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.
The census bureau released the 2015 state estimates today. Keep in mind these are just estimates, they are often not on point when actual census numbers are released. There are 6 states showing as having negative growth for the last year, but only one (West Virginia) showing negative growth since the last census. It would be pretty much useless to speak about these as if they are fact.
I see no major changes.....business as usual: the sunbelt leads the way in growth, with the primary outliers being Washington (both the state and DC), Oregon and North Dakota.
-22,000 for Illinois. If it's like last year, then Chicago and Chicagoland remain static, and less desirable parts of Illinois outside of Chicagoland continue their decline. Not that can I blame anyone though, since living in a place like Rockford wouldn't exactly leave me jumping for joy.
Although, at this rate, Pennsylvania will pass Illinois as well in the next couple of years. There's about 60,000 people separating both states right now, assuming the estimates are accurate this time around.
I see no major changes.....business as usual: the sunbelt leads the way in growth, with the primary outliers being Washington (both the state and DC), Oregon and North Dakota.
I think the geography of growth is changing a bit in the U.S. It's more western and less southern.
In the West, growth is pretty strong in every state except for New Mexico and Wyoming. In contrast, in the South growth is pretty much solely an East Coast and Texas thing now. Growth is okay in Oklahoma and Tennessee, but low everywhere else. Given Texas, Florida, and Georgia are very large states now, this is enough to make growth in the South numerically larger. But it's also notably patchier.
It seems worth noting that in the Northeast, growth is strongest in New York and Massachusetts, which may reflect the continued concentration of professional jobs (and younger professionals) into NYC and Boston. Just outside of the Northeast Delaware continues to experience Sun Belt like growth levels, and Maryland is no slouch either.
I see no major changes.....business as usual: the sunbelt leads the way in growth, with the primary outliers being Washington (both the state and DC), Oregon and North Dakota.
Massachusetts grew by 247,000, on par with southern states like Maryland and Tennessee.
I think the geography of growth is changing a bit in the U.S. It's more western and less southern.
The numbers don't agree with this necessarily. At the top of the spreadsheet it breaks out the growth by region. The South is estimated to have grown more by both raw numbers, and in terms of percentage compared to the west. Albeit not by much and only because of two words: Texas and Florida.
Take out these two and the growth rate of the states that are stereotypically considered "the south" and you have a much different picture.
Oregon, Idaho and Washington are consistent domestic migration gainers. Maybe the midwestern states should try to figure out what the Northwest is doing right.
Oregon, Idaho and Washington are consistent domestic migration gainers. Maybe the midwestern states should try to figure out what the Northwest is doing right.
Not just those. New York state is also in a big slump and would be posting negative numbers if not for NYC and its environs padding the state numbers.
Since the last census, upstate probably lost upwards of half a million people...
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.