Southeast Michigan projected to have older population, fewer jobs by 2040

**begingri** · March-21-12, 09:40 PM

Southeast Michigan projected to have older population, fewer jobs by 2040, report says

By 2040, southeast Michigan's population will be older than it is today. The exurbs that were once expected to fill in the tri-county area never materialize. Jobs will be higher-paying, but there will be fewer of them. And the auto industry won't be the only game in town.

Those are the findings in a new report the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments will release Thursday about Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Livingston, Washtenaw, St. Clair and Monroe counties.

The forecast is completed about every five years, and this one looks at the region through 2040.

The forecasts have been remarkably accurate at the county level, within 1% to 1.5%.

Continued at: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...=2012203210379

**professorscott** · March-21-12, 10:53 PM

But spirit... are these the shadows of things that will be... or are they the shadows of things that may be, only?

**belleislerunner** · March-22-12, 07:09 AM

Baby boomers [[1945-1950) will start retiring in mass in the next 2-5 years and continue for 20. Yawn... As that population ages so will the demographic info until they pass on in 20 years [[i.e. not in denominator) and surprise, the average age declines again. Yawn...

**iheartthed** · March-22-12, 09:30 AM

That doesn't sound like a vote of confidence from SEMCOG.

**mwilbert** · March-22-12, 02:14 PM

Baby boomers [[1945-1950) will start retiring in mass in the next 2-5 years and continue for 20. Yawn... As that population ages so will the demographic info until they pass on in 20 years [[i.e. not in denominator) and surprise, the average age declines again. Yawn...

I don't know the info for Michigan, but this isn't true for the US. According to Census Bureau projections, population age rises to 2035 and then basically just sits there through 2050.

see http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0009.pdf

**Detroitnerd** · March-22-12, 02:30 PM

Gotta hand it to SEMCOG. Are they a regional planning organization? Hell no. They just look at how the region is going to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic and issues these reports showing where the deck chairs will be. This isn't planning. This is drawing bull's-eyes where the darts fall.

**DetroitPlanner** · March-22-12, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Gotta hand it to SEMCOG. Are they a regional planning organization? Hell no. They just look at how the region is going to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic and issues these reports showing where the deck chairs will be. This isn't planning. This is drawing bull's-eyes where the darts fall.

Forecasts are not plans. There are no goals objectives or policies involved with a forecast. It is a look at current and past trends. It is step one of a plan. This is a snapshot of what will happen if we continue business as normal. A plan's goals objectives and policies addresses and shapes the region. To dismiss this as being a self-fullfilling prophecy is flat-out wrong. Here is another piece that will go into the next plan.

**Ray1936** · March-22-12, 04:04 PM

2040? Since I hit 75 last year, I don't even buy green bananas any more.

**iheartthed** · March-22-12, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

I don't know the info for Michigan, but this isn't true for the US. According to Census Bureau projections, population age rises to 2035 and then basically just sits there through 2050.

see http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0009.pdf

I can't imagine many scenarios where Metro Detroit adds less than 1% population growth over 30 years and does not significantly age. I'm in my late 20s now so I'll probably be at Detroit's median age in 30 years, lol.

Kidding aside, it would be pretty stunning if this actually did happen. Fortunately, population projections that go out several decades are no more reliable than trying to guess what a company's stock price will be in 2 years or the weather for a day 6 months from now.

**DetroitPlanner** · March-22-12, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I can't imagine many scenarios where Metro Detroit adds less than 1% population growth over 30 years and does not significantly age. I'm in my late 20s now so I'll probably be at Detroit's median age in 30 years, lol.

Kidding aside, it would be pretty stunning if this actually did happen. Fortunately, population projections that go out several decades are no more reliable than trying to guess what a company's stock price will be in 2 years or the weather for a day 6 months from now.

The City of Detroit could reverse population loss if changes in policy are enacted that would attract residents. Ubfortunately, and I hate to say this as I love my City, there is more pushing people to live elsewhere than there is to attract people. Remember, when you look at the areas that are attractive places to live in the City they still have a lot of issues, not only that, they make up a small portion of the entire city's geography.

Much more needs to be done to make the City safer, all schools excellent, and make the City economically attractive to residents.

**Detroitnerd** · March-23-12, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Forecasts are not plans. There are no goals objectives or policies involved with a forecast. It is a look at current and past trends. It is step one of a plan. This is a snapshot of what will happen if we continue business as normal. A plan's goals objectives and policies addresses and shapes the region. To dismiss this as being a self-fullfilling prophecy is flat-out wrong. Here is another piece that will go into the next plan.

SEMCOG, as a regional planning organization, is a sick joke. SEMCOG is ALWAYS business as usual.

**ghettopalmetto** · March-23-12, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

The City of Detroit could reverse population loss if changes in policy are enacted that would attract residents. Ubfortunately, and I hate to say this as I love my City, there is more pushing people to live elsewhere than there is to attract people. Remember, when you look at the areas that are attractive places to live in the City they still have a lot of issues, not only that, they make up a small portion of the entire city's geography.

Much more needs to be done to make the City safer, all schools excellent, and make the City economically attractive to residents.

It might help if someone schooled and knowledgeable of such matters would write in specifics. Vague terminology like "a lot of issues" and "much more needs to be done" doesn't really help much.