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'm sure you've seen the map breaks and videos of this topic around the internet. I found it to be interesting, not because of the past but the future.
Since 1950, "population growth" is something that has been mostly associated with the western U.S., and not the side that has 4/5ths the population.
You may, if you've been paying very close attention to news media lately, have seen a "California is losing population" type story. It's mostly a correction, and nothing even close to the slew of cities from Detroit to Buffalo that lost more than half of their population in decades past.
It's not surprising that the majority of the western United States population sits near the coast between San Diego and Seattle. What is somewhat of a wild card is that places like Phoenix could exist, a legitimate major population center to rival large eastern metros 360 miles inland.
What does the future hold? Will SLC and Las Vegas step up to become Phoenix-like population centers to balance things out? Or will population skew even more heavily to the east?
The east will continue to grow. There's too much water, rivers, etc for it to stagnate or decline. I think the west will plateau at some point. Perhaps not for the PNW.
You may, if you've been paying very close attention to news media lately, have seen a "California is losing population" type story. It's mostly a correction, and nothing even close to the slew of cities from Detroit to Buffalo that lost more than half of their population in decades past.
Except the furthest east they move to is Texas (especially Dallas or Austin)? Even more of them are just moving to states like Arizona or Oregon or Washington (state).
This is like NYer moving to Florida or Carolinas - it's not going to change the east/west split by much.
I'm sure you've seen the map breaks and videos of this topic around the internet. I found it to be interesting, not because of the past but the future.
Since 1950, "population growth" is something that has been mostly associated with the western U.S., and not the side that has 4/5ths the population.
You may, if you've been paying very close attention to news media lately, have seen a "California is losing population" type story. It's mostly a correction, and nothing even close to the slew of cities from Detroit to Buffalo that lost more than half of their population in decades past.
It's not surprising that the majority of the western United States population sits near the coast between San Diego and Seattle. What is somewhat of a wild card is that places like Phoenix could exist, a legitimate major population center to rival large eastern metros 360 miles inland.
What does the future hold? Will SLC and Las Vegas step up to become Phoenix-like population centers to balance things out? Or will population skew even more heavily to the east?
The issue is Dallas and Houston are East of Central Texas and are along with Phoenix and Atlanta round up the cities growing by any significant margin. This matters because The Texas Triangle by itself will add another 3,000,000 people minimum this decade, mostly in Dallas and Houston. Florida is the 2nd fastest growing state in terms of pure numbers as an entity. California in recent years is nearing zero and I don’t know if any Western state is catching Georgia.
East Texas+Georgia+Florida+NC+SC should be enough to offset Washington+Colorado+Nevada+Arizona+Utah+Idaho
Every city to the left of that line gets a portion of the rain of the cities to the east of the line. Given the current trend of climate change, I would say the only logical answer is that it will just get worse.
In fact, I believe the line will continue to drift.
In the near-term probably the west will continue to grow faster.
The Southwest will probably be the first to crack, especially New Mexico, which is barely growing as it is. Phoenix and Las Vegas probably have a decade or so before they start to lose population (negative migration from Mexico, and declining birthrates especially among Hispanics and lower-SES groups, are not helping them). Of the coastal metros, my guess is that Seattle will keep growing the longest, due to its development-friendly environment and strong job market. The deep-red western states (UT, ID, WY, MT) will also fare relatively well through their higher birthrates, cooler climates, and low existing population densities --- particularly ID and UT since they have decent-sized economic centers within their borders.
If I had to throw out a year when the east will start increasing its share of the US population again, I'd say 2040.
Except the furthest east they move to is Texas (especially Dallas or Austin)? Even more of them are just moving to states like Arizona or Oregon or Washington (state).
This is like NYer moving to Florida or Carolinas - it's not going to change the east/west split by much.
Meh; anecdotal as I know this is...there has been a NOTABLE increase of people from the West Coast (and interior west; especially Arizona) moving to NC in the past few years. Probably 1/3 of my out-of-state clients are moving here from west of the Mississippi (most of the rest being from Florida or the Bos-Wash corridor)
The Western US was never going to be as heavily populated as the East and the center of population can only shift westward for so long. It is an objective certainty that the center of population for the US will eventually stop shifting west and start shifting East. Current water crisis and significantly higher COL (which are strongly correlated) could very well make that happen sooner rather than later.
Since 1950, "population growth" is something that has been mostly associated with the western U.S., and not the side that has 4/5ths the population.
Is population growth measured as a percentage increase over the base? That easier to do with a smaller base.
Quote:
You may, if you've been paying very close attention to news media lately, have seen a "California is losing population" type story. It's mostly a correction, and nothing even close to the slew of cities from Detroit to Buffalo that lost more than half of their population in decades past.
50% declines overstates it because those people mostly moved to suburbs of the same city. Very few metros have lost population, although many have been stagnant.
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.
