The Not-So American Century
- Thread starter Rattigan
- Start date
Yes. The idea is that the survival of the Confederacy into the 1940s TTL means that there's less impetus to divide up the western territories to gerrymander the Senate, especially given their small population. In terms of immigration, the patterns are more or less the same until the 1910s, when a backlash against Ethnic White migrants ends up with the installation of restrictive immigration statutes which persist to this day. (I'll get to this soonish but TTL a lot of intra-White ethnic divisions continue to the present: there's less integration, "Whites" and "Ethnic Whites" are still counted as different races on the census, and even prohibition laws remain common.) Combined with countries like Mexico, Austria and Russia doing better TTL, and you have much reduced 20th century migration.
Dumb typo on my behalf - I changed the name of the state that covers OTL Utah, Colorado and Nevada to "Colorado" (because you've got to love that flag) between putting together the map and the table. The table is the correct one.
Surprised to see that the Republicans didn't take the opportunity as IOTL to pack the Senate with Plains states, especially with what seems to have been a second civil war... also not really buying California with so little attractive power for at least internal migration. It's too damned pleasant in terms of climate and resources to take such a thorough backseat to the Old Northwest and Northeast for so long.
I have to say, though, the US having had a typical Western European 20th century should still pack some more educational firepower than it seems to ITTL, that list of top universities seems like it should come from a TL with middle-to-upper-middle income and politically fragmented US instead of "typical first-world instead of the premier global power".
I did some calculating with the help of google cause I suck at math, and calculated some nominal GDPs. Yes, we do know Germany, Austria, Bulgaria and a few others, but I wanted to help out and give some thoughts, Rattigan hearing your thought process would be cool.
Persia - 4.1 trillion GDP - relieved, because your previous timelines had Persia pretty poor in both. It got some love, and interesting that it uses the Afsharid flag, so maybe the Syncretic Sunni-Shia "Ja'afari madhab" is a success TTL?
Brazil - 10.5 trillion GDP - a consistent theme in your timelines of a developed monarchist Brazil, but do note I am NOT complaining lol. Perhaps it sees greater immigration due to America not having the pull of OTL (it did see great immigration even in OTL....)
Mexico - 3.6 trillion GDP - not shabby at all. Keep in mind this is *nominal* GDP, so its just over twice as rich as OTL.
Ethiopia - over 860 billion GDP. My guess given its large population its sort of an African Vietnam TTL, a still emerging but promising economy.
South China - 1.9 trillion, which, while it sounds large, is sort of disapointing given its population, however that is likely because while its not as hellish as North China, its still essentially a feudally rooted non democratic state.
Argentina - About 2 trillion flat. Pretty good. It will be richer than Mexico on a *per capita* basis because of its lower population.
A side question: The Austrian Empire has a pretty fine GDP per capita, and its population of 178 million impresses me. Assuming it is not a borderline autocracy like Russia, doesn't that likely mean it receives a good deal of immigrants, perhaps aided by the fact it has experience already as a multicultural nation?
Persia - 4.1 trillion GDP - relieved, because your previous timelines had Persia pretty poor in both. It got some love, and interesting that it uses the Afsharid flag, so maybe the Syncretic Sunni-Shia "Ja'afari madhab" is a success TTL?
Brazil - 10.5 trillion GDP - a consistent theme in your timelines of a developed monarchist Brazil, but do note I am NOT complaining lol. Perhaps it sees greater immigration due to America not having the pull of OTL (it did see great immigration even in OTL....)
Mexico - 3.6 trillion GDP - not shabby at all. Keep in mind this is *nominal* GDP, so its just over twice as rich as OTL.
Ethiopia - over 860 billion GDP. My guess given its large population its sort of an African Vietnam TTL, a still emerging but promising economy.
South China - 1.9 trillion, which, while it sounds large, is sort of disapointing given its population, however that is likely because while its not as hellish as North China, its still essentially a feudally rooted non democratic state.
Argentina - About 2 trillion flat. Pretty good. It will be richer than Mexico on a *per capita* basis because of its lower population.
A side question: The Austrian Empire has a pretty fine GDP per capita, and its population of 178 million impresses me. Assuming it is not a borderline autocracy like Russia, doesn't that likely mean it receives a good deal of immigrants, perhaps aided by the fact it has experience already as a multicultural nation?
WTF?
The New York Metro IOTL is 6% of the population and 7.5% of GDP and said differential makes it quite rich already.
I don’t think that can really *happen* in even vaguely developed countries at this scale, it’s basically only ever been true of Hong Kong IOTL for a couple decades and even that is using pretty fuzzy definitions of “country.”
The university question is an interesting one and I think it's worth bearing in mind two considerations, one TTL and one as compared to OTL.
Firstly, in OTL Germany has one university in ranked in the top 50 (by US News and World Report) and five in the top 100. And OTL Germany is, by any measure, a significant cultural, technological and educational power in the world. Secondly, TTL Austria and Germany retain their OTL preeminence in science and engineering, New South Wales becomes the centre for the imperial tech and aerospace industries (for reasons I will get to), meaning that their institutions are highly represented in the top tier. TTL GB's institutions are about as common in TTL's rankings as OTL UK's in OTL. Given that TTL GB is the heart of a world-spanning political, military and technological superpower and OTL UK is, well, OTL UK, this level of predominance doesn't seem implausible. The high placing of Brazilian, Russian and Indian institutions reflect the relative success those countries have had TTL as against OTL and are not, I think, particularly implausible placements either.
Overall, I don't think having two placements in the top 50 is a bad showing for a middle-power US. Also, bear in mind that you can have an excellent university education outside of the global top 50 TTL as in OTL, and their absence from this list shouldn't be taken to mean that places like Sarah Lawrence, Chicago or the UC system (or whatever) are complete dumps (although I suspect that the US will have much fewer tertiary education institutions OTL as compared to TTL, just because of the smaller student base).
Good thoughts on all of those. I hope to get to Brazil, Persia and Ethiopia soonish because, as you mentioned, I've basically gone for "These places are better than OTL" in all of the worlds I've built but not gone into much detail, and I hope to rectify that here.
On the Austrian population question, the 178 million has been retconned down to just under 100 million per the recent update on the Crownlands. (This reflects that this is still very much nascent worldbuilding rather than a complete TL, so apologies if it gets confusing and I'm always happy to clarify.) This does reflect a degree of increased immigration, particularly of Italians, but also a decrease in general emigration.
In OTL, Greater Tokyo is around 33% of Japan's GDP, Ile de France is around 25% of France's, and London is around 16% of the UK's. Obviously the situation for the TTL New York Harbor is extreme (that's kind of the point) but I don't think implausible for a region with such a concentration of population and industries.
ooooo!! what photo of NYC is that? i’ve never seen that one!
Greater Tokyo contains more than 33% of Japan's population, the Ile de France 18% of France's population, and London by the UK's own figures is 14% of the population and 22% of its economy (the city only). The widest of those gaps equates to the metro in question having a GDP per capita approximately 1.5X that of the country. And they're aided by the fact that they're one-city wonders, basically. They are the Metropole, with the only substantial network effects and economies of scale in the nation.
Neither Berlin nor Munich has that level of advantage in Germany, for example.
IOTL, the largest differentials in the US are the Bay Area's GDP per capita at around 1.7X the remainder of the country, the New York metro's at 1.4X, and the Washington metro's at 1.25x.
For that figure to work, the GDP per capita of the New York metropolitan region has to be 5X that of the remainder of the country, including the Chicago, Philadelphia, and Detroit metros which all likely top 4-5 million based on the populations of their core urban boundaries. I stand by my contention: this wide of a wealth differential is not possible in a large, mainly developed economy. If you say 8% of the population is responsible for 12%, or at the outside 14%, of the economic activity, I'd buy it.
Just to follow up briefly, by my back-of-envelope math you have the US at a GDP of 6.2 trillion Pounds and 170 million people, for a lower-tier developed world 36,500 GBP. New York, assuming the rough values are close, lands at 153,100 GBP per capita, which leaves the rest of the country at 26,400 GBP per capita.
France, which is shown to have had an absolute shitfest of a 20th century, has a per capita GDP of 29,100 GBP despite having a dual-tier citizen-resident distinction and being an illiberal mess.
New Afrika seems to be suffering substantial brain drain to the US but has a per capita GDP of 22,500 GBP, barely lower than the US-less-NY.
The various developed nations we're given glimpses of range from 50,000 GBP for Ireland or Russia up to the 130,000 figure for the Netherlands.
I understand that the conceit is basically to place the US on the opposite divide of the US v Europe distinction. IOTL even if one accounts for our [censored] of a healthcare system and insane level of higher education rent-seeking, we are still in a tier of our own when it comes to GDP per capita, cultural cachet, scientific and educational horsepower, and median standard of living and post-necessity disposable incomes, with that last figure generally 40-50% above the better Northern and Western European nations at the 50th percentile.
My riposte would be that very conceit makes a situation in which NY is this divorced from the economy and reality of the rest of the country impossible.
France, which is shown to have had an absolute shitfest of a 20th century, has a per capita GDP of 29,100 GBP despite having a dual-tier citizen-resident distinction and being an illiberal mess.
New Afrika seems to be suffering substantial brain drain to the US but has a per capita GDP of 22,500 GBP, barely lower than the US-less-NY.
The various developed nations we're given glimpses of range from 50,000 GBP for Ireland or Russia up to the 130,000 figure for the Netherlands.
I understand that the conceit is basically to place the US on the opposite divide of the US v Europe distinction. IOTL even if one accounts for our [censored] of a healthcare system and insane level of higher education rent-seeking, we are still in a tier of our own when it comes to GDP per capita, cultural cachet, scientific and educational horsepower, and median standard of living and post-necessity disposable incomes, with that last figure generally 40-50% above the better Northern and Western European nations at the 50th percentile.
My riposte would be that very conceit makes a situation in which NY is this divorced from the economy and reality of the rest of the country impossible.
On reflection you're probably right, especially considering in my notes places like Boston, Philly, Pittsburgh, St Louis and Chicago. If we say the Harbor is worth around £1 trillion, then you end up with a GDP per capita for rUSA of around £35,000, which is more the level I was going for. My basic idea for the US economy is something like OTL Italy, where there are pockets of economic dynamism (namely, in this case, NY Harbor and a couple of other eastern and midwestern cities) but everywhere else has seen basically zero economic growth for the past 25 years (even if the standard of living is pretty nice historically speaking).
That comes through very well in the list of largest cities, whereby the distraction of first warring with the Confederacy and then rebuilding the same means the population grew largely through natural growth and mostly still lives in the same places as 1860.
But the NYC blurb makes it sound more like HK vs China in 1990, when HK's GDP was a quarter that of the whole Mainland despite having literally 0.5% of the population.
The whole "Italy" thing doesn't sound pleasant, but then Southern Europe IOTL doesn't sound pleasant either, and places that are evaporating in the US today, like downstate Illinois, the rural South, most of the rural NE, even if still growing in per capita incomes, also have terrible pathologies as public services consolidate or disappear and service businesses dry up.
Though with that said, I'd pose "Germany" as potentially a better analogy; the internal market is large enough and the US has enough control over its own currency that it should be able to avoid the stagnation that Italy has had forced on it by Eurozone monetary union, fiscal policy, and the resulting inability to devalue its currency. But despite being arguably the healthiest big economy in Europe, the strains posed by reunification have damned near broken German politics, given its wealthy an opening to gut its welfare state, caused dramatic underinvestment in physical plant both public and private, and led to a relentless focus on export industries over the standard of living of the median worker, so growth since 1990 has still been downright anemic.
Also, the US is unlikely to have quite the degree of demographic stagnation that Italy suffers from, even with (or perhaps especially with) a poorer 20th century.
so, Spielberg Jewish Parents still went to the USA from Russia TTL?
(you mentioned, that TTL USA restricted the migration)
IIRC all of Spielberg's grandparents immigrated to the US before WW1 OTL. As a general rule of thumb, immigration to the US was the same TLL until c. 1920 so I thought it safe to say Spielberg would be an American filmmaker.