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 10-29-2008, 08:52 PM
 
Location: Tampa
3,981 posts, read 9,434,552 times
Reputation: 1171

Advertisements

What states do you think may start losing population over the next few decades, and why?

I am thinking, at some point in the not to far future, the SW states will start to shrink and/or stop growing once the Colorado is tapped out.

Maybe Florida, if we keep getting hit by hurricanes...

Prob Louisiana too
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-30-2008, 07:36 AM
 
Location: 3219'03.7"N 10643'55.9"W
8,115 posts, read 17,340,828 times
Reputation: 7287
Most of the Great Plains states. Iowa, Nebraska, North and South Dakota. If the reports are true about peak water, however, then you are right about the desert southwest, it will be forced to contract, due to lack of water. For other reasons, you might see some of the midwest states start to shrink, Michigan most prominently. Economics would be the primary driver here. From a standpoint of governance, you'll notice there is a migration from midwest and northeast states to the south, where business climate is more friendly due to more relaxed taxation and regulation. If northeast and midwest states don't adjust their policies, these trends will continue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2008, 08:22 AM
 
11,179 posts, read 22,397,366 times
Reputation: 10933
^ I think it's more tied to the economy. Iowa's main cities are doing just fine. Since the 90's the Cedar Rapids/Iowa City and Des Moines areas alone have added more than 225,000 people. That growth is still picking up. That way more than makes up for the rural loses.

I would say North Dakota, Michigan with the economy or West Virginia which is always flipping between gain/loss. Although with the DC burbs moving into WV, I think it might be in a period of overall growth.

I think Nebraska, Iowa and South Dakota will keep growing like they always have (except Iowa during the 80's, although it more than made up for it during the 90's).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2008, 08:27 AM
 
Location: ITP
2,133 posts, read 5,622,669 times
Reputation: 1347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago60614 View Post
^ I think it's more tied to the economy. Iowa's main cities are doing just fine. Since the 90's the Cedar Rapids/Iowa City and Des Moines areas alone have added more than 225,000 people. That growth is still picking up. That way more than makes up for the rural loses.

I would say North Dakota, Michigan with the economy or West Virginia which is always flipping between gain/loss. Although with the DC burbs moving into WV, I think it might be in a period of overall growth.

I think Nebraska, Iowa and South Dakota will keep growing like they always have (except Iowa during the 80's, although it more than made up for it during the 90's).
North Dakota is projected to emerge as a major oil producing state given the major oil field that has been discovered in the western part of the state. Towns like Stanley are experiencing growth, as well as a surplus of jobs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2008, 08:42 AM
 
Location: Chicago, Illinois
3,047 posts, read 8,143,611 times
Reputation: 1373
Quote:
Originally Posted by south-to-west View Post
North Dakota is projected to emerge as a major oil producing state given the major oil field that has been discovered in the western part of the state. Towns like Stanley are experiencing growth, as well as a surplus of jobs.
interesting...you learn something new everyday. my only question is, it's 2008 how does an oil field that profitable pop up this late?! They should have been all over that in the 80's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2008, 10:42 AM
 
Location: IN
20,861 posts, read 35,992,597 times
Reputation: 13304
Quote:
Originally Posted by At1WithNature View Post
interesting...you learn something new everyday. my only question is, it's 2008 how does an oil field that profitable pop up this late?! They should have been all over that in the 80's.
If I understand it correctly the Balkan Formation is only profitable above a certain price per barrel level. With oil prices remaining high it is economically feisable to tap. Oil shale is also a huge ecnomic driver in Fort McMurry in Alberta. It has emerged as the wealthiest town in Canada due to oil $$$$.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2008, 11:06 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn
40,056 posts, read 30,553,733 times
Reputation: 10490
About two years ago, I saw an article in a local newspaper about North Dakota--apparently, its population has declined to the point where there are as many people today as there were in 1889 when it attained statehood. A state legislator actually proposed that statehood be revoked and North Dakota returned to territorial status (which would take away most of its financial burden, and place it with the Federal government).

The rest of the article was about an effort to sell depopulated ghost towns. I personally would love to own a ghost town...except that I've heard some horror stories about the winters in North Dakota.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2008, 12:27 PM
 
11,179 posts, read 22,397,366 times
Reputation: 10933
North Dakota

1870 2,405 —
1880 36,909 1,434.7%
1890 190,983 417.4%
1900 319,146 67.1%
1910 577,056 80.8%
1920 646,872 12.1%
1930 680,845 5.3%
1940 641,935 −5.7%
1950 619,636 −3.5%
1960 632,446 2.1%
1970 617,761 −2.3%
1980 652,717 5.7%
1990 638,800 −2.1%
2000 642,200 0.5%
2007 639,715 −0.4

The state's basically been wafting back and forth at the same population for 87 years! The margin is only 63,000 people out of roughly 640,000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2008, 01:12 PM
 
Location: Scarsdale, NY
2,775 posts, read 10,725,647 times
Reputation: 794
New York State is losing population last I checked but only in Western NY. Westchester, Rockland, Nassau, Suffolk, Dutchess, Putnam, and Orange Counties along with NYC itself are growing.

Southern and Eastern NY State would be perfectly fine as our own state. Northern NJ and Fairfield County, CT should join the NYC metro and form one state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2008, 01:14 PM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,522 posts, read 12,296,789 times
Reputation: 3827
Its been about a 4000 year trend that agricultural population is declining and urban populations are increasing (at least percentage-wise, if not absolute numbers). I don't see any reason why that will change over the next few decades, at least.
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