Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
View Poll Results: Which state will see the most dramatic population increase?
Alaska 7 5.65%
South Dakota 33 26.61%
Montana 57 45.97%
Wyoming 22 17.74%
North Dakota 5 4.03%
Voters: 124. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-21-2022, 01:16 PM
 
Location: Boston Metrowest (via the Philly area)
7,269 posts, read 10,588,790 times
Reputation: 8823

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpio516 View Post
I'm going to vote E. New Hampshire.

NH has 1.3M people, grew 4.6% in the last decade.

It grew the most between 60 and 90, 20% a decade, but will grow more as more people move to Boston and are priced out of 128 and 495.
That's a good bet in my book, too. I think Northern New England (NH, VT, ME) as a whole is in a good position to grow, especially as winters become milder with climate change.

These states are not Wyoming or Montana-level sparsely populated, meaning you're always relatively close to some form of civilization and have better access to critical needs like healthcare and goods/services, but also have plenty of opportunity for those looking for more a secluded/rustic feel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-21-2022, 01:30 PM
 
1,320 posts, read 865,470 times
Reputation: 2796
I don't see Montana really booming any time soon

The state has only about a million people but is already approaching Colorado level cost of living. As nice as cities like Bozeman and Missoula are, they're just too expensive and don't have enough economic prospects to attract a bunch of working class people to create a snowball growth effect. I see them in the same position as Bend, Oregon. States like Utah and Idaho have been able to sustain rapid growth because SLC and Boise were and still are affordable compared to the US average.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2022, 01:41 PM
 
Location: Atlanta metro (Cobb County)
3,157 posts, read 2,206,134 times
Reputation: 4199
Quote:
Originally Posted by nadnerb View Post
I don't see Montana really booming any time soon

The state has only about a million people but is already approaching Colorado level cost of living. As nice as cities like Bozeman and Missoula are, they're just too expensive and don't have enough economic prospects to attract a bunch of working class people to create a snowball growth effect. I see them in the same position as Bend, Oregon. States like Utah and Idaho have been able to sustain rapid growth because SLC and Boise were and still are affordable compared to the US average.
Utah and Idaho are growing rapidly due to much higher than average fertility levels as well as in-migration. Both states have a heavily Mormon/LDS population, and a significant share of Hispanic origin residents as well - each are groups that tend to have high birth rates.

This natural increase factor also works against the northern New England states mentioned on this thread, where the demographics skew very old with few children and young adults. States like Vermont and Maine would be losing population without a substantial influx of migrants from other parts of the Northeast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2022, 01:53 PM
 
Location: The City of Trees
1,402 posts, read 3,362,613 times
Reputation: 2183
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas75 View Post
Utah and Idaho are growing rapidly due to much higher than average fertility levels as well as in-migration. Both states have a heavily Mormon/LDS population, and a significant share of Hispanic origin residents as well - each are groups that tend to have high birth rates.

This natural increase factor also works against the northern New England states mentioned on this thread, where the demographics skew very old with few children and young adults. States like Vermont and Maine would be losing population without a substantial influx of migrants from other parts of the Northeast.
Quick stats...nearly 70% of Utah is LDS while Idaho is around 24% LDS.

Utah naturally has the highest birth rate in the nation while Idaho ranks #11 for birth rates.

Idaho's in-migration is much higher than the states birth rate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2022, 02:00 PM
 
Location: Denver/Atlanta
6,083 posts, read 10,695,817 times
Reputation: 5872
I’m surprised The Dakotas aren’t winning. ND seems like it’s booming still with jobs and SD has a few cities (Sioux Falls/Rapid City) I could see people “discovering.”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P View Post
Cheyenne is WAY out on the plains. It doesn't have the front range experience that CO cities do. Sheridan is a much sexier location.
I mean, so is Greeley but people won’t stop moving there for some reason…
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2022, 02:02 PM
 
Location: Atlanta metro (Cobb County)
3,157 posts, read 2,206,134 times
Reputation: 4199
Quote:
Originally Posted by TohobitPeak View Post
Quick stats...nearly 70% of Utah is LDS while Idaho is around 24% LDS.

Utah naturally has the highest birth rate in the nation while Idaho ranks #11 for birth rates.

Idaho's in-migration is much higher than the states birth rate.
True, my assessment applies to Utah more so than Idaho. But Idaho does have a younger demographic with higher LDS and Hispanic representation vs. the five states on this poll, so that does help bolster their growth in addition to net in-migration.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2022, 03:29 PM
 
Location: ATL via ROC
1,213 posts, read 2,322,242 times
Reputation: 2563
According to U.S. Census estimates (so take it with a grain of salt) Montana was tied with Utah as the 2nd fastest growing state by percentage between 2020 and 2021 at 1.7%. There are signs that MT will be the next Idaho. Worth noting is that there is no Boise equivalent.

North Dakota would be my 2nd choice. As OP pointed out, that state was the fastest growing on this list over the past decade according to official Census numbers, which was also their first double digit population growth in 100 years. Plus, there’s a sizable city in Fargo to anchor said growth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2022, 03:57 PM
 
Location: East Bay, San Francisco Bay Area
23,520 posts, read 24,000,129 times
Reputation: 23951
Montana, I already know several people that have moved there
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2022, 04:45 PM
sub
 
Location: ^##
4,963 posts, read 3,751,401 times
Reputation: 7831
Which one are Californians most likely to escape to?
Montana.

All these choices are already surprisingly pricey, at least in the larger cities and towns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2022, 05:40 PM
 
Location: Edmonds, WA
8,975 posts, read 10,204,425 times
Reputation: 14247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mezter View Post
I’m surprised The Dakotas aren’t winning. ND seems like it’s booming still with jobs and SD has a few cities (Sioux Falls/Rapid City) I could see people “discovering.”



I mean, so is Greeley but people won’t stop moving there for some reason…
ND is a boom and bust sort of place. For a while there Minot was one of the most expensive housing markets in the country because so many people were moving there due to oil and then it tanked. Not sure what’s going on there now.

Rapid City has a very attractive location between the Black Hills and the Badlands. I think it’s just an inherently desirable place to live if you like the outdoors. And it’s not terribly far from the front range. Weather isn’t bad at all for being in the Dakotas with the Chinook winds they get in the winter. I would consider living there if I could.

Of course, same could be said for Montana and Wyoming but the ultra wealthy have already marked their territory in those states and I feel like NIMBYS are going to be a retardant to future growth there to some extent. South Dakota feels more “undiscovered” to me.
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.

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top