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.
With the 2020s being in full-swing which state will see a big growth this decade? In the last decade, North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, Colorado, and Arizona had tremendous growth. Most of the growth in the US for the past few decades is from mostly sun-belt states. Will states with cooler climates get a boost in population? Minnesota and Colorado are two states with cooler climates but still attract millennials in their big cities. What state do you see getting a big jump in population by 2029?
I would imagine a lot of the states that saw growth in the late 2010's would continue into the 2020's, particularly some of the states that you mention. That said, there are a few questions that may impact what our next growth phase may look like:
- Will the current pandemic reshape people's perception of big cities? There has been a trend the past few years of subtle shifts away from our biggest cities, ostensibly due to the increasing costs. Could this be the straw that breaks it wide open? NYT had an article on this yesterday.
- How will the impacts of climate change manifest in growth patterns? Feels like we're at the point where we will start to see some bigger coastal flooding impacts (South Florida, Mid-Atlantic, etc.) Are we at the point where temperature rise becomes an issue (i.e. can Texas keep growing if it's 105+ for 80-90 days per year?)
- As work from home become more widespread, do people have more choice where they want to live? In other words, will the classic Professional cities, where people go to work and build wealth (i.e. NYC, Chicago, Boston, Houston, SF, etc.) give way to rapid growth of small to medium-sized cities with easier lifestyles? If so, how will those cities and their housing prices cope with the rapid influx of capital?
Obviously not all of these things will play major roles over the next 10 years, but they could drive steady behavioral shifts in the same way that the gentrification era brought Gen X'ers and Millennials back into big cities from the suburbs that we grew up in.
Oh, I got waaaay off track and never answered the question. Colorado, Washington and Idaho are my votes.
Since 2010 the fastest growing up until 2020 if factoring actual population numbers (not percentages) are:
1. Texas 16.76% (2.68% in 2020) 29,400,000 residents
2. Florida 16.70% (3.26% in 2020) 21,900,000 residents
3. California 7.01% (.96% in 2020) 39,900,000 residents
4. Georgia 10.55% (2.06% in 2020) 10,700,000 residents
5. North Carolina 10.84% (2.20% in 2020) 10,600,000 residents
That said while California has cooled off a bit (just up around 1% last year), but based on that number of residents won't be losing much ground. Washington (3.47%/7.8 million) and Arizona (2.88%/7.4 million) are best positioned to move further up behind GA and NC. Next down would be Colorado (2.63%/5.8 million) and South Carolina (2.48%/5.2 million), all based on 2020 increases alone. While Idaho is the fastest growing in 2020, it's 4.10% increase on a population of 1.8 million is well off the leaders given the overall numbers.
I think Arizona will grow even faster in the coming years and maybe even candidate for #1.
Arizona, Florida, and maybe a few of these other warmer states, have benefited from Baby Boomers retiring and moving somewhere warm. I would expect, that those numbers will be, mostly, lost in the next decade. People will still be retiring, but not in the generational numbers they have been in the last ten years. The Villages, Sun City, and others, will have to figure out how to deal with the problems they might face as Baby Boomers reach the end of their life expectancy. Remember this, to those who have been harsh about Baby Boomers...we all get old (that means you, too), if we're lucky.
Arizona, Florida, and maybe a few of these other warmer states, have benefited from Baby Boomers retiring and moving somewhere warm. I would expect, that those numbers will be, mostly, lost in the next decade. People will still be retiring, but not in the generational numbers they have been in the last ten years. The Villages, Sun City, and others, will have to figure out how to deal with the problems they might face as Baby Boomers reach the end of their life expectancy. Remember this, to those who have been harsh about Baby Boomers...we all get old (that means you, too), if we're lucky.
I can't speak for Florida, but for Arizona that's a tired old stereotype just thrown out there when people have little knowledge or can't process or even understand the growth. 5 out of the 7.3 million people in the state live in the Metro Phoenix area. Which up until the past couple months ago has had a booming economy and very strong job growth. Californians have been fleeing high taxes and crazy politics for a while now. They are moving to places like AZ, UT, NV, ID, TX. These aren't just boomers. Arizona is a very business friendly state and has a growing tech job market along with moderately affordable housing. Unfortunately the Phoenix metro recently ranked as having the fastest rising rents in the country.
Anyways, can't keep throwing out old stereotypes. It's good to keep up with the times.
I would imagine a lot of the states that saw growth in the late 2010's would continue into the 2020's, particularly some of the states that you mention. That said, there are a few questions that may impact what our next growth phase may look like:
- Will the current pandemic reshape people's perception of big cities? There has been a trend the past few years of subtle shifts away from our biggest cities, ostensibly due to the increasing costs. Could this be the straw that breaks it wide open? NYT had an article on this yesterday.
- How will the impacts of climate change manifest in growth patterns? Feels like we're at the point where we will start to see some bigger coastal flooding impacts (South Florida, Mid-Atlantic, etc.) Are we at the point where temperature rise becomes an issue (i.e. can Texas keep growing if it's 105+ for 80-90 days per year?)
- As work from home become more widespread, do people have more choice where they want to live? In other words, will the classic Professional cities, where people go to work and build wealth (i.e. NYC, Chicago, Boston, Houston, SF, etc.) give way to rapid growth of small to medium-sized cities with easier lifestyles? If so, how will those cities and their housing prices cope with the rapid influx of capital?
Obviously not all of these things will play major roles over the next 10 years, but they could drive steady behavioral shifts in the same way that the gentrification era brought Gen X'ers and Millennials back into big cities from the suburbs that we grew up in.
Oh, I got waaaay off track and never answered the question. Colorado, Washington and Idaho are my votes.
The great “will working at home work for the masses” Litmus test is going on right now. The reality of the current home/remote working isn’t as big as many like to make it out to be, but that has changed this last month. If employers don’t see a drop in productivity you’ll see a greater shift towards this. I don’t think you’ll see a major shift from the professional cities, just to maybe more outlying areas near them as you’ll still be required to come into the office.
I have cousins working in tech in San Diego, San Jose, and Seattle, and all are only allowed to work from home a few days a month, max. I could see this flip flop, but that doesn’t mean they can move off to middle of the country somewhere? Issues will arise where you’ll need to be in ASAP, and not just meetings scheduled out far in advance. Two of my cousins, one in San Diego, one in Seattle, would move to the mountains and coast, respectively, 2-3 hours away tomorrow if given the chance to work remotely.
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,409 posts, read 6,550,878 times
Reputation: 6685
I expect more people who work remotely from home will be able to live and work where they want to going forward, but there will be a number of variables in play.
Speaking from first hand experience, I worked in technology (sales) with the same company for 33 years. I was living in Orange County, CA when my company no longer found it necessary to pay for satellite office space and I was told to work from home in 2001 after having reported to an office for 15 years. By 2003, I was allowed to relocate further south to San Diego, my choice/request, even though I had no customers based there (my closest customer was in Long Beach, 90 minutes away, and the SF Bay Area would have been most central to my territory). My responsibilities and territory increased further beginning in 2009 and I requested and was allowed to move again, this time to South Florida in 2016–even though I maintained a number of West Coast based clients.
What allowed for these self initiated moves?...(1) I had been with my company 17 years and built up trust as a consistent top producer before my first self initiated relocation request in 2003. Less likely/doubtful I would have been able to pull off that move had I been with the company only 5 years with less of a proven track record. (2) I paid for both moves.
I expect more and more firms to look at reducing non essential sales and service/support oriented commercial office space, and associated costs, by allowing more people to (remain) work(ing) from home provided productivity is not sacrificed. Some of these workers might even be able to request and now work from home in different states than offices they previously reported to, particularly if they have demonstrated track records. Some, not all, who work in a high tax and/or cold weather states might jump at the opportunity to relocate elsewhere if given the opportunity. We are already seeing this shift with some hedge funds and investment firms / employees relocating to South Florida from the Northeast. Business travel (and/or the amount required along with customer schmoozing) will be a completely different subject going forward as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TacoSoup
The great “will working at home work for the masses” Litmus test is going on right now. The reality of the current home/remote working isn’t as big as many like to make it out to be, but that has changed this last month. If employers don’t see a drop in productivity you’ll see a greater shift towards this. I don’t think you’ll see a major shift from the professional cities, just to maybe more outlying areas near them as you’ll still be required to come into the office.
I have cousins working in tech in San Diego, San Jose, and Seattle, and all are only allowed to work from home a few days a month, max. I could see this flip flop, but that doesn’t mean they can move off to middle of the country somewhere? Issues will arise where you’ll need to be in ASAP, and not just meetings scheduled out far in advance. Two of my cousins, one in San Diego, one in Seattle, would move to the mountains and coast, respectively, 2-3 hours away tomorrow if given the chance to work remotely.
Last edited by elchevere; 04-21-2020 at 11:27 AM..
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.
