PDA

View Full Version : Oh noes! CA,TX,FL gonna take over everything!



alex ballard
April 24th, 2005, 01:22 PM
Florida, California and Texas to Dominate Future Population Growth
Florida, California and Texas to Dominate Future
Population Growth, Census Bureau Reports


Three states — Florida, California and Texas — would account for nearly one-half (46 percent) of total U.S. population growth between 2000 and 2030, according to Census Bureau state population projections released today. Consequently, Florida, now the fourth most populous state, would edge past New York into third place in total population by 2011; California and Texas would continue to rank first and second, respectively, in 2030. (See attached table.)

These three states would each gain more than 12 million people between 2000 and 2030. Arizona, projected to add 5.6 million people, and North Carolina, with 4.2 million, would round out the top five numerical gainers. As a result, Arizona and North Carolina would move into the top 10 in total population by 2030 — Arizona rising from 20th place in 2000 to 10th place in 2030 and North Carolina from 11th place to seventh place. Michigan and New Jersey are projected to drop out of the top 10. (See attached table.)

The projections indicate that the top five fastest-growing states between 2000 and 2030 would be Nevada (114 percent), Arizona (109 percent), Florida (80 percent), Texas (60 percent) and Utah (56 percent).

Most (88 percent) of the nation’s population growth between 2000 and 2030 would occur in the South and West, which would be home to the 10 fastest-growing states over the period. The share of the population living in the South and West would increase from 58 percent in 2000 to 65 percent in 2030, while the share in the Northeast and Midwest would decline from 42 percent to 35 percent.

Other highlights:

In 2000, each of the nation’s 50 states had more people under 18 than 65 and older. In fact, in about half of the states, the ratio was more than two to one. In 2030, 10 states are projected to have more people 65 and older than under 18: Florida, Delaware, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming.

In six states, more than one in every four residents would be age 65 and older in 2030: Florida, Wyoming, Maine, New Mexico, Montana and North Dakota.

As the oldest baby boomers become senior citizens in 2011, the population 65 and older is projected to grow faster than the total population in every state. In fact, 26 states are projected to double their 65- and-older population between 2000 and 2030.
These projections were produced by the Population Division in correspondence with the U.S. interim projections released in March 2004. They were developed for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia by age and sex for the years 2000 to 2030, based on Census 2000 results. These projections differ from forecasts in that they represent the results of the mathematical projection model given that current state-specific trends in fertility, mortality, internal migration and international migration continue. The projections to 2004 have been superseded by population estimates at <http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.php>.



Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

04-24-2005 12:33 AM



bobcat
Highrise

Registered: Jun 2004
Location:
Posts: 292
Rank State Projected Population

(x) United States 363,584,435
1 .California 46,444,861
2 .Texas 33,317,744
3 .Florida 28,685,769
4 .New York 19,477,429
5 .Illinois 13,432,892
6 .Pennsylvania 12,768,184
7 .North Carolina 12,227,739
8 .Georgia 12,017,838
9 .Ohio 11,550,528
10 .Arizona 10,712,397
11 .Michigan 10,694,172
12 .Virginia 9,825,019
13 .New Jersey 9,802,440
14 .Washington 8,624,801
15 .Tennessee 7,380,634
16 .Maryland 7,022,251
17 .Massachusetts 7,012,009
18 .Indiana 6,810,108
19 .Missouri 6,430,173
20 .Minnesota 6,306,130
21 .Wisconsin 6,150,764
22 .Colorado 5,792,357
23 .South Carolina 5,148,569
24 .Alabama 4,874,243
25 .Oregon 4,833,918
26 .Louisiana 4,802,633
27 .Kentucky 4,554,998
28 .Nevada 4,282,102
29 .Oklahoma 3,913,251
30 .Connecticut 3,688,630
31 .Utah 3,485,367
32 .Arkansas 3,240,208
33 .Mississippi 3,092,410
34 .Iowa 2,955,172
35 .Kansas 2,940,084
36 .New Mexico 2,099,708
37 .Idaho 1,969,624
38 .Nebraska 1,820,247
39 .West Virginia 1,719,959
40 .New Hampshire 1,646,471
41 .Hawaii 1,466,046
42 .Maine 1,411,097
43 .Rhode Island 1,152,941
44 .Montana 1,044,898
45 .Delaware 1,012,658
46 .Alaska 867,674
47 .South Dakota 800,462
48 .Vermont 711,867
49 .North Dakota 606,566
50 .Wyoming 522,979
51 .District of Columbia 433,414



Report this post to a moderator | IP:



Seriously, how could NYS only add 500,000 people in 30 years? NYC is projected to a another million by 2020. You figure the five boroughs add 500,000 each decade, then add another 200,000 or so for the NY metro, then that's 21 million by 2030. And that's if upstate adds no one, which I doubt.


FL reaching 28 million? I guess, but then where are all these people gonna go? South Florida can't go any further due to the everglades, so I thinking Central? Or maybe build up?

TX and Cali's numbers seem much more realistic. However, that's if there isn't a outmigration to neighboring states.

As for ILL, PA and NJ, those have to be bogus. I would wager PA being up around 13 million, with ILL going for 14-15, becasue Chicago has become a build monster out there. NJ is obviosly gonna soak up alot of NYC migrants, I would put that at about 11.5 million.



But politically is where this list scares me. Dems will literally have nothing to hold on to. And we'll become a one-party nation. Unless those big states start turning blue.

TLOZ Link5
April 25th, 2005, 01:07 AM
Ouch. Poor DC. The population exodus continues.

microserf
April 28th, 2005, 03:24 PM
well, this reflects my personal experience. i moved back home to the Gulf Coast (Northwest Florida, Pensacola.. also referred to as "LA" (Lower Alabama) and the "Redneck Riviera" by Depeche Mode in a Rolling Stone article) from San Francisco little over a year ago... just in time for Hurricane Ivan. :)

the original poster noted something telling to me... which i believe is probably what the majority of america thinks.. if the population is moving to the South, specifically Florida.. and all they believe Florida is is Orlando to Miami.. then the market opportunity is there, and its reflected in what i've seen here personally. no one seems to know what the panhandle of florida is (the gulf coast portion of florida) and is completely focused on central and south florida.

sadly, the prices i saw in the san francisco bay area w. respect to real estate and fuel, followed me over to the pensacola bay area.. we have absolutely gorgeous natural beauty here, pristine gulf of mexico snow white sand beaches, etc. destin, san destin, panama city beach, et all, have seen condos rising like the fiery phoenix from the destruction of Ivan last year.

the final straw? sightings of Britney Spears in Destin Commons (upscale shopping mecca in Destin). :) this area is already rife w. real estate speculation in the housing prices, as well as the condo markets. my friends in real estate are making it hand over fist here. the old guard is shaken up, the young guns are rocking it, as all this new money is flowing in.. on top of all the insurance settlement money that is flooding the market. folks like me in the working middle class, will eventually be priced out of the housing market the way things are going.

i can't wait for the real estate bubble to pop.. praying.. praying.. praying..

Ezra
April 28th, 2005, 03:51 PM
Microserf, I second that from northeastern Florida as well.

MichaelMike5556
May 2nd, 2005, 03:26 AM
"But politically is where this list scares me. Dems will literally have nothing to hold on to. And we'll become a one-party nation. Unless those big states start turning blue."

but alot of the red states of today .. texas for example were blue states thirty years ago and vice versa . plus i think there is a coming split in both partys i feel the repulcians will probby have alot of internal strife as the free traders and open border advicates and the anti immgrint and protectist clash . then the dems will probby crack down the lines of the old truman type democracts will fight with the old sixty hippy retread types . hmm could evan see the libratrian members of the repulican partys go there own way. now i not saying it will be a split were they we end up with 4 or 5 major partys . but i feel we could see another sitation like in 2000 were a third party canidat sways the elction like nader or like the reform partys did to the repulcians in 1992 and 1996 . you have to understand both the democracts and repulicans could argue all day and night with themselves .


but i feel the Libratrians have the biggest chance of being a major player in the US . .... any thoughts .????

Deimos
May 2nd, 2005, 03:34 PM
Part of the articles of annexation that admitted texas to the union in the 1840's allows for the state to be split into 5 states along the boundaries from when texas was an independant country after seceeding from Mexico. I'd say that this is a good time for that to happen.

As for Florida... keep in mind that the cities in florida vote blue right now, it's the rural areas that are red. If there's further urban sprawl from the snowbirds moving full-time, they'll be dems, and will probably swing the balance of power in that state.

As for multiple political parties in the US, that can't happen. Our system has been set up to make it a 2 party system. I'm trying to find a great source article that discusses the setup of the constitution and why this is so, but as of yet, I don't remember where I read it. I'll do a follow-up post when I find it.

TLOZ Link5
May 2nd, 2005, 04:22 PM
One of the reasons that the "red" states are no longer "blue" is the Southern Democrats became Republicans en masse after Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act 1965. The Democrats haven't carried the Deep South since.

ryan
May 2nd, 2005, 04:42 PM
One of the reasons that the "red" states are no longer "blue" is the Southern Democrats became Republicans en masse after Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act 1965. The Democrats haven't carried the Deep South since.

also the christian coalition fakeout in the 70's & 80's leveraged religious-based bigotry to convert red to blue... and probably continues to do so...

alex ballard
May 2nd, 2005, 05:37 PM
Do any of you think the census shows an obvious bias towards the south and west with this article? I mean, they're literally saying the Northern states are going to die in 30 years...


No one left above the 40th paralell? I hope not...

TLOZ Link5
May 2nd, 2005, 11:34 PM
Doubful. None of those states are LOSING population, and many continue to thrive. The major metro areas are all still growing, particularly Baltimore/DC. Plus, the Northeast is already the most densely populated region of the country, and almost always has been. If it's still growing, even if not as quickly as the South and West, that says something.

TomAuch
May 3rd, 2005, 05:40 PM
Differant regions of the country realign every now and then. CA used to be solidly Republicans in Presidential elections until Clinton came along in 1992. Interestingly enough, I think the reasion why CA became a blue state was because of a lot of new voters moving in during the 1980's. CA's electoral votes surged after the 1990 Census. I think that the Sunbelt, or at least the Southwest, will become blue or at least the second "moderate" region of the country after the Midwest. Every Southwestern state except for Utah was consdered to be a "swing state" in 2004, and they will be again in 2008.

Ninjahedge
May 4th, 2005, 04:57 PM
Jersey is still growing by leaps and bounds, but is approaching critical mass as there is VERY little land available to do this.

Farm country is starting to go by-by, but most of that land is too far from NYC or Philly to make many want to live there (90 min commute).

TLOZ Link5
May 12th, 2005, 04:23 AM
Ouch. Poor DC. The population exodus continues.

Addendum:

Perhaps, then, the District should take back the communities across the Potomac that were retroceded to Virginia in 1846.

czsz
May 12th, 2005, 01:12 PM
That wouldn't completely stem the population hemhorrage and decline in other parts of the District, though the extra revenue might help.

TLOZ Link5
May 12th, 2005, 04:11 PM
That wouldn't completely stem the population hemhorrage and decline in other parts of the District, though the extra revenue might help.

It's better to think of it more as the same concept as a city-county merger. Nothing is really going to change for Washington, Alexandria or Arlington — quite possibly, the latter cities would retain some sort of autonomy — but it'll be a good start.

TLOZ Link5
May 12th, 2005, 07:09 PM
Washington Post

U.S. Census Bureau Foresees A Diminished District in 2030

By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 22, 2005; Page B01

Buyers fight over houses for sale, and new condominiums are sprouting like weeds. Nevertheless, the U.S. Census Bureau predicted yesterday that the population of the District will wither over the next 25 years, plummeting from 572,000 residents to just over 433,000 by 2030.

Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) quickly disputed the projection, calling it "laughably wrong" and "contrary to all of the city's best planning projections," which indicate that the population will grow by 140,000 people over the same period.

"People who live in this area need only look out their windows to see the significant increase in the city's population," Williams said.

Census demographers conceded that their analysis, based on data from 2001 and earlier, could have missed a dramatic reversal in migration trends away from the nation's capital. But Gregory Spencer, chief of the Census Bureau's population projections branch, noted that the bureau, unlike the mayor, uses strict mathematical models that leave no room for wishful thinking.

"There are many possible policies that could be created that could conceivably change the population and which the mayor could be counting on," Spencer said. "All I'm saying is, according to the best trends we have at the Census Bureau, we don't see any substantial growth."

The new projections for the District are part of a regular census report projecting population growth across the 50 states. The report's authors, Caribert Irazi and Myoung-ouk Kim, took into account trends in fertility, mortality and migration to arrive at their projections, Spencer said.

District officials, by contrast, also look at housing starts, building permits and other measures of construction activity. Using those data, the city projects that its population will grow to 712,000 by 2030, said Mitchell Silver, deputy director of the D.C. Office of Planning.

District officials long have been at odds with the Census Bureau, repeatedly accusing the agency of undercounting the city's population. For instance, in the 1990s, the agency predicted that the District's population would fall to about 523,000 residents by 2000. The 2000 Census, however, counted 572,000 people, a difference of nearly 50,000, Silver said.

In its most recent figures, the Census Bureau estimated that the city lost 20,000 people between 2000 and 2004. D.C. officials, who have set a goal of boosting the population by 100,000 in the next five years, also dispute that decline.

"We have close to 5,000 new housing units -- that's net to the District -- with an average of two people per household. That's 10,000 people right there," Silver said. "There are a lot of indicators to show the population is not declining but is in fact increasing."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

NewYorkYankee
May 14th, 2005, 02:57 PM
AOL CNN Money News

Sun-belt fastest growing
When Americans relocate, their favored destinations are in the South and West.



The states of Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Virginia dominate the list of the nation's 100 fastest growing counties; each has at least 10 of the fastest growing counties contained within their border.

Florida, with 17, leads the list, and it also has the number one fastest growing county, Flagler, near Daytona Beach in northern Florida.

Many of the nation's fastest growing counties are former agricultural lands that are being engulfed by sprawling cities that have run low on space. Riverside County in California, for instance, is 60 miles from Los Angeles, but Riverside's lower housing prices have attracted many Angelinos.

Here is a the top 25 in the list of 100 fastest growing counties in the US.


Rank Geographic Area Population estimates Change, 2003 to 2004
July 1, 2004 July 1, 2003 Number Percent
1 Flagler County FL 69,005 62,696 6,309 10.1
2 Kendall County IL 72,548 67,018 5,530 8.3
3 Loudoun County VA 239,156 221,150 18,006 8.1
4 Hanson County SD 3,786 3,508 278 7.9
5 Lincoln County SD 31,437 29,247 2,190 7.5
6 Lampasas County TX 20,718 19,306 1,412 7.3
7 Lyon County NV 43,230 40,309 2,921 7.2
8 Camden County NC 8,437 7,867 570 7.2
9 St. Johns County FL 152,473 142,949 9,524 6.7
10 Dallas County IA 49,591 46,519 3,072 6.6
11 Osceola County FL 219,544 205,993 13,551 6.6
12 Newton County GA 81,524 76,534 4,990 6.5
13 Rockwall County TX 58,260 54,724 3,536 6.5
14 Henry County GA 159,506 150,165 9,341 6.2
15 Forsyth County GA 131,865 124,213 7,652 6.2
16 Douglas County CO 237,963 224,419 13,544 6.0
17 Currituck County NC 22,067 20,813 1,254 6.0
18 St. Lucie County FL 226,816 214,031 12,785 6.0
19 Paulding County GA 105,936 100,037 5,899 5.9
20 Storey County NV 3,737 3,532 205 5.8
21 Golden Valley County MT 1,117 1,057 60 5.7
22 Lake County FL 260,788 246,844 13,944 5.6
23 Matanuska-Susitna Borough AK 72,278 68,414 3,864 5.6
24 Barrow County GA 56,418 53,420 2,998 5.6
25 Franklin County

The rest of the list can be found here: http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/hot_counties/index.html

alex ballard
May 15th, 2005, 09:24 AM
Washington Post

U.S. Census Bureau Foresees A Diminished District in 2030

By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 22, 2005; Page B01

Buyers fight over houses for sale, and new condominiums are sprouting like weeds. Nevertheless, the U.S. Census Bureau predicted yesterday that the population of the District will wither over the next 25 years, plummeting from 572,000 residents to just over 433,000 by 2030.

Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) quickly disputed the projection, calling it "laughably wrong" and "contrary to all of the city's best planning projections," which indicate that the population will grow by 140,000 people over the same period.

"People who live in this area need only look out their windows to see the significant increase in the city's population," Williams said.

Census demographers conceded that their analysis, based on data from 2001 and earlier, could have missed a dramatic reversal in migration trends away from the nation's capital. But Gregory Spencer, chief of the Census Bureau's population projections branch, noted that the bureau, unlike the mayor, uses strict mathematical models that leave no room for wishful thinking.

"There are many possible policies that could be created that could conceivably change the population and which the mayor could be counting on," Spencer said. "All I'm saying is, according to the best trends we have at the Census Bureau, we don't see any substantial growth."

The new projections for the District are part of a regular census report projecting population growth across the 50 states. The report's authors, Caribert Irazi and Myoung-ouk Kim, took into account trends in fertility, mortality and migration to arrive at their projections, Spencer said.

District officials, by contrast, also look at housing starts, building permits and other measures of construction activity. Using those data, the city projects that its population will grow to 712,000 by 2030, said Mitchell Silver, deputy director of the D.C. Office of Planning.

District officials long have been at odds with the Census Bureau, repeatedly accusing the agency of undercounting the city's population. For instance, in the 1990s, the agency predicted that the District's population would fall to about 523,000 residents by 2000. The 2000 Census, however, counted 572,000 people, a difference of nearly 50,000, Silver said.

In its most recent figures, the Census Bureau estimated that the city lost 20,000 people between 2000 and 2004. D.C. officials, who have set a goal of boosting the population by 100,000 in the next five years, also dispute that decline.

"We have close to 5,000 new housing units -- that's net to the District -- with an average of two people per household. That's 10,000 people right there," Silver said. "There are a lot of indicators to show the population is not declining but is in fact increasing."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company






Oh snap! Washington approaching 800,000! Maybe Washington DC will get to 1 million by 2050.




How come NYC never regsiters on the fast growing lists even though it builds something like 20,000 housing units a year? That's 50,000 people per year and 500,000 per decade. That's a 6% increase, not too shabby.

TLOZ Link5
June 6th, 2005, 09:22 PM
California's population growth has actually stagnated in the past few years. The main reason that it will remain the most populous state in 2030 is that it is simply maintaining the status quo. According to Census estimates, California has negative internal net migration, meaning that more Californians are moving to other states — particularly Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado and Arizona — than people from other states are moving to California. This is counterbalanced by continuing immigration, a large amount of it undocumented, which, along with more live births than deaths, allows for California's population to continue to increase.

http://www.areaconnect.com/population.htm?s=CA

If you look at the internal net migration numbers of 2002 compared to 2001, an upward trend of Californians moving out of California is likely.

TLOZ Link5
June 6th, 2005, 09:40 PM
Oh snap! Washington approaching 800,000! Maybe Washington DC will get to 1 million by 2050.

How come NYC never regsiters on the fast growing lists even though it builds something like 20,000 housing units a year? That's 50,000 people per year and 500,000 per decade. That's a 6% increase, not too shabby.

Answer to #1: DC once had over 800,000 people, back in 1950. It's only just reversing its population decline now, so it's my guess that initial growth will be negligible until other civic health concerns are addressed. NYC, for instance, gained 300,000 people between the 1980 and 1990 Censuses (Censi?), much of it from immigration, during years of very high crime and much poorer quality of life. But from 1990 to 2000, it added 700,000 more as the city improved.

A note on crime: DC had more murders per capita last year than New York did back in 1990. And this is on top of the dramatic decline in crime the District has seen in the past 13 years.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

Scroll down to the early '90s and you'll see why DC had the dubious distinction of being America's "murder capital."

Answer to #2: We're dealing in counties, not entire cities. NYC is composed of five different counties, each of whose borders are contiguous with those of each borough. Also, the growth charted in Yankee's post is from a single year, not a decade.

TLOZ Link5
July 4th, 2005, 09:08 PM
Last week the Census Bureau released its annual estimate of the populations of American cities and incorporated places as of July 2004. Several different tables can be downloaded at this link:

http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2004.html

Highlights:

New York City's population is believed to have declined by 5,000 between 2003 and 2004, while Los Angeles is believed to have grown by almost 30,000.

San Jose has replaced Detroit as the nation's tenth-largest city.

Yonkers has dropped out of the Top 100, though its population increased slightly.

Rochester, Buffalo, Syracuse and Jersey City declined slightly.

New Haven, Hartford, Newark and Stamford grew slightly.

TLOZ Link5
August 29th, 2005, 06:41 PM
Weird thing about the 2030 projection, is that in the 1995-2025 projection that was released in 1997 it was estimated that DC would grow to 655,000.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/ppl47.html


The District of Columbia, with the least growth during the 1995 to 2000 period, is expected to show a reversal of trends (from a rate of population change at -6 percent during the 1995 to 2000 period to nearly 5 percent during 2020 to 2025). The District of Columbia's turn-around in growth is due to the projected decline of internal out-migration.