[Richard Choi]

I would also add to Mike's post that it is unlikely that the US population will grow in the straight line projection that is shown in that graph.

The birthrate in US has been falling for over a decade and that is likely to continue (same trend is shown in all developed countries).

The only reason the population has not shrunk is because people are living longer and immigration. However, the life expectancy is stabilizing so unless immigration expands greatly (unlikel) you will see the populartion growth starting to curve down in a decade or so.

[Mike_Cirba]

If that chart is what I think it is, isn't this assuming that illegal immigration into the US continues unabated at present rates for the next 40+ years?

[Adam Sherer]

What has been good for golf? And what has been detrimental to golf?

Is the $2 million design fee good for golf? Is real estate-based golf development bad for golf?

Is there a fear of the "bottom falling out" of the golf industry?  Or is this just a period of "trimming the fat"?

Let's be honest, there is a lot of fat surrounding the golf industry.

And Forrest is right, we need more golfers in order to sustain the "fat" in the industry.

The ratio of architects to builders is a constant. If there are more architects, then there will be more builders and vice-versa. Furthermore, if there are less architects likely there will be less builders and managers.

The maintenance budgets of private courses will likely stay the same as membership dues will remain constant (if not increase, due to inflation). Public courses may suffer and thus the irrigation element will become an increasing economic and environmental burden.

However......
I think the biggest difference in the future will be the "cross-over" factor. The "cross-over" has already begun in the sense of designers crossing over to builders (design-build companies) and builders crossing over to designers (build-design). The distinction will be increasingly blurred when the "mom and pop" businesses become owner/manager/designer/builder and attempts to make the "architect" and the "builder" obsolete.

Is golf looking for a state of equilibrium or has it become too dependent on the external economic influences of sub-prime mortgages, real-estate cycles, and political party affiliations? Would we be worried about the future of the golf industry if there wasn't a looming recession on the horizon?

[edit]
But, the best thing that can come of this is giving golf back to the people. Golf began as a sport of the people, played by the people, designed by the people, and managed by the people (St. Andrews as the perfect example).  Dr. Michael Hurdzan talked about golf as a pendulum and it being a matter of time before the pendulum starts swinging back the other way towards the past.  Maybe we have already started the shift back towards the old days of golf being a community based activity and not so much as a business.

[Mike Sweeney]

I would also add to Mike's post that it is unlikely that the US population will grow in the straight line projection that is shown in that graph.

The birthrate in US has been falling for over a decade and that is likely to continue (same trend is shown in all developed countries).

The only reason the population has not shrunk is because people are living longer and immigration. However, the life expectancy is stabilizing so unless immigration expands greatly (unlikel) you will see the populartion growth starting to curve down in a decade or so.

Actually the original chart posted is low compared to the US Census Bureau projection of 363 million by 2030. See Table 1:

http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/projectionsagesex.html

The Gates Foundation, John Hopkins and the University of Washington use this data, so I assume it is pretty good data.

http://plp.csde.washington.edu/resources/gates.shtml

___________________________________________

Depends on your definition of slowing down. These guys (Chaired by Bishop DiMarzio of Brooklyn) suggest the following:

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/task_force/new_chapter_summary.pdf


"The proposed system would initially set annual immigration levels at about
1.5 million, approximately 300,000 less than the actual annual number of
immigrants — legal and illegal — being absorbed into the labor market and the
country today. The system would simplify many visa categories and procedures,
so that US immigration is better able to meet family unification and labor market
goals. Special visa categories would be created, such as “strategic growth visas”
for individuals in strategically important disciplines."

My Uncle did some of the Ford Foundation's controversial population studies back in the 70's and 80's. The Ford Foundation's focus was mainly on developing countries back then, but then they noticed that the subway was geting crowded on their way to work on 44th Street.    Now if anyone has any information about the rumored link between the Ford Foundation and the CIA back then, I am all ears because some of my Uncle Willie stories would make Tom Paul's relatives sound quite normal! 

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I am in the business, but I can't agree.  Perception is so important these days, as is political clout.  If, when water debates are raging in a few years, golf is seen as a declining sport, we might not get any water at all, vs a rationed amount.  That's just an example.  If an industry isn't moving forward, its moving backwards. Its hard to stay the same size.

There can be too much gloom and doom however, and we have heard it before.  Check out the tone of the intro of the 1976 World Atlas of Golf right after tax deductions for clubs were under attack.  It sounded like golf was doomed forever and look what happened.  Its been going strong since 1450 or so and will continue to do so, with some dips and more peaks yet to come.

Jeff

I would expect you to say that the game needs to grow, just as I expect brokers and bankers to say that the economy needs to keep growing.  Personally, I think its a load of self serving hogwash.  The economy needs to keep growing only because of greed and over-hedging by a load of money-grabbers.  This latest debacle concerning CLO's is proof positive of that.  After the supposed dust settles yet again, the game will be just fine.  Its people's careers that we are really talking about.  Mind you, I don't have a problem if guys fear for their jobs, but I don't really consider a down turn in any way bad for the game, maybe the bad for the industry (or individuals in it), but not the game.   

Ciao

[Forrest Richardson]

Adam — I was not trying to suggest that "...we need more golfers in order to sustain the "fat" in the industry...but I understand your concern here.

The reality, however, is that many fine courses are being neglected because the competition for golfers is robust and yet not healthy. Many once-great municipal layouts are slowing losing ground and may soon close or be even more neglected.

By growing the game we serve all facets of the golf world...including feeding any fat that may be at play, whether regionally or globally.

[Brent Hutto]

I can think of at least more or less separate sources of demand for golf courses that to a certain extent can rise and fall independently of each other. As such, perhaps any discussion of (supposed) future trends should address each of these:

1) The demand for rounds of golf on a daily-fee basis, this category includes both affodable courses for local golfers and the golf-resort experience that is a bit higher up the price ladder.

2) The demand for memberships at private clubs which feature golf courses as presumably the primary draw.

3) The demand for golf courses as an amenity within residential developments, either within major population centers or as part of retirement/vacation communities.

It would seem to me that different demographic, social and economic trends would affect each of these. To a certain extent there might even be substitution between these categories if for instance there were to be become fewer people in the strata that buys country-club memberships but more in the strata that seeks affordable daily-fee access to golf. Or vice versa.

There is no "game of golf", it has evolved into a multifaceted enterprise with connections into the leisure, travel, entertainment and especially real estate sectors of our socieity. So in my view it would be very difficult and likely impossible to predict the aggregate effect on "golf" of any societal trend broad enough to affect multiple sectors in itself.

[Mike Sweeney]

Adam — I was not trying to suggest that "...we need more golfers in order to sustain the "fat" in the industry...but I understand your concern here.

The reality, however, is that many fine courses are being neglected because the competition for golfers is robust and yet not healthy. Many once-great municipal layouts are slowing losing ground and may soon close or be even more neglected.

By growing the game we serve all facets of the golf world...including feeding any fat that may be at play, whether regionally or globally.

Seems like golf has been down this road before (from today's NY Times):

Barred From Men’s-Only Event, Woman Sues Public Golf Club
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/sports/golf/19links.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=dennis+golf&st=nyt&oref=slogin

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()