Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not at all surprised about the shift going South. Virtually every other post on any of the Southern state sites seems to be someone from NJ, MA, NY, and CA all wanting to move to TX, NC, GA, etc...
By the way, here are the new population rankings for 2010...
STATE POPULATION RANKINGS - 2010 CENSUS
1. California
37,253,956
2. Texas
25,145,561
3. New York
19,378,102
4. Florida
18,801,310
5. Illinois
12,830,632
6. Pennsylvania
12,702,379
7. Ohio
11,536,504
8. Michigan
9,883,640
9. Georgia
9,687,653
10. North Carolina
9,535,483
11. New Jersey
8,791,894
12. Virginia
8,001,024
13. Washington
6,724,540
14. Massachusetts
6,547,629
15. Indiana
6,483,802
16. Arizona
6,392,017
17. Tennessee
6,346,105
18. Missouri
5,988,927
19. Maryland
5,773,552
20. Wisconsin
5,686,986
21. Minnesota
5,303,925
22. Colorado
5,029,196
23. Alabama
4,779,736
24. South Carolina
4,625,364
25. Louisiana
4,533,372
26. Kentucky
4,339,367
27. Oregon
3,831,074
28. Oklahoma
3,751,351
29. Connecticut
3,574,097
30. Iowa
3,046,355
31. Mississippi
2,967,297
32. Arkansas
2,915,918
33. Kansas
2,853,118
34. Utah
2,763,885
35. Nevada
2,700,551
36. New Mexico
2,059,179
37. West Virginia
1,852,994
38. Nebraska
1,826,341
39. Idaho
1,567,582
40. Hawaii
1,360,301
41. Maine
1,328,361
42. New Hampshire
1,316,470
43. Rhode Island
1,052,567
44. Montana
989,415
45. Delaware
897,934
46. South Dakota
814,180
47. Alaska
710,231
48. North Dakota
672,591
49. Vermont
625,741
50. Wyoming
563,626
MISCELLANEOUS
D.C.
601,723
Puerto Rico
3,725,789
Wow Florida and New York are neck and neck. Only about 570,000 people difference. If the same trends continue Florida will take New York's spot as the number 3 most populous state in no time.
I'm not at all surprised about the shift going South. Virtually every other post on any of the Southern state sites seems to be someone from NJ, MA, NY, and CA all wanting to move to TX, NC, GA, etc...
Actually, the South has its haves and have-nots too. Texas and the south Atlantic states are where the lion's share of population growth has been. Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi all grew at rates below the national average. Of course, Louisiana is understandable (Hurricane Katrina), but not the other three states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GLS2010
Wow Florida and New York are neck and neck. Only about 570,000 people difference. If the same trends continue Florida will take New York's spot as the number 3 most populous state in no time.
I'm surprised it hasn't overtaken New York already, and I wonder if the housing market collapse might prevent it from doing so in the next several years.
They just said on the local news that the National Census numbers are "off" for California, and that the state estimates its population to be close to 39 million (38.8 I believe.) I wonder who's count is more accurate, or if Sacramento overestimates on purpose to get more funds?? Do other state's census numbers come in higher than the national count?
I think for every state, their estimates will be higher than the US census. However, if I had to guess, the reason why these numbers were released so soon was for apportionment and the drawing of new districts in the states affected in time for the 2012 election (and on the governor's agenda for the New Year).
Either way, it doesn't affect California. We aren't gaining or losing a seat for the first time since 1920. I know plenty of people on CD were hoping we'd lose a seat, but as I predicted, that is mathematically impossible.
Maybe this decade would be a good time to revisit the structure of the US House of Representatives. It's not good that the largest district (Montana's at large) is almost TWICE as large as the smallest district by population (Wyoming's at large). I sense a violation of equal protection here....
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,043,145 times
Reputation: 4047
If it wasn't for having to go to the doctors office today I would have been the one making this thread. Beat me to it!
You know what, I'll be the first to make the thread for the cities and Metropolitan Areas. That's the one I'm really waiting for. I cant wait for that.
But I will say that seeing Washington DC's population by the US Census is a bit disappointing. Mainly because projections right now are at 608,000 people but the US Census finished tallying in back in May. Which means cities will be a tad bit smaller in the US Census for 2010 than they are presently in November/December 2010. And Metropolitan Areas for certain places will be 80,000 smaller back in May, 2010 than November/December, 2010.
Aghh, I hope the US Census results don't disappoint when they come out for the Cities/Metropolitan Areas.
If it wasn't for having to go to the doctors office today I would have been the one making this thread. Beat me to it!
You know what, I'll be the first to make the thread for the cities and Metropolitan Areas. That's the one I'm really waiting for. I cant wait for that.
But I will say that seeing Washington DC's population by the US Census is a bit disappointing. Mainly because projections right now are at 608,000 people but the US Census finished tallying in back in May. Which means cities will be a tad bit smaller in the US Census for 2010 than they are presently in November/December 2010. And Metropolitan Areas for certain places will be 80,000 smaller back in May, 2010 than November/December, 2010.
Aghh, I hope the US Census results don't disappoint when they come out for the Cities/Metropolitan Areas.
I guess the growth is for the DC area, not DC itself ! The economy there is in good shape,but DC is too expensive for middle-class workers !
I have doubts about them Illinois numbers. 2009 estimated 12.91 million, now it down to 12.83. I was pretty confident that we were very close to 13 million, like around 12.95 mil.
USA 1950 :151,325,798
USA 1960 :179,323,175 (+ 27,997,377)
USA 1970 :203,211,926 (+ 23,888,751)
USA 1980 :226,545,805 (+ 23,333,879)
USA 1990 :248,709,873 (+ 22,164,068)
USA 2000 :281,421,906 (+ 32,712,033)
USA 2010 :308,745,538 (+ 27,323,632)
USA 2020 (expected from the pew center) : 340,219,000 (+ 31,473,462)
This decade was good about population growth, one of the best decade.
The growth rate over this past decade was the slowest since the Great Depression.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,043,145 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dncr
The growth rate over this past decade was the slowest since the Great Depression.
Lol, why does that matter?
Numerically its the best decade after the 1950's (Baby Boomer Era) and the 1990's. It's not like the USA has to worry about population decline like Japan, which is predicted to lose nearly 40% of its present population by 2050. Yikes!
The growth rate over this past decade was the slowest since the Great Depression.
I don't care about the growth rate, it doesn't show the real picture !
LOOK AT the inhabitants numbers : THE THIRD BEST DECADE WITH 27 MILLION ADDED !
Except if you can't understand numbers
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
