Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

monsoon

Population Growth & Decline in America

13 posts in this topic


Of course they leave out the two underdog states :( We should be left to seperate, i mean who would notice? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...note the big red area in California that represents San Francisco.  That is a surprise.

Because of the insane housing prices in the Bay Area, much of the population is moving inland and commuting to their jobs in SF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised to see that both the city and county of San Francisco have been losing population. The place is too damn expensive. At least the metro area is still growing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It proves my theory of why Massachusetts lost population, you can see Greater Boston is stagnant or slightly up, Worcester, Bristol County (which is Metro Providence), and the Cape and Nashua and Manchester, NH are all up. Western Mass, outside of commuter reach of Boston is the area where Mass. lost population. The actual city of Boston may have seen a slight drop as families moved to Worcester County and Southern New Hampshire and were replaced by single people or DINKs.

I'm sure we're seeing families leave SF replaced by singles and DINKs as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the map represent actual population gains/losses in those specific areas, or is it simply a redistribution of the national population?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the map represent actual population gains/losses in those specific areas, or is it simply a redistribution of the national population?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If I understand the question correctly I would say it is simply redistribution of population. People moving from one area to another for any number of reasons (probably #1 being cost of living). But that also sounds a lot like pop gains/loses in specific areas. Not sure I am clear what you mean? Unless you mean people leaving those areas that are in decline for another country (doubtful), or that they are not reproducing at as high of rates while still dying, births<deaths (possibly, esp when redistribution is occurying simultaneously).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Something along that line, jarrod... let me see if this makes any sense:

  • Are we seeing mass out-migration from the northeast and the midwest,

  • or are we seeing less in-migration there combined with the growth-slowing effects of an aging population? (or both?)

The Northeast and Midwest lost congressional seats because their proportion of the national population decreased, even though their state populations may have increased, just not high enough to offset the rapid growth of the South and West.

What you said in your post makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay now I think I understand. But Wow, this is a loaded subject. To even get close to a "correct" answer I think we need a panel of researchers, including statisticians, sociologists, etc...

But to sum it up (and just my thinking on this of course). I believe we are seeing substantial out-migration due to cost of living and the fact that many people do desire to have a large, single family home on an acre or more. And now that the quality of life (as far as urban amenities) and quality of jobs in the south are catching up with those in the northeast, I think this tend will continue given the shear amount of land available and resulting low cost of it.

I also think there is truth to the growth-slowing effects you mentioned as well. I call it the Friends effect (or Sex in the City, or whatever pop show you want to use). The trend of "young" people staying single longer and postponing marriage and childbirth until later in life, if even at all, in the dense urban areas of the northeast. The reasons i think for this I'll leave for another thread. But I have noticed that probably about 60% of my friends still leaving in Texas (in suburbs) have children, while those I know living in urban areas (including the south oddly enough) have no children and probably less than 10% are even married. I'm 24 by the way.

Wow, that made sense in my head, but i hope it retained some bit of reason as I wrote it. Anyway, just my two cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case, these are actual population changes.  i.e.  Red areas lost in pure numbers relative to where they were in 2000.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe that's understood. I think now we are discussing the "why" as to those changes. If the losses were people moving from the red into the blues areas creating the change, or if it were just people getting crazy with childbirth in the blue and the opposite in the red?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that made sense in my head, but i hope it retained some bit of reason as I wrote it.  Anyway, just my two cents.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I follow your line of thinking and it seems sound and plausible if only conjecture... I wasn't sure myself if I could string the words together to get my thought across.... It's hard to interpret data when the numbers are net :wacko:

The "Friends effect" reference reminded me of an excellent documentary I saw on PBS produced for NOVA called "World in the Balance". It's about population growth and its consequences. It samples the demographic makeup of the U.S., India, Japan, and Africa, and what each region's specific demographic circumstances will mean for its future. Fascinating stuff.

For some interesting reading: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.