Atlanta's growth pushes Georgia's population above 10 million (Columbus, Savannah: 2013, insurance)

[arjay57]

Folks should be more focused on quality of life than growth. It's far more important to get things right than to simply take up more elbow room.

[0nyxStation]

Still no where near the promise land of Florida.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Well of course it's oversimplified, but the fundamental basis of growth is pretty simple and the correlation between loss of population and loss of business from high tax states is well established.

I just love how folks will bend over backwards to try and disprove the obvious, but at the same time ask you to take on faith many things where no evidence exists.

Seems like you're confusing disproving something and understanding the fact that several factors are at work when it comes to a complex matter such as the one we're discussing--hence your oversimplification.

But have at it.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

Seems like you're confusing disproving something and understanding the fact that several factors are at work when it comes to a complex matter such as the one we're discussing--hence your oversimplification.

But have at it.

I'm saying that the macro point can be correct without delving into every contributing factor. People choose to ignore the larger truth and instead try to focus on the smaller factors that "disprove" in order to make a case.

Sure, not every single state or municipality with lower taxes is leading in economic or population growth, and you can find example for specific reasons, just as you can cite California as a state with high taxes and relatively robust growth.

The anomaly in CA is due more to the histories in Hollywood and Silicon Valley/SF. Tech companies based in CA for 40 years aren't moving, but they are minimizing their income in CA and the US and keeping income offshore where possible.

[AtlantaIsHot]

Originally Posted by BlackPeach2

Still no where near the promise land of Florida.

Of course it's not a match for Florida. Florida began it's long boom way before Georgia did, and grew larger in population. And as everyone knows, a larger base population gives a state a higher birth rate and if you add in migration, you can get very high numerical numbers. Florida has been larger than Georgia for a long time now.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by JoeP

Calm down. I think that you need to reread what I wrote. I'm saying that in general people don't take into account natural change when it comes to population change. It's the significant part of population change.
People forget that people are born and that people die.

I did re-read your point and it is just as confusing now as it was then. Your reply makes it more sensical, but from your first post you came across as if Georgia's rate of growth is because of natural growth.

Anyone that is familiar with statistics will realize that population estimates and comparisons of gains/losses will include natural growth. As most states will have similar birth and death rates (southern states probably have a slightly higher rate), these numbers will pretty much wash out as far as percentage growth and accompanying numerical growth numbers. We aren't comparing Western Europe with Sub-Saharan Africa here.

So, when the 8th most populous state in the nation has the fourth highest numerical gain, you can reason that said state is experiencing a higher immigration rate than others. As birth/death rates would tend to be similar, any jump up 4 places would be due to net immigration.

So, reading your comment, I saw nothing false in the article and replied. Natural growth is understood. But I can't think of any instance where a state in the US is going to have a natural growth rate that will make that much of a difference, percentage or numerical, compared to any other state.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

I did re-read your point and it is just as confusing now as it was then. Your reply makes it more sensical, but from your first post you came across as if Georgia's rate of growth is because of natural growth.

Anyone that is familiar with statistics will realize that population estimates and comparisons of gains/losses will include natural growth. As most states will have similar birth and death rates (southern states probably have a slightly higher rate), these numbers will pretty much wash out as far as percentage growth and accompanying numerical growth numbers. We aren't comparing Western Europe with Sub-Saharan Africa here.

So, when the 8th most populous state in the nation has the fourth highest numerical gain, you can reason that said state is experiencing a higher immigration rate than others. As birth/death rates would tend to be similar, any jump up 4 places would be due to net immigration.

So, reading your comment, I saw nothing false in the article and replied. Natural growth is understood. But I can't think of any instance where a state in the US is going to have a natural growth rate that will make that much of a difference, percentage or numerical, compared to any other state.

MAYBE Utah compared to other states its size.

[atler8]

The chart from the CDC linked below is recent & shows that there is a GREAT deal of difference among the various states as far as goes the births over deaths surplus component of yearly population growth.
Georgia has a comparatively young population & a higher births surplus than the average state.
Thus, as seen in the stats in the link here, it's yearly growth is very much inflated by it's high births over deaths surplus.
As for example, Michigan is almost the exact same population as Georgia but in the year noted in the chart, Michigan only had a surplus of less than 24,000 births over deaths in that year.
By comparison, Georgia recorded 59,000 more births than deaths in that same year.
The growth advantage among these 2 very evenly matched states by population size is thus 35,000 for Georgia in that one year alone. Multiply the effect over the course of a decade & you can see what a births surplus can do for Georgia's growth.

FastStats - State and Territorial Data

[JoeP]

Anyone that is familiar with statistics will realize that population estimates and comparisons of gains/losses will include natural growth

That's my point - most people aren't - they see all population change as inmigration only.

[cwkimbro]

It is important to note that the difference between births and deaths in a state is heavily influenced by immigration.

You will have more people moving early in their careers, than later. More people will move around before they build families or when their family is still young.

This means most states that are fast growing due to immigration will have an uptick in their birthrates with the exception of higher retirement destinations, such as Florida.

Even then, you really have to compute the statistics to how it relates to the total population and the differences between the birth and death rate to begin making much of it.


JoeP,

The problem you're facing is we are in a thread discussing how we are growing faster. We are going higher on the list as terms of overall population totals. It is immigration that gives us the edge over other slower growing states. That is also why it is typically focused on when comparing the difference of growth between states of similar sizes on a list like this.