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.
Per the OP, MA is 14th in the country for raw growth. It’s growing faster than 6 currently larger states by my count (NY, PA, NJ, MI, OH, and IL), all of which are significantly larger by land area (except for NJ).
Those are interesting stats. But it's important to keep in mind that, regardless of land size, population growth isn't evenly distributed within any state, so practically speaking I think you'll find that the ppsm numbers are rising at a much greater level within geographic confines of the respective large metro areas of those top states (i.e., the counties comprising the Nashville MSA in Tennsessee or the counties comprising the Denver MSA in Colorado, just as MA's ppsm growth is going to be very heavily concentrated in Suffolk, Middlesex, Essex, and Norfolk counties).
To me, that's a much more "apples to apples" comparison.
I'd rather see a map breaking it down to the county level. Even in many of the higher growth states, it's only a handful of counties responsible for the growth, and in many cases the rest of the state is actually declining.
While true, county lines are much more arbitrary and not every state utilizes them in the same way (Virginia carves out cities from counties for instance). State, metro, and city are probably the most useful demarcations 95% of the time.
At any rate, here is a more granular look at the state data.
To your second point, as for people per square mile thats all good but still our urbanized area isnt as dense as the ones in many other urban areas in the 15 states you listed. Boston Metro could stand to be much more densely populated if properly governed and planned.
True. This is why Masssachoicetts’ first estimation earlier (while pretty darn optimistic and unlikely, imo) isn’t impossible, especially if the gateway cities start growing again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heel82
Massachusetts was passed by Arizona recently and will be by Tennessee before long. It’s treading water barely, growing a little bit slower than the country as a whole.
Treading water barely? It’s growing faster than 36 out of 50 states. Arizona and Tennessee are growing exceptionally fast; they don’t represent a national average. And I’ll reiterate how big those two states are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
Those are interesting stats. But it's important to keep in mind that, regardless of land size, population growth isn't evenly distributed within any state, so practically speaking I think you'll find that the ppsm numbers are rising at a much greater level within geographic confines of the respective large metro areas of those top states (i.e., the counties comprising the Nashville MSA in Tennsessee or the counties comprising the Denver MSA in Colorado, just as MA's ppsm growth is going to be very heavily concentrated in Suffolk, Middlesex, Essex, and Norfolk counties).
To me, that's a much more "apples to apples" comparison.
That’s fair. I also thought you could look at population growth in New England which is practically zero outside of MA last time I checked. New England then would still be 14th on the OP’s list, but the size would be more akin to states like South Carolina and Georgia.
It does begs the question, though: what’s the point of looking at state growth if we’re just going to break it down by county or metro area anyway? Is this data really all that useful?
Last edited by Boston Shudra; 11-11-2019 at 11:41 AM..
The problem with extrapolating existing conditions is that the conditions change.
Back in 1960 Mormons averaged, like, 6 kids a family. Now I think the average is less than 4.
A lot of people also leave the Amish order and get absorbed into modern society. When that happens undoubtedly those people don't have as many kids.
This is actually something discussed in the links i'm talking about. While Amish fertility is decreasing, and 25% of Amish leave in adulthood, this actually allows the Amish population to maintain growth, when an Amish get's secularized unlike a Mormon they don't just stay a Mormon they just become another American of Amish heritage, as Amish is very tied to the lifestyle. What this does is actually conserve's Amish population growth because those that stay Amish are more conservative each generation because those with more liberal views leave. Hence the Amish fertility might decrease a bit as more and more Amish become liberal and eventually leave which pushes the Amish birth rate up as those liberals who were always behind on the number of babies birthed compared to their Amish brethren no longer factor in the fertility rate.
My argument isn't that Amish population won't become large enough to affect population growth in declining states, it 100% will by most demographic graphs that factor them in, as well as Mormons and Orthodox Jews. My argument is that you'll start to see the effects by 2040.
IMO if the Orthodox Jews and Amish are doubling every 20 years, even with lower birth rates, and a larger population base your looking at- 5-8 million Haredi/Orthodox Jews (this with lowering their growth over time, and saying a lot more become secular), 3-5 million Amish (Growth trends claim 7,000,000 but this is accounting for a mass exodus)by 2100. These are easily large enough populations, even with something like 40% leaving either group or mass liberalization similar to the mormons for whatever reason which is a lot higher than today, this with the NE population almost certainly in decline as well as the majority of the midwest will definitely affect population growth massively.
Mormons have a much lower birth rate but are the largest of the three groups their estimated population by 2100 in the U.S is 30,000,000 roughly. That's still doubling from now while the rest of the population is expected to decline.
I think small religious groups will increasingly affect growth rates in our country especially on a state-level they may not be large enough to affect politics but in an increasingly aging U.S.A these groups that are small could have massive effects when talking about babies/kids and natural growth rate.
Treading water barely? It’s growing faster than 36 out of 50 states. Arizona and Tennessee are growing exceptionally fast; they don’t represent a national average. And I’ll reiterate how big those two states are.
It’s seen the 14th largest growth only by raw numbers over the last 8 years. Given it was the 14th largest (now 15th largest) state in total population, that’s less impressive than it seems. As a percentage, it grew 22nd fastest. The country as a whole grew 6% from 2010 to 2018, Massachusetts grew 5.4%. It’s doing fine, particularly Boston, but it’s definitely losing ground demographically this decade.
I don’t understand the size thing. Massachusetts is small. But it’s always been small, that isn’t a new development since 2010 or anything.
It does begs the question, though: what’s the point of looking at state growth if we’re just going to break it down by county or metro area anyway? Is this data really all that useful?
That's a valid point. I don't think there's any state that's uniformly growing nowadays and there's incredible variation between cities/counties within most states.
So yeah, I think states are certainly useful to follow as political/government units, but there's a lot going on "beneath the surface" that explains how that growth is occurring.
I don’t understand the size thing. Massachusetts is small. But it’s always been small, that isn’t a new development since 2010 or anything.
Pretty simple: if Tennessee is 5x the size of Massachusetts, shouldn’t it have 5x the raw population growth? If every community in the US were growing at the same rate, then change in state population would be directly proportional to state land area.
The fact that MA is already pretty densely populated makes its growth even more impressive. It’s harder to add people when you don’t have as much undeveloped land.
Pretty simple: if Tennessee is 5x the size of Massachusetts, shouldn’t it have 5x the raw population growth? If every community in the US were growing at the same rate, then change in state population would be directly proportional to state land area.
The fact that MA is already pretty densely populated makes its growth even more impressive. It’s harder to add people when you don’t have as much undeveloped land.
No, that’s not the way it works because more land doesn’t equate to more people. Alaska doesn’t have 30,000 times more people than Manhattan.
It is true that Massachusetts doesn’t have as much cheap land as other places (though much of Western Mass isn’t nearly as dense as many of the places people are piling into, like say Davidson County TN). But that’s a different issue. Massachusetts is losing population share as a state for a variety of reasons and there is no sign of a reversal. But there are other states getting hit worse, so Massachusetts is doing relatively ok. As I said, treading water.
I honestly had no idea Massachusetts was even close to 14. It is such an outlier among these Southern and Western states. I also did not know about the movement to electrify its rail, which I found an interesting read. Thanks all for the info.
I honestly had no idea Massachusetts was even close to 14. It is such an outlier among these Southern and Western states. I also did not know about the movement to electrify its rail, which I found an interesting read. Thanks all for the info.
I think the Massachusetts vs. Tennessee comparison is particularly interesting, especially considering how much hype there is about TN booming (well maybe just Nashville). It's definitely growing by a lot, but it's helpful to see that a state of near-equal population (MA) that doesn't have a national reputation for growth is growing at similar levels.
And as many others have said, it's helpful to point out that CA is still growing robustly. 2.3 million people is equivalent to the Sacramento metropolitan area or Riverside County (10th most populous in the country).
Virginia is still growing robustly, although it's not in the news as much. I'm wondering if it because growth is more spread out. Whereas Tennessee is booming in large part due to Nashville, Virginia has robust/steady growth in the DC suburbs, greater Richmond, and, surprisingly, even in rural towns near Appalachia (Roanoke, Lynchburg).
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.
