just divided the ending population by the beginning population

a 100% increase in population would be doubling you know

bardy · 07-10-2007, 04:48 PM

here I fixed it

SUTTER 255.25%
YUBA 232.23%
MADERA 231.66%
KERN 216.45%
SAN JOAQUIN 213.48%
MERCED 208.47%
RIVERSIDE 203.45%
PLACER 197.83%
TULARE 177.60%
MONO 177.27%
KINGS 170.93%
SAN BENITO 169.94%
IMPERIAL 169.72%
STANISLAUS 164.04%
MODOC 150.16%
FRESNO 139.70%
GLENN 137.58%
TRINITY 129.64%
TEHAMA 121.76%
COLUSA 118.96%
BUTTE 116.40%
SAN BERNARDINO 112.68%
SOLANO 105.42%
DEL NORTE 103.10%
SHASTA 101.30%
NAPA 101.07%
EL DORADO 98.04%
CALAVERAS 96.78%
AMADOR 93.70%
YOLO 92.72%
CONTRA COSTA 89.47%
LAKE 82.02%
SACRAMENTO 76.44%
CALIFORNIA 74.48%
SONOMA 64.89%
LASSEN 64.15%
MARIPOSA 63.80%
VENTURA 62.05%
MONTEREY 60.03%
SAN DIEGO 58.96%
SANTA CLARA 55.02%
MENDOCINO 54.90%
SISKIYOU 49.19%
NEVADA 47.10%
SAN LUIS OBISPO 46.89%
ALAMEDA 40.92%
ORANGE 39.24%
INYO 38.12%
PLUMAS 36.47%
LOS ANGELES 36.36%
TUOLUMNE 33.59%
SANTA BARBARA 33.24%
SANTA CRUZ 29.76%
MARIN 23.92%
HUMBOLDT 20.10%
SAN MATEO 15.20%
SAN FRANCISCO 9.43%
ALPINE 9.20%
SIERRA -4.16%

Mayfuck · 07-10-2007, 04:49 PM

Ol' Couch Ass · 07-10-2007, 04:52 PM

boy sierra must feel left out.

Nimrod's Son · 07-10-2007, 04:53 PM

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...latinos430.gif

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...ges/pop430.gif

bardy · 07-10-2007, 04:54 PM

nimrod stop prancing around like you know everything.

bardy · 07-10-2007, 04:55 PM

this is where I got my data

http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/DEMOGRAP/...ions/P1/P1.asp

Ihaman · 07-10-2007, 04:55 PM

This thread has turned into this:

Nimrod's Son · 07-10-2007, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bardy

nimrod stop prancing around like you know everything.

i know basic fucking math. look at the chart i posted and then look at the figures you "fixed" and get back to me.

Nimrod's Son · 07-10-2007, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bardy

this is where I got my data

http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/DEMOGRAP/...ions/P1/P1.asp

.. which you then "changed" by removing 100 from each increase.

bardy · 07-10-2007, 04:58 PM

I dont know whether increase in actual number of people is more important than the percentage increase in that county. I am indifferent on that I think. But as a matter of WOAH HOLY CRAP WHERE DID ALL THESE PEOPLE COME FROM effect I would go with percentage increase being more important.

Ihaman · 07-10-2007, 04:59 PM

07-10-2007, 04:05 PM	#1
Mayfuck Banned Location: i'm from japan also hollywood Posts: 57,812	60 million Californians by 2050 the fuck where we gonna fit all these people!?

07-10-2007, 04:34 PM	#13
bardy Immortal Location: helllllloooooo!! Posts: 20,831	this is actually something I have to consider with my line of work so I feel I must defend what I stated. County and the associated increase in population between 2000 and 2050 see post below Last edited by bardy : 07-10-2007 at 04:49 PM.

07-10-2007, 04:06 PM	#2
Future Boy The Man of Tomorrow Posts: 26,972	You'll have sunk into the ocean by then.

07-10-2007, 04:08 PM	#3
Ihaman Sometimes, though. Location: Hazard, California Posts: 21,274	into the condo i plan on buying within the year! I'M GONNA BE RICH!

07-10-2007, 04:11 PM	#5
Ihaman Sometimes, though. Location: Hazard, California Posts: 21,274	Ew, why the central valley?

07-10-2007, 04:14 PM	#6
Nimrod's Son Master of Karate and Friendship Location: in your butt Posts: 72,943	Riverside is expected to have by far the most growth and almost rival LA for population.

07-10-2007, 04:18 PM	#8
Shapan Socialphobic Location: intellectual hobo Posts: 11,798	riverside is a pretty cheap place right now, its a shithole now but it'll get better as time goes along. the campus at ucr was nice but the further you got from it the shadier it was

07-10-2007, 04:20 PM	#9
Mayfuck Banned Location: i'm from japan also hollywood Posts: 57,812	with proper planning riverside might be a nice place but i highly doubt it. the inland empire and central valley will grow the fastest but nothing is being done about infrastructure and i predict disaster. if roads aren't repaired and rail lines not built you can say bye bye to the middle class. arizona is the new inland empire.

07-10-2007, 04:23 PM	#11
Ihaman Sometimes, though. Location: Hazard, California Posts: 21,274	Everyone I know from Rancho Cucamonga is fucked up.

07-10-2007, 04:31 PM	#12
Shapan Socialphobic Location: intellectual hobo Posts: 11,798	maybe if i lock myself in my apartment for the next 3 years i can see where its at julio

07-10-2007, 04:46 PM	#17
Nimrod's Son Master of Karate and Friendship Location: in your butt Posts: 72,943	let's all stop questioning the racial/monetary differentials. white folks aren't overbreeding.

07-10-2007, 04:48 PM	#20
bardy Immortal Location: helllllloooooo!! Posts: 20,831	here I fixed it SUTTER 255.25% YUBA 232.23% MADERA 231.66% KERN 216.45% SAN JOAQUIN 213.48% MERCED 208.47% RIVERSIDE 203.45% PLACER 197.83% TULARE 177.60% MONO 177.27% KINGS 170.93% SAN BENITO 169.94% IMPERIAL 169.72% STANISLAUS 164.04% MODOC 150.16% FRESNO 139.70% GLENN 137.58% TRINITY 129.64% TEHAMA 121.76% COLUSA 118.96% BUTTE 116.40% SAN BERNARDINO 112.68% SOLANO 105.42% DEL NORTE 103.10% SHASTA 101.30% NAPA 101.07% EL DORADO 98.04% CALAVERAS 96.78% AMADOR 93.70% YOLO 92.72% CONTRA COSTA 89.47% LAKE 82.02% SACRAMENTO 76.44% CALIFORNIA 74.48% SONOMA 64.89% LASSEN 64.15% MARIPOSA 63.80% VENTURA 62.05% MONTEREY 60.03% SAN DIEGO 58.96% SANTA CLARA 55.02% MENDOCINO 54.90% SISKIYOU 49.19% NEVADA 47.10% SAN LUIS OBISPO 46.89% ALAMEDA 40.92% ORANGE 39.24% INYO 38.12% PLUMAS 36.47% LOS ANGELES 36.36% TUOLUMNE 33.59% SANTA BARBARA 33.24% SANTA CRUZ 29.76% MARIN 23.92% HUMBOLDT 20.10% SAN MATEO 15.20% SAN FRANCISCO 9.43% ALPINE 9.20% SIERRA -4.16%

07-10-2007, 04:49 PM	#21
Mayfuck Banned Location: i'm from japan also hollywood Posts: 57,812

07-10-2007, 04:52 PM	#22
Ol' Couch Ass Socialphobic Location: The Filthy South Posts: 11,261	boy sierra must feel left out.

07-10-2007, 04:54 PM	#24
bardy Immortal Location: helllllloooooo!! Posts: 20,831	nimrod stop prancing around like you know everything.

07-10-2007, 04:55 PM	#25
bardy Immortal Location: helllllloooooo!! Posts: 20,831	this is where I got my data http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/DEMOGRAP/...ions/P1/P1.asp

07-10-2007, 04:58 PM	#29
bardy Immortal Location: helllllloooooo!! Posts: 20,831	I dont know whether increase in actual number of people is more important than the percentage increase in that county. I am indifferent on that I think. But as a matter of WOAH HOLY CRAP WHERE DID ALL THESE PEOPLE COME FROM effect I would go with percentage increase being more important.

07-10-2007, 04:59 PM	#30
Ihaman Sometimes, though. Location: Hazard, California Posts: 21,274