U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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 12-27-2014, 01:08 PM
 
Location: Chicago
589 posts, read 618,375 times
Reputation: 450

Advertisements

go Midwest!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-27-2014, 02:39 PM
 
Location: Reseda (heart of the SFV)
273 posts, read 269,733 times
Reputation: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
There growth rates are going in the complete opposite direction. The only reason Arizona would pass Mass now is because of total growth rather than by rate.

I also think that Northern states are likely being underestimated while Southern/Western states are being overestimated because estimates are based more on past history than current activity. This happened quite a bit 2000-2010.
According to the 2010 U.S. Census Massachusetts had a population of 6,547,629 while Arizona had a population of 6,392,017; The latest 2014 population estimates have Massachusetts with a population of 6,745,408 while Arizona has a population of 6,731,484. If the growth rates hold, Arizona will easily pass up Massachusetts next year when the new estimates are released.

I think the future is very bright for Massachusetts with the newly elected, fiscally conservative governor and a plethora of prestigious universities like Harvard and MIT, amazing culture, great sports teams and awesome restaurants and breweries. It's just very difficult for a state like Massachusetts with it's brutal winter weather and high cost-of-living to compete with a state like Arizona.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2014, 08:55 PM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,103 posts, read 13,494,044 times
Reputation: 5778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico Valencia View Post
According to the 2010 U.S. Census Massachusetts had a population of 6,547,629 while Arizona had a population of 6,392,017; The latest 2014 population estimates have Massachusetts with a population of 6,745,408 while Arizona has a population of 6,731,484. If the growth rates hold, Arizona will easily pass up Massachusetts next year when the new estimates are released.

I think the future is very bright for Massachusetts with the newly elected, fiscally conservative governor and a plethora of prestigious universities like Harvard and MIT, amazing culture, great sports teams and awesome restaurants and breweries. It's just very difficult for a state like Massachusetts with it's brutal winter weather and high cost-of-living to compete with a state like Arizona.
I don't know. I think Massachusetts is doing extremely well for its size. Consider that the majority of the top 10 most populated states are also the largest in size.

It might be interesting to measure state growth with relative size. In fact, let's look at that.

I took the total population growth between 2010-2014 and divided that by the each state's area size in square miles.

Population Growth Per Square Mile
Delaware: 19.01
Massachusetts: 18.72
New Jersey: 16.76
Florida: 16.56
Maryland: 16.33
California: 9.46
Virginia: 7.60
North Carolina: 7.59
Georgia: 6.88
New York: 6.75
Texas: 6.74
South Carolina: 6.47
Hawaii: 5.42
Tennessee: 4.82
Washington: 4.72
Connecticut: 4.07
Colorado: 3.14
Indiana: 3.09
Arizona: 2.98
Louisiana: 2.24
Utah: 2.11
Rhode Island: 1.85
Kentucky: 1.83
Pennsylvania: 1.83
Oklahoma: 1.81
Minnesota: 1.76
Oregon: 1.41
Alabama: 1.33
Ohio: 1.28
Nevada: 1.25
New Hampshire: 1.11
Iowa: 1.07
Missouri: 1.07
Wisconsin: 1.07
Arkansas: 0.95
North Dakota: 0.95
Illinois: 0.85
Idaho: 0.80
Nebraska: 0.71
Kansas: 0.62
Mississippi: 0.54
South Dakota: 0.51
Michigan: 0.27
Montana: 0.23
New Mexico: 0.22
Wyoming: 0.21
Vermont: 0.08
Maine: 0.05
Alaska: 0.04
West Virginia: -0.11

Northeastern Average: 7.87
Southern Average: 4.66
Western Average: 2.46
Midwestern Average: 1.10
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2014, 06:02 AM
 
Location: a bar
2,565 posts, read 5,054,911 times
Reputation: 2643
^ I don't put a lot of stock into population changes, but that's an interesting way to look at the numbers. And Florida...wow.

Rep'd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2014, 07:44 AM
 
Location: Wonderland
44,855 posts, read 36,203,761 times
Reputation: 63526
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
I don't know. I think Massachusetts is doing extremely well for its size. Consider that the majority of the top 10 most populated states are also the largest in size.

It might be interesting to measure state growth with relative size. In fact, let's look at that.

I took the total population growth between 2010-2014 and divided that by the each state's area size in square miles.

Population Growth Per Square Mile
Delaware: 19.01
Massachusetts: 18.72
New Jersey: 16.76
Florida: 16.56
Maryland: 16.33
California: 9.46
Virginia: 7.60
North Carolina: 7.59
Georgia: 6.88
New York: 6.75
Texas: 6.74
South Carolina: 6.47
Hawaii: 5.42
Tennessee: 4.82
Washington: 4.72
Connecticut: 4.07
Colorado: 3.14
Indiana: 3.09
Arizona: 2.98
Louisiana: 2.24
Utah: 2.11
Rhode Island: 1.85
Kentucky: 1.83
Pennsylvania: 1.83
Oklahoma: 1.81
Minnesota: 1.76
Oregon: 1.41
Alabama: 1.33
Ohio: 1.28
Nevada: 1.25
New Hampshire: 1.11
Iowa: 1.07
Missouri: 1.07
Wisconsin: 1.07
Arkansas: 0.95
North Dakota: 0.95
Illinois: 0.85
Idaho: 0.80
Nebraska: 0.71
Kansas: 0.62
Mississippi: 0.54
South Dakota: 0.51
Michigan: 0.27
Montana: 0.23
New Mexico: 0.22
Wyoming: 0.21
Vermont: 0.08
Maine: 0.05
Alaska: 0.04
West Virginia: -0.11

Northeastern Average: 7.87
Southern Average: 4.66
Western Average: 2.46
Midwestern Average: 1.10
Interesting. However, some of the states have huge swaths of wilderness in them, with much more concentration in metro areas or a few regions (Texas for example) so that skewers those numbers, I believe. It's one way to look at it, but it definitely doesn't tell the whole story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2014, 08:19 AM
 
Location: a bar
2,565 posts, read 5,054,911 times
Reputation: 2643
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon View Post
Interesting. However, some of the states have huge swaths of wilderness in them, with much more concentration in metro areas or a few regions (Texas for example) so that skewers those numbers, I believe. It's one way to look at it, but it definitely doesn't tell the whole story.
Regardless of how much wilderness or farmland a state has, it's overall square mi won't change. So population change per sq is a good way to compare growth on a state by state basis. No way to skewer those numbers.

What it doesn't tell us is where the growth is occurring with in each state. FL's growth I imagine is all coastal. MA growth is mostly in the eastern half of the state. Inside the 495 belt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2014, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Wonderland
44,855 posts, read 36,203,761 times
Reputation: 63526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Clavin View Post
Regardless of how much wilderness or farmland a state has, it's overall square mi won't change. So population change per sq is a good way to compare growth on a state by state basis. No way to skewer those numbers.

What it doesn't tell us is where the growth is occurring with in each state. FL's growth I imagine is all coastal. MA growth is mostly in the eastern half of the state. Inside the 495 belt.
I agree that it tells us SOMETHING but it doesn't tell the whole story.

Take Texas for instance. Texas will always have huge areas to it's west that don't experience much growth due to the terrain and the lack of water. So when you look at the Texas growth rate per square mile, it doesn't accurately reflect the growth rate of the eastern half of the state, which is actually pretty amazing. A person looking at these stats ALONE could reach inaccurate conclusions - that's all I'm saying.

It's certainly one stat to consider but it has to be put into perspective.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2014, 09:19 AM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,103 posts, read 13,494,044 times
Reputation: 5778
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon View Post
I agree that it tells us SOMETHING but it doesn't tell the whole story.

Take Texas for instance. Texas will always have huge areas to it's west that don't experience much growth due to the terrain and the lack of water. So when you look at the Texas growth rate per square mile, it doesn't accurately reflect the growth rate of the eastern half of the state, which is actually pretty amazing. A person looking at these stats ALONE could reach inaccurate conclusions - that's all I'm saying.

It's certainly one stat to consider but it has to be put into perspective.
I don't know. Before I did this, I figured that the biggest states would have some of the highest rates of growth per square mile, because they have greater area and are more of a catchall than smaller ones. The results don't exactly bare that out, and there is no distinct pattern.

Texas does well in overall growth, so I don't think this measurement is somehow unfair to that. But it is surprising that given it is #1 in total growth, it's not higher than it is. It just shows that for all those people there, it's still relatively low density, like much of the South is.

In the end, this measures relative growth. The Northeast does very well here. It may not be anywhere near the top in totals, but for their sizes, you can't beat them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2014, 09:54 AM
 
Location: a bar
2,565 posts, read 5,054,911 times
Reputation: 2643
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon View Post
I agree that it tells us SOMETHING but it doesn't tell the whole story.

Take Texas for instance. Texas will always have huge areas to it's west that don't experience much growth due to the terrain and the lack of water. So when you look at the Texas growth rate per square mile, it doesn't accurately reflect the growth rate of the eastern half of the state, which is actually pretty amazing. A person looking at these stats ALONE could reach inaccurate conclusions - that's all I'm saying.
But if you want to exclude the uninhabitable land, you should be comparing metro population changes and not state population changes.

Although western TX is sparsely population due environmental reasons, it's still part of TX, and don't think it should be excluded when comparing state populations.

And with that said, the fact that TX maintains a figure that high is quite remarkable when you figure just how big the state is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2014, 11:51 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma City
742 posts, read 721,141 times
Reputation: 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
I don't know. I think Massachusetts is doing extremely well for its size. Consider that the majority of the top 10 most populated states are also the largest in size.

It might be interesting to measure state growth with relative size. In fact, let's look at that.

I took the total population growth between 2010-2014 and divided that by the each state's area size in square miles.

Population Growth Per Square Mile
Delaware: 19.01
Massachusetts: 18.72
New Jersey: 16.76
Florida: 16.56
Maryland: 16.33
California: 9.46
Virginia: 7.60
North Carolina: 7.59
Georgia: 6.88
New York: 6.75
Texas: 6.74
South Carolina: 6.47
Hawaii: 5.42
Tennessee: 4.82
Washington: 4.72
Connecticut: 4.07
Colorado: 3.14
Indiana: 3.09
Arizona: 2.98
Louisiana: 2.24
Utah: 2.11
Rhode Island: 1.85
Kentucky: 1.83
Pennsylvania: 1.83
Oklahoma: 1.81
Minnesota: 1.76
Oregon: 1.41
Alabama: 1.33
Ohio: 1.28
Nevada: 1.25
New Hampshire: 1.11
Iowa: 1.07
Missouri: 1.07
Wisconsin: 1.07
Arkansas: 0.95
North Dakota: 0.95
Illinois: 0.85
Idaho: 0.80
Nebraska: 0.71
Kansas: 0.62
Mississippi: 0.54
South Dakota: 0.51
Michigan: 0.27
Montana: 0.23
New Mexico: 0.22
Wyoming: 0.21
Vermont: 0.08
Maine: 0.05
Alaska: 0.04
West Virginia: -0.11

Northeastern Average: 7.87
Southern Average: 4.66
Western Average: 2.46
Midwestern Average: 1.10
When using just the land area, Massachusetts takes the #1 spot with a population growth per square mile of 25.33.

Massachusetts 25.33
Maryland 20.87
Florida 20.30
New Jersey 19.89
Delaware 19.34
California 9.94
Hawaii 9.23
North Carolina 8.40
Virginia 8.24
New York 7.81
Georgia 7.11
Texas 6.93
South Carolina 6.89
Washington 5.07
Tennessee 4.92
Connecticut 4.66
Colorado 3.15
Indiana 3.14
Arizona 2.99
Louisiana 2.69
Utah 2.18
Rhode Island 2.17
Minnesota 1.92
Pennsylvania 1.88
Kentucky 1.88
Oklahoma 1.84
Oregon 1.45
Ohio 1.41
Alabama 1.37
Wisconsin 1.30
Nevada 1.26
New Hampshire 1.16
Missouri 1.09
Iowa 1.08
North Dakota 0.97
Arkansas 0.97
Illinois 0.88
Idaho 0.81
Nebraska 0.72
Kansas 0.62
Mississippi 0.55
South Dakota 0.51
Michigan 0.46
Montana 0.23
New Mexico 0.22
Wyoming 0.21
Vermont 0.09
Maine 0.06
Alaska 0.05
West Virginia -0.11
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.


Reply
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
Message:

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