U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
Old 01-10-2011, 10:23 AM
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
11,810 posts, read 18,802,129 times
Reputation: 11136


Originally Posted by Observation View Post
The US census states that NC is kicking ass and taking names.
NC was the fastest growing state East of the Mississippi River over the last 10 years. Georgia was second.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 01-12-2011, 07:41 AM
Location: Tennessee
34,687 posts, read 33,686,426 times
Reputation: 51892
Originally Posted by Chicago60614 View Post
You looked at the wrong line. That was New Orleans that had -9.6%.

Sorry about that. I recently had cataract surgery and am only seeing out of one eye right now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-13-2011, 12:44 AM
Location: a swanky suburb in my fancy pants
3,391 posts, read 7,559,210 times
Reputation: 1584
Originally Posted by vanderpump View Post
Umm, you might want to edit your post.

NYC-Long Island-NNJ grew by 4%. It was New Orleans decreased by 9.6%

You're looking at the wrong line.
It always amazes me that people post to these threads without bothering to read even a few of the posts that came before theirs. Didn't it occur to you that this mistake has been corrected already several times by other posters?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-13-2011, 04:29 AM
Location: The canyon (with my pistols and knife)
13,220 posts, read 17,957,502 times
Reputation: 14658
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
The Pittsburghers are going to be very unhappy about this. They were so sure they were going to grow this time around.
Stop putting words in our mouths. We knew that the Pittsburgh area had a net loss of population between 2000 and 2010, but we've been confident that the lion's share of it was during the first half of the decade. And indeed, you missed this:

Originally Posted by Thomas R. View Post
Metros that declined by over 1.1% include

New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner - 9.6% decline (Grew from 2007 to 2009)
Youngstown-Warren-Boardman - 6.6% decline (Consistent decline throughout)
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, New York - 4% decline (Stable from 2008 to 2009)
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania - 3.1% decline (Stable from 2007 to 2009)
Flint, Michigan - 2.8% decline (Consistent decline after 2005)
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor - 2.6% decline (Consistent decline throughout, I know that contradicts threads here)
Utica-Rome, New York - 2.2% decline (Stable from 2006)
Scranton-Wilkes Barre 2% decline (Basically stable since 2005)
Charleston, West Virginia - 1.8% decline (Basically stable since 2005)
Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas - 1.7% decline (Modest growth since 2006)
Dayton, Ohio - 1.5% decline (Consistent decline throughout)
Stable since 2007, just about like we thought. Turns out that missing out on the real estate bubble and all the cheap credit that came with it has been a blessing in disguise. Pittsburgh wasn't invited to the orgy, so we don't have to deal with the disease.

Next time, make sure you know what you're talking about before you provoke any of us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-01-2011, 04:33 AM
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,171 posts, read 12,798,868 times
Reputation: 4047
Originally Posted by Dncr View Post
88%? That seems a just a little far fetched. 50%, believable. 60%, sounds fair. 70%, I'm asking questions. 75%, I'm dialing the nearest mental institution asking if they have an escaped patient. That seems like a crazy amount of growth for what, 1/2 of the continental U.S...
Hi D (),

Please look at this article and let me know if what I'm saying is far fetched or not. I personally don't think it will be as high as 88% either but it was the US Census Bureau that made the claim. Not me.

An excerpt:
As of 2005 the U.S. Census Bureau projected that approximately 88% of the U.S. population growth between 2000 and 2030 will occur in the Sun Belt.[6] California, Texas, and Florida are each expected to add more than 12 million people during that time which will make these by far the most populous states in the nation.
Here is another source besides the one at the top: Sun Belt Information, Sun Belt Reference Articles - CanadaSpace Reference

Personally, this is what I think. People can make their water theories all day but it wont stop the way people think. People leave where they're from when they're at an old age and want to retire in places like FL, NV, & AZ.

People come to the Sunbelt to escape winter altogether, which is why CA, TX, FL, LA, NV, AZ, & NM are seeing booms partially too. Yes the economy has slowed down, but that wont prevent people from going to the Sunbelt and adding in to a more unhealthy unemployment rate.

People lived in the Frostbelt in a time period when much of the Sunbelt hadn't been established (the Western States) and when air conditioning wasn't there to make various places in the Southeastern and Southern United States livable.

Do I think the Sunbelt will see 88% of America's growth from 2000 to 2030? No. But again I wasn't the one who made that claim, it was the Census Bureau and they have more of these analysts on it than I do to play around with figures haha.

But what we can do in the mean time is to take the progress of the Sunbelt states and see how it performed in comparison to America's total "growth" from 2000 to 2010.

But first we need to define the Sunbelt, lets use the expansive official definition:
The Sun Belt comprises the southern tier of the United States and is usually considered to include at least the states of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, roughly half of California, southern Nevada, and southern Virginia; more expansively, Colorado and Utah (and all of California and Nevada) are sometimes considered as Sun Belt states.
Sun Belt Information, Sun Belt Reference Articles - CanadaSpace Reference
United States Population 2000: 281,421,906
United States Population 2010: 308,745,538
Difference: + 27,323,632

Source: Resident Population Data - 2010 Census

Sunbelt States 2000:
Alabama: 4,447,100
Arizona: 5,130,632
Arkansas: 2,673,400
Florida: 15,982,378
Georgia: 8,186,453
Louisiana: 4,468,976
Mississippi: 2,844,658
New Mexico: 1,819,046
North Carolina: 8,049,313
Oklahoma: 3,450,654
South Carolina: 4,012,012
Tennessee: 5,689,283
Texas: 20,851,820
California: 33,871,648
Nevada: 1,998,257
Utah: 2,233,169
Colorado: 4,301,261
Virginia: 7,078,515
Total: 137,088,575

Sunbelt States 2010:
Alabama: 4,779,736
Arizona: 6,392,017
Arkansas: 2,915,918
Florida: 18,801,310
Georgia: 9,687,653
Louisiana: 4,533,372
Mississippi: 2,967,297
New Mexico: 2,059,179
North Carolina: 9,535,483
Oklahoma: 3,751,351
South Carolina: 4,625,364
Tennessee: 6,346,105
Texas: 25,145,561
California: 37,253,956
Nevada: 2,700,551
Utah: 2,763,885
Colorado: 5,029,196
Virginia: 8,001,024
Total: 157,288,958

Difference from 2000 to 2010 in the Sunbelt: 20,200,383

So from what you can gather from that, from 2000 to 2010, the Sunbelt's population grew more than the entire population of the state of New York (19 Million, the 3rd largest state) with 1 million more to spare.

Now for more calculations. From 2000 to 2010, the United States of America grew by 27,323,632 people and the Sunbelt grew by 20,200,383 people. 20,200,383 out of 27,323,632 is (=) 74%.

So in the last decade alone, the Sunbelt added 74% of the population increase that the United States of America saw. And the US Census Bureau stated in 2005 that from then to 2030 that 88% of the "growth" the United States will see will be in the Sunbelt. For the last decade, that wasn't exactly true, but it wasn't too far off from the truth either, 74% is an exceptionally large number for growth coming from the Sunbelt.

Texas by itself numerically & by percentile saw a larger gain than the Midwest & Northeast combined. Same with California, it saw a larger percentile & numerical gain than the Midwest & Northeast, but unlike Texas not combined just the regions individually.

Some Information on the Previous Decade (Population growth from 2000-2010):
The Northeast: 1,722,862 (+ 3.2%)
The Midwest: 2,534,225 (+ 3.9%)
The Midwest & The Northeast Combined: 4,257,087
California: 3,382,308 (+ 10.0%)
Florida: 2,818,932 (+ 17.6%)
Texas: 4,293,741 (+ 20.6%)

Information analysis:
California added more than The Midwest and more than The Northeast individually as separate, but The Midwest & The Northeast combined added a tad more than California. Florida same thing. Texas actually added more than The Midwest and more then The Northeast, and also added more numerically by just a little bit of both of those regions combined, and that is just one Sunbelt state. So if Texas alone is already more than two US Regions of The Midwest & The Northeast combined, statistically TX, FL, CA, CO, UT, AZ, NV, GA, NC, SC, AR, TN, OK, VA, MS, AL, & NM are way to much for the rest of the country and that is by "definition" the Sunbelt Region of the United States of America, which once again stated saw 74% of America's population growth compared to 26% (which is a small amount) being elsewhere in the country.

Point of clarification:
But I will concede this fact, fast growth is not the best growth. I like the way New York & Illinois are handling their growth right now, the last thing in a horrid economy that you would want is fast growth, that leaves a higher unemployment rate, higher service sector creation, more state budget, and its just a chaotic mess during hard economic times to be seeing fast growth. Which is why Florida in particular right now is having such a hard time keeping up with itself and its economy isn't improving but rather spiraling the other way (becoming worse).

Like I said earlier, I don't believe projections for tomorrow. Anything can change, and anything can alter what happens tomorrow, I don't go off long term projections for the most part. They said 88% of the growth in the United States will be in the Sunbelt from now to 2030, and I don't believe that, especially because the Great Plains states in the Midwest are really stepping it up and so is the Pacific Northwest. But I also firmly do believe at the same time that the Sunbelt will still see over 50% of both the percentile gains and numerical gains in the United States all the way up to 2030, and I also do firmly believe what they say has some merits, meaning the Sunbelt will be the majority gainer for sure by 2030, easily.
Originally Posted by Dncr View Post
75%, I'm dialing the nearest mental institution asking if they have an escaped patient. That seems like a crazy amount of growth for what, 1/2 of the continental U.S...
So you said at 75% you'll call the mental hospital about an escaped patient, for this last decade it was 74% of the population increase in the country residing in the Sunbelt, I guess its time for you to call the psychiatric hospital D, you lost the debate here in terms of the last decade (In terms till 2030, that is not applicable, no one foresees the direct long terms future).

Last edited by DANNYY; 02-01-2011 at 05:28 AM.. Reason: Tweak.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-01-2011, 08:16 AM
1,495 posts, read 1,947,426 times
Reputation: 804
Originally Posted by DANNYY View Post
It's projected that 88% of the America's population increase for the next 30 years will be in "the Sunbelt". Hey, I believe it, even with "slow downs" I still believe it. Even with "bad economies in some Sunbelt states" I still believe it. It's the reality. And its been the reality since air condition was invented and since Westward expansion to the Pacific initially started off.

There is a reason why the Northeast & Midwest's populations overall only grew by 3% or so apiece. And you want to know whats insane, numerically 1/4th the Midwest's population gains came from Chicago Metropolitan Area alone. 1/4th the Northeast's population gain came from New York City's Metropolitan Area alone.

Not a good sign for those that want to capitalize on "high growth" in those regions. I like New York & Illinois, but lets get real their passed their prime in terms of growth.
All of this will matter more when the "growth states" have a megalopolis equaling the Northeast Corridor. Until then, they've got a lot of catching up to do (especially since NYC, Philly and D.C. just keep getting bigger).

And as far as Illinois, since you mentioned it, you'll note that the population has stabilized after a period of losses, so clearly something has changed and you can't predict the future.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-01-2011, 11:49 AM
56,609 posts, read 80,890,793 times
Reputation: 12505
Also, if we take the broad term of the "Sunbelt", a lot of growth is due to immigration as well. So, it's not like immigration hasn't had an impact on growth in that region.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-01-2011, 12:07 PM
Location: Charlotte, NC (in my mind)
7,946 posts, read 15,043,716 times
Reputation: 4482
Originally Posted by j_cat View Post
All of this will matter more when the "growth states" have a megalopolis equaling the Northeast Corridor. Until then, they've got a lot of catching up to do (especially since NYC, Philly and D.C. just keep getting bigger).
Agree. Its important to note than prior to 1950, the Southern United States was very rural, undeveloped, and operated on an agriculture-based economy. So that said, the South has roughly 150-200 years of catching up to do before it will ever have anything to compete with BosWash.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-01-2011, 12:42 PM
Location: San Francisco
1,472 posts, read 3,019,348 times
Reputation: 1566
My gosh. California is expected to grow to 46.5 million in the next twenty years. It seems pretty packed at 38 million. Just 15.75 million when I was born in 1960. Kind of mind-boggling (and a little disconcerting) to see your home so radical change during your lifetime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-01-2011, 01:31 PM
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
7,909 posts, read 12,167,980 times
Reputation: 5697
I'm usually refrain from gloating on C-D, but...

Originally Posted by DANNYY View Post

These two graphs pretty much fly in the face of the "no one wants to live in the Atlanta, Houston or Dallas" crowd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top