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 predict California will slow
*Continue population boom growth will be: Texas, Washington, Virginia, Utah, & Arizona
*North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee & South Carolina will continue to grow well, but not surge as much
Traditionally population growth is measured in percent, not total numbers. I'd say this is especially relevant when discussing growth rates in 2040, because the raw-number growth will inherently depend on the raw-number growth over the prior two decades.
Anyway, with no particular methodology, gun to my head:
Fastest-growing: Montana, Idaho, Minnesota, Utah, Washington, Oregon, Tennessee, North Carolina
Declining: California, New York, DC, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine, West Virginia, Louisiana, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Hawaii, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi
*I predict California will slow
*Continue population boom growth will be: Texas, Washington, Virginia, Utah, & Arizona
*North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee & South Carolina will continue to grow well, but not surge as much
My predictions-
Texas will start to grow even faster, despite massive public opposition, Houston will eventually unveil a huge Metrorail expansion and some kind of enhanced train service to DFW.
California will disappoint haters by growing at the same clip (there's really no basis to predict any slowing of growth, but go ahead and watch every post on this thread predict exactly that) suburban-minded states like TN, FL, UT, NC, and NV will see population slow or even decline because they were never serious about building any infrastructure to accommodate the growth to begin with.
Texas will start to grow even faster, despite massive public opposition, Houston will eventually unveil a huge Metrorail expansion and some kind of enhanced train service to DFW.
California will disappoint haters by growing at the same clip (there's really no basis to predict any slowing of growth, but go ahead and watch every post on this thread predict exactly that) suburban-minded states like TN, FL, UT, NC, and NV will see population slow or even decline because they were never serious about building any infrastructure to accommodate the growth to begin with.
As someone who's ranked metros since 1985, I agree with your assessment of TX. Everything else, I wholeheartedly disagree. "Suburban-minded" metros/states is what most people want due to affordability, better buying power, many more home buying choices. Stats prove this. High density (as you seem to support) raises costs of living astronomically putting homeownership out of reach for most people, which, in turn, tends to lower growth rates as people flee to more affordable areas. CA's insane cost of living simply can't sustain growth rate increases. SoCal will fair better than NoCal, but will still fall behind other thriving Sunbelt states/metros. The population data going back for decades says so. So the opposite of what you're saying is going to be true. Past statistical trends, migration data, and future projections back this up overwhelmingly. It appears you're letting your personal view and philosophy of how you want states and metros to be shaped cloud the stats that say otherwise and many basic laws of economics and demographic trends. Any area's COL that's more than 33% of the national average is considered unaffordable, which devalues the dollar for that area compared to national averages. Too, once an area is above the 33% threshold, it's economically impossible to ever be affordable again. Inflation rates outpace average salary growth to too high of a degree. CA is several times that rate. The growth rate of CA has slowed and will continue to do so, while NC, TN, TX, and such states will continue to grow and prosper. Sorry, but the numbers don't lie.
Pennsylvania and New York will start to grow again because by 2040 the Amish and Orthodox Jewish population will be such a large part of those states respectively that they’ll start to affect the growth rates of either of those states.
If Massachusetts completes this recently approved 29 billion dollar plan to electrify and rapidize its entire MBTA Commuter Rail Network throughout eastern and central MA it will grow a TON. If it doesnt growth will be minimal as its already started to slow as affordability has declined. They said the plan should take 15-20years to complete so maybe the grwoth will come more rapidly after 2040..
As someone who's ranked metros since 1985, I agree with your assessment of TX. Everything else, I wholeheartedly disagree. "Suburban-minded" metros/states is what most people want due to affordability, better buying power, many more home buying choices. Stats prove this. High density (as you seem to support) raises costs of living astronomically putting homeownership out of reach for most people, which, in turn, tends to lower growth rates as people flee to more affordable areas. CA's insane cost of living simply can't sustain growth rate increases. SoCal will fair better than NoCal, but will still fall behind other thriving Sunbelt states/metros. The population data going back for decades says so. So the opposite of what you're saying is going to be true. Past statistical trends, migration data, and future projections back this up overwhelmingly. It appears you're letting your personal view and philosophy of how you want states and metros to be shaped cloud the stats that say otherwise and many basic laws of economics and demographic trends. Any area's COL that's more than 33% of the national average is considered unaffordable, which devalues the dollar for that area compared to national averages. Too, once an area is above the 33% threshold, it's economically impossible to ever be affordable again. Inflation rates outpace average salary growth to too high of a degree. CA is several times that rate. The growth rate of CA has slowed and will continue to do so, while NC, TN, TX, and such states will continue to grow and prosper. Sorry, but the numbers don't lie.
His point concerning NC, TN, FL, UT, etc. had to do with insufficient infrastructure, not density. Not saying I necessarily agree with his predictions about the ones he calls "suburban-minded states," but in some states the suburban road networks, transit systems, etc. are better than in others and that will make a difference with regard to future growth rates.
But as far as the positive relationship between suburbia and affordability goes, that's because 1) the federal government has historically massively subsidized suburbia at the expense of central cities and 2) a lack of housing supply will drive costs up regardless of location, and much of that is attributed to local zoning regulations. While a lot of people tend to think of San Francisco when it comes to the housing crisis in California, the fact of the matter is that a resistance to homebuilding in the suburbs is driving that crisis in a major way.
Pennsylvania and New York will start to grow again because by 2040 the Amish and Orthodox Jewish population will be such a large part of those states respectively that they’ll start to affect the growth rates of either of those states.
?? Amish are 0.5% of Pennsylvania's population. Even the orthodox jewish population of New York is a very small percentile overall.
Massachusetts has so much potential to grow with its satellite cities of Lowell, Providence, Lynn, Nashua NH, Worcester, Brockton, Fall River, Framingham, New Bedford and Haverhill/Lawrence. The jobs in the state are crazy high tech and the QOL is absurdly high, nearly European. Greater Boston is gifted with these bones and right now they are significantly underutilized. If thy pass this 30 Billion dollar transformation to electrify the rail, Massachusetts has the potential to gain nearly 75,000 people per year. I know that it is highly subjective, but it really does....
If MA does electrify, I could see it following this trajectory:
HIGH PREDICTION
2020: 6.93 Million
2030: 7.40 Million
2040: 8.22 Million
2050: 9.00 Million
If MA does not electrify, I could see it following this trajectory:
2010: 6.93 Million
2020: 7.25 Million
2030: 7.47 Million
2040: 7.60 Million
2050: 7.72 Million
Lets hope Mass doesn't just it back and watch the state plummet to garbage again.
Pennsylvania and New York will start to grow again because by 2040 the Amish and Orthodox Jewish population will be such a large part of those states respectively that they’ll start to affect the growth rates of either of those states.
Did this come from the onion or fox?
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.
