South Carolina's population growth

[CorgiMatt]

The U.S. Census Bureau just released its yearly figures on the states' growth from 2006 to 2007 and from 2000 to 2007. On their front page today they say housing woes in certain areas are reshaping migration patterns. I noted something very interesting. Nevada is the nation's fastest-growing state, South Carolina 10th; but whereas Nevada gained 567,125 to our 395,893 from 2000 to 20007, we outgained them 77,601 to 72,955 from 2006 to 2007. That suggests already that the housing woes in certain areas are redirecting migrators to areas they might not have moved to just a year or two ago, and away from areas where housing prices have lost by relatively big margins. Think about it: we just gained more people than the fastest-growing state in the nation from 2006 to 2007.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census...nterstitialskip

Edited December 27, 2007 by CorgiMatt

[Spartan]

It also indicates that Las Vegas can only grow so much with out more water, and Nevada is a desolate wasteland. I fully expect this trend to continue- not because of our own good fortune, but because of Nevada's misfortune.

[krazeeboi]

^True, but you still have Arizona, which still appears to be full speed ahead.

I just hope we are well-equipped for the growth as it continues.

[Spartan]

Yeah but Arizona doesn't suck. But like you said, I hope we are prepared for what is to come. Our cities WILL get growth, and the coast WILL get built up. Its just a matter of time. The difference between here and out west is that out there, water forces their cities to be cities.

[912]

Yeah but Arizona doesn't suck.

Please cite your source!

[krazeeboi]

I just noticed something while looking at the annual population growth stats from 2000 to 2007. In that time period, the Carolinas were the only two states in the nation to post consistent gains every year, and from 2006-2007, South Carolina posted a population increase of 4,257 (North Carolina's gain within that same period was 864). That's really interesting, as it shows that we have been consistently gaining population over the last several years, and at a manageable rate at that. Even though we tend to bemoan the fact that our cities aren't posting record-breaking population growth figures, I think this is a pretty ideal situation to be in.

[CorgiMatt]

Where did you get those very low figures? I saved the chart that gives the population growth figures, and from 2006 to 2007 South Carolina gained 77,601 and North Carolina gained 191,590. Something I find interesting is that from 2000 to 2007, North Carolina gained 2.56 times the number South Carolina did, while from 2006 to 2007 they gained only 2.46 times the number.

N.C. from 2006 to 2007 gained 191,590

S.C. from 2006 to 2007 gained 77,601

N.C. from 2000 to 2007 gained 1,014,541

S.C. from 2000 to 2007 gained 395,893

191,590/77,601 = 2.4689

1,014,541/395,893 = 2.5626

The chart I'm referring to is in the 12/27/07 hard copy edition of USA Today. It accompanied the article that I created a link to in my first post in this forum. I can't figure out how to link to the chart from the article I created the link for.

Edited December 30, 2007 by CorgiMatt

[CorgiMatt]

Here are two lists:

1. States that I find surprising and exciting that South Carolina topped in population gains, and

2. States that I'm not as suprised and excited to have gained more, but still proud.

The first list: Nevada (the fastest-growing state), New Mexico (after all it's in the popular Southwest), Oregon, Idaho (also out there - to the north but not too cold), Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia (even with suburban D.C.) and Maryland (even with suburban D.C. and suburban Baltimore).

The second list: Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi and Missouri.

[krazeeboi]

CorgiMatt, click on the word "stats" in my previous post. It links to the source.

[monsoon]

CorgiMatt, click on the word "stats" in my previous post. It links to the source.

You quoted the figures for domestic migration and mistakenly referred to it as population growth. They are not the same by any means.

[krazeeboi]

^I apologize about that. Domestic migration is still an important indicator though, arguably the most important of all of the components that comprise population growth.

[monsoon]

^I apologize about that. Domestic migration is still an important indicator though, arguably the most important of all of the components that comprise population growth.

Indeed, but you got the data wrong that you used.

From your source Domestic Migration for the two states for 2006-2007

• NC - 111,963
  
• SC - 53,993
  

What you referred to as growth for each state, was actually the change in each state from the previous year.

Given that we are talking about domestic migration, my guess is that a great deal of SC's numbers are due to retirees moving into the coastal areas. If anyone were to travel to the Grand Strand area, they would be dumbstruck about the amount of construction taking place there. There really isn't anything else in SC that compares to it. I personally think they quickly creating a sprawling wasteland as they have no plans that is going to deal with the crush of cars that is to come with it.

[distortedlogic]

Where did you get those very low figures? I saved the chart that gives the population growth figures, and from 2006 to 2007 South Carolina gained 77,601 and North Carolina gained 191,590. Something I find interesting is that from 2000 to 2007, North Carolina gained 2.56 times the number South Carolina did, while from 2006 to 2007 they gained only 2.46 times the number.

N.C. from 2006 to 2007 gained 191,590

S.C. from 2006 to 2007 gained 77,601

N.C. from 2000 to 2007 gained 1,014,541

S.C. from 2000 to 2007 gained 395,893

191,590/77,601 = 2.4689

1,014,541/395,893 = 2.5626

Pretty amazing to me though that NC has been adding more than 2 and 1/2 times as many people as SC over the past 7 years! NC has gained over 1M in seven years, while SC has not gained 1 M since 1990. Totally different league in terms of growth for the two states.

[CorgiMatt]

Indeed, but you got the data wrong that you used.

From your source Domestic Migration for the two states for 2006-2007

• NC - 111,963
  
• SC - 53,993
  

What you referred to as growth for each state, was actually the change in each state from the previous year.

Given that we are talking about domestic migration, my guess is that a great deal of SC's numbers are due to retirees moving into the coastal areas. If anyone were to travel to the Grand Strand area, they would be dumbstruck about the amount of construction taking place there. There really isn't anything else in SC that compares to it. I personally think they quickly creating a sprawling wasteland as they have no plans that is going to deal with the crush of cars that is to come with it.

Year after year, though, figures show the Columbia MSA gains more people than any other MSA in the state. So, while the Columbia MSA doesn't take up as much territory as the coast, and therefore doesn't gain as many people as the coast, it holds its own as far as South Carolina places pulling in people. Based on Columbia's growth percentage-wise as of last year, several of us in a earlier post and a different forum on here extrapolated that the Columbia MSA would gain over 12,000 this year, so figure about 12,000 of the 77,601 new residents are here. Lots are also in the Upstate, in Aiken and, of course, the coast from Myrtle Beach to Hilton Head.

Also, Myrtle Beach's housing market has tanked for now, so maybe they won't build any more houses until the ones they have are filled.

[CorgiMatt]

Pretty amazing to me though that NC has been adding more than 2 and 1/2 times as many people as SC over the past 7 years! NC has gained over 1M in seven years, while SC has not gained 1 M since 1990. Totally different league in terms of growth for the two states.

However, as I said, in the past year SC cut into NC's lead in growth rate slightly. And I predict we'll continue to see that lead decline each year. I've always been of the opinion that many northeasterners who move to the Southeast stop in their minds with the "north" concept, as in North Carolina as opposed to South Carolina. In my experiences up there, including five years of living in D.C. (part of the northeastern urban corridor), even after people knew me for a while they would often introduce me to other people as being from North Carolina. They can't get past it in their minds; all they have to do is get to North Carolina and they're in the South, which is the new place to be, but they're still in a superior position to South Carolina, that is if they are even aware there is a South Carolina. Georgia is all about Atlanta. I don't even know if they think of it as being in the South, only as being Atlanta. Just my thoughts.

[krazeeboi]

Given that we are talking about domestic migration, my guess is that a great deal of SC's numbers are due to retirees moving into the coastal areas. If anyone were to travel to the Grand Strand area, they would be dumbstruck about the amount of construction taking place there. There really isn't anything else in SC that compares to it. I personally think they quickly creating a sprawling wasteland as they have no plans that is going to deal with the crush of cars that is to come with it.

Unfortunately, the housing market in Myrtle Beach is also taking a big hit as well. There are definitely downsides to the growth in the Grand Strand.

[Spartan]

Please cite your source!

First hand knowledge. Never been to Phoenix though, so maybe that part does suck

Pretty amazing to me though that NC has been adding more than 2 and 1/2 times as many people as SC over the past 7 years! NC has gained over 1M in seven years, while SC has not gained 1 M since 1990. Totally different league in terms of growth for the two states.

Not really. Here's why:

1. North Carolina has almost 40% more land area than South Carolina has.
   NC has 48,708 sq miles
   SC has 30,111 sq miles
   
2. North Carolina has about twice the population of South Carolina
   NC has 8,049,313 residents (2000)
   SC has 4,012,012 residents (2000)
   
3. North Carolina has a little more than twice the economy that South Carolina has:
   NC G.S.P. (2006) = $374,525,000,000
   SC G.S.P. (2006) = $149,214,000,000
   

So having said all of that, the difference between real growth is equally proportionate (NC has a little more than twice SC's growth). But despite of all that, South Carolina is still the 10th fastest growing state in the union. As your post pointed out, the growth rates of the two states are not very far apart. Its actually easier for SC to gain a higher population rate increase with its smaller population. Its a different set of scenarios. NC has to do more to maintain that growth, and we should not discount what SC has accomplished while respecting what NC is doing too. Most of the reasons people are moving to NC are no different than why they are moving to SC. I think SC can learn quite a few lessons from NC about how to develop cities if politicians would just take their heads out of their asses for a few minutes and see what really needs to happen.

Cheers

[803metlife]

Year after year, though, figures show the Columbia MSA gains more people than any other MSA in the state. So, while the Columbia MSA doesn't take up as much territory as the coast, and therefore doesn't gain as many people as the coast, it holds its own as far as South Carolina places pulling in people. Based on Columbia's growth percentage-wise as of last year, several of us in a earlier post and a different forum on here extrapolated that the Columbia MSA would gain over 12,000 this year, so figure about 12,000 of the 77,601 new residents are here. Lots are also in the Upstate, in Aiken and, of course, the coast from Myrtle Beach to Hilton Head.

Also, Myrtle Beach's housing market has tanked for now, so maybe they won't build any more houses until the ones they have are filled.

A while back we all thought by the next census Charleston would've caught up with Columbia. But for the last two years Columbia had more people moving here than any other part of the state... Do anyone still think Charleston will over throw the capital????

[sonofaque86]

You talking about MSA or city wise?

Edited January 1, 2008 by sonofaque86

[CorgiMatt]

He's talking MSA-wise, and according the the Census Bureau's projections through 2030, I say no. Their projections show the Columbia MSA extending its lead.

[distortedlogic]

A while back we all thought by the next census Charleston would've caught up with Columbia. But for the last two years Columbia had more people moving here than any other part of the state... Do anyone still think Charleston will over throw the capital????

Ok Cola booster's, but don't forget which county continues to be more populated than any other, and whoose lead only grows bigger

Edited January 1, 2008 by distortedlogic

[distortedlogic]

He's talking MSA-wise, and according the the Census Bureau's projections through 2030, I say no. Their projections show the Columbia MSA extending its lead.

I would be very surprised if the current MSA designations remain unchanged through 2030.

[CorgiMatt]

MSA growth might change, and so might county growth, but few people move to counties as opposed to moving to cities and areas (MSA's). Nearly 50% of the suburban ring immediately surrounding Columbia is in Lexington County. Imagine crossing the Reedy River in downtown Greenville and finding yourself in the next county when you enter the West End. When you cross the Congaree River in downtown Columbia you are in West Columbia or Cayce in Lexington County.

[krazeeboi]

When people were talking about Charleston catching up with Columbia, they were referring to city population, since Charleston now has only about 15K or so less people than Columbia and has posted impressive population gains for the past few years (as impressive as you can get for SC).

[CorgiMatt]

Actually we've had both discussions in here: MSA and city.