Continuing on the subject I raised yesterday, if this article from ABC 7 Chicago is to be believed Illinois’s population isn’t shrinking because of Chicago:
“Before we ask why, we want to ask where. It is not the same throughout the state,” said Teresa Cordova, director of UIC’s Great Cities Institute.
Cordova said while whites and Blacks are leaving Chicago, the same number of Asians and Latinos are moving in. She said Illinois’ population loss is being driven by downstate declines.
“The decline is occurring in the smaller areas, smaller towns, primarily places that are rural,” she said.
I wish there were a bit more value added and finer granularity in the article. According to this Chicago’s population has declined by nearly 1% since the last sentence. It’s possible that Chicago’s population may not have declined by as large a percentage as, say, Peoria County, but may account for a large part of the state’s population decline. The Great Cities Institute’s web page did not elucidate further.
Another gripe I have about the linked article is that IMO “Asians” and “Latinos” are prime examples of false reification. What’s an Asian? It could mean anything from a Turkish immigrant to a Japanese immigrant. Similarly, Hispanics or Latinos are arguably a linguistic community but just as a general matter there’s a considerable difference between a Guatemalan immigrants and a Uruguayan one. Nearly 2/3s of Uruguayans have college degrees or better compared to fewer than 20% in Guatemala.
I guess we’ll need to wait for the details. However, it does corroborate what I’ve been saying for some time. The black population of Chicago has peaked and Chicago’s changing population probably won’t be feel nearly as paternalistic towards the black population as Chicago’s population did in 1990, 2000, or 2010.
I wonder how they define “Chicago,” because your link shows declines in every Illinois county since the last census except seven:
Chicago Suburbs: Kendall (*), Kane (*), Grundy (*), Will and Dekalb.
St. Louis Suburb: Monroe (*)
Champaign County
(*) These are probably fairly identified as exurbs.
A good example for a future Chicago is LA. Those of us old enough remember when it was a White city, then it transitioned to a Black run city, and now it is majority Mexican and Central American. Blacks and Whites bailed out some time ago.
By the way, the southern, rural Illinois counties losing population are largely White, and Whites everywhere in America have lower than replacement birth rates.
PD:
If it’s not clear from my post, I think she’s reaching.
bob sykes:
You might want to check Los Angeles’s demographics more closely. The majority there are white. If you further subdivide its demographics, no group holds a majority.
But I agree that what has happened in Los Angeles is likely to be what will happen in Chicago. Black political influence has peaked and is now ebbing. Whites will dominate for the foreseeable future and that’s because so many Hispanics consider themselves and are considered white. “White” is malleable. For the U. S. as a whole its ethnic composition in 1830 wasn’t the same as it had been in 1790, its ethnic composition in 1860 wasn’t what it had been in 1830, and its ethnic composition in 1950 wasn’t what it had been in 1900.
50 years ago the city of Chicago was largely Irish, Italian, Polish, and black. By 2000 many of the Irish, Italians, and Poles had left for the suburbs and were replaced by Hispanics.
Ms Cordova may or may not be correct. But she is playing hide the pea. When people talk about the exodus they do so primarily to highlight the effects on the tax base and housing values. As part of two recipient states I can tell you that large numbers of the relatively affluent are leaving. And this goes for the other usual suspects: MA, CT, NY, NJ, MN, Ca.
She may view her observation as exculpatory, but the tax receipts won’t lie. One Chicago or DuPage county exit can remove as many tax dollars as 3 or 4 of her move ins from the relevant tax rolls. And downstate exits are probably gone, period.
Hers is wishful thinking.