Projected Population Growth (Percent): 2000 to 2030

1. Nevada = 114.29
2. Arizona = 108.79
3. Florida = 79.48
4. Texas = 59.78
5. Utah = 56.07
6. Idaho = 52.22
7. North Carolina = 51.91
8. Georgia = 46.80
9. Washington = 46.33
10. Oregon = 41.28
11. Virginia = 38.80
12. Alaska = 38.40
13. California = 37.12
14. Colorado = 34.67
15. New Hampshire = 33.23
16. Maryland = 32.58
17. Tennessee = 29.73
18. Delaware = 29.23
USA = 29.20
19. South Carolina = 28.33
20. Minnesota = 28.19
21. Arkansas = 21.20
22. Hawaii = 21.01
23. Vermont = 16.92
24. Montana = 15.82
25. New Jersey = 16.50
26. New Mexico = 15.43
27. Missouri = 14.92
28. Wisconsin = 14.67
29. Oklahoma = 13.41
30. Kentucky = 12.70
31. Indiana = 12.00
32. Maine = 10.68
33. Massachusetts = 10.44
34. Rhode Island = 9.98
35. Alabama = 9.60
36. Kansas = 9.36
37. Mississippi = 8.71
38. Connecticut = 8.31
39. Illinois = 8.16
40. Michigan = 7.60
41. Louisiana = 7.47
42. Nebraska = 6.37
43. South Dakota = 6.04
44. Wyoming = 5.91
45. Pennsylvania = 3.97
46. New York = 2.64
47. Ohio = 1.74
48. Iowa = 0.99
49. West Virginia = (4.89)
50. North Dakota = (5.55)
51. District of Columbia = (24.24)

Projected Population: 2030
USA = 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

Source: Table A1 (http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/projectionsagesex.html)

so they are saying new york is basically gonna freeze in time for about 25 years?

I know. I have a feeling the novelty of living in Arizona and Nevada will die down eventually. 15 Million people living in the desert seems a bit high.

so they are saying new york is basically gonna freeze in time for about 25 years?

New York State has the highest net out migration rate of any state. So while there are tons of people coming in, there are also tons leaving for other states. That explains why it's not expected to grow much.

I know. I have a feeling the novelty of living in Arizona and Nevada will die down eventually. 15 Million people living in the desert seems a bit high.

I doubt it. Even if immigration rates to those states slow down, Arizona and Nevada are the fourth and fifth most Hispanic states--since the Hispanic birthrate is relatively high, the states will just continue to grow by natural increase.

according to who????

east coast idiots????

Massachussetts, a state that is losing population recently is forecast to add 10%, whereas Iowa, a state that is currently GROWING, will only add 1% over the next 25 years????

are they mad???


HYSTERICAL!!!!!!!

We should move the capital to Kansas City.......or Wichita..... DC annoys....

[edited by moderation for trolling]

Massachusetts lost population one year!

Plus, take a look at the age distribution for the states. Iowa is one of the oldest states, and by 2030, the baby boomers will be dying off. States with a lot of "braindrain"--namely Iowa, West Virginia, North Dakota, and Nebraska--will have insignificant or negative growth for this reason. Additionally, these states are very White, and the White birthrate is quite low.

don't look now, but Iowa is being flooded with Mexicans, as are the Dakotas.


The Census bureau has been underestimating the Midwest for decades. Nothing new here,

The Midwest will continue to add millions.....why???? because there is work, food, water, and cheap housing.

the more I look at this list, the more absurd it seems.

North Dakota (largely Frago) will likely be one of the fastest growing regions by 2030, and Massachusetts will likely have shrunk by 5% by then.

Who made this ridiculous list?

North Dakota mainly suffers from a lack of job growth. ND's been going through an unfortunate exodus for a few years now. If Fargo can somehow manage to attract more businesses, ND will likely have positive growth, but certainly not be one of the fastest.

According to the URL, the Census Bureau came up with this list btw..so they have a pretty good idea about demographics. Except, I strongly disagree with their city population growth estimates, but that's another story.

I'm always reading something stating D.C.'s population is going to stabilize soon. I think 433,000 is way too much of a loss.

the Census Bureau came up with this list btw..so they have a pretty good idea about demographics.

:hahaha:

I predict that these estimates will turn out to be way off. Several states are grossly overestimated, and several others are woefully underestimated.

The Census Bureau doesn't always know what it is talking about. Back in the 90's they said that Michigan wouldn't reach 10 million until around 2025. It did so in 2002...

The Census Bureau uses a formula to calculate projections. Projection formulas have limits--they can only use what's known to predict the future. Given this, the best way to make sense of these projections is to think "If things continue at approximately the same rate as they have been, these projections will be approximately correct."

So while there's a high chance these projections will be way off for some states, if you want to know the future populations, it's a much better idea to trust these over your intuition.

Hello anybody catch this... 48. North Dakota = 606,566
49. Vermont = 711,867

Then shouldnt ND be 49 and Vermont be 48???

Good for NEw Hampshire!! 15. New Hampshire = 33.23

Why is DC losing that much population?
The higherst percentage rise thats not in the south or west.

1. California = 46,444,861

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

Its to crowded, we're going to explode! Please move to Nevada! :cry:

Massachusetts lost population one year!

Plus, take a look at the age distribution for the states. Iowa is one of the oldest states, and by 2030, the baby boomers will be dying off. States with a lot of "braindrain"--namely Iowa, West Virginia, North Dakota, and Nebraska--will have insignificant or negative growth for this reason. Additionally, these states are very White, and the White birthrate is quite low.


Being from Omaha I have to comment on the Nebraska situation. As it stands now there are only 1.7M in the whole state I don't think we'll lose as much people as it will that people in the state will move to one or two areas.

Omaha is the only place seeing signifigant growth. More than half of Nebraska population is in the Omaha area. The Metro is under 900,000 and with the adjacent Lincoln metro's 280,000 people,(were supposed to be one CSA by 2010) there are 1,118,000 people in Omaha with only about 600,000 people not living near either of the big cities. So take away Omaha from Nebraska and that's one empty ass state.

I saw on an Iowa site that they had the lowest national growth rate this year so they probably won't grow much or at all.

Hello anybody catch this... 48. North Dakota = 606,566
49. Vermont = 711,867

Then shouldnt ND be 49 and Vermont be 48???

Yes, it should. I fixed it. :)

The world can change a lot in 25 years. I think it's a bit too ambitious to try and project this far ahead. 25 years ago the demographic trends in this country were very, very different.

For example ^ some predicted a long time ago, that Buffalo hitting 3 million by 2000.

I hope the estimates are wrong. Couldn't there be a huge Earthquake in California, Memphis, and The HUdson River Valley(NYC), which are capable of huge earthquakes.
There could be other natural disaster like a nuclear war, or some new diesease.

The Census Bureau doesn't always know what it is talking about. Back in the 90's they said that Michigan wouldn't reach 10 million until around 2025. It did so in 2002...

Yep.

And they have Illinois' population at a bit over 13 million in 2030. I think it will exceed 15 million by then.

[QUOTE=Charing Cross Bridge]
45. Delaware = 1,012,658
QUOTE]


i think delaware's estimates are a little too conservative. sussex county is filling up fast, and kent county is seeing a lot of growth. that's not to say new castle county isn't seeing growth either. with several industries in the state doing well, there isn't much sign of a cool down in population.

delaware's growth seems to be underestimated here. delaware's population in 2000 was around 783,000. the 2003 population was around 817,000. that's about 35,000 people in 3 years. this growth is only the beginning of growth in the lower two counties. as the delaware shoreline becomes more and more of a retirement haven and ideal location for other groups of people, more people will want to come here than are already coming here.

i think the estimate is close, though. i'm not going to make a bogus estimate and say there will be 2 million people in delaware in 2030. however, 1.01 million people just doesn't seem like enough. they only have delaware ranked 45th in population. delaware is already 45th. and i can see delaware being ahead of montana, which relies more on older industries, such as mining. delaware has a lot of service-based industries, such as research & development in the pharmaceutical industry and the credit card industry; additionally, delaware has a very stable economy due to thousands of corporations being based in the state.

my estimate: 1.2 million people in 2030.

For example ^ some predicted a long time ago, that Buffalo hitting 3 million by 2000.

I hope the estimates are wrong. Couldn't there be a huge Earthquake in California, Memphis, and The HUdson River Valley(NYC), which are capable of huge earthquakes.
There could be other natural disaster like a nuclear war, or some new diesease.

Or even aside from natural disasters, just a major economic change could cause a huge shift in the direction of migration. Who would've thought in 1960 that Dallas would be so huge in 1985? Who would've forseen Charlotte as a blooming metropolis in 1980?

don't look now, but Iowa is being flooded with Mexicans, as are the Dakotas.


North Dakota also has a rapidly growing Sudanese community...

North Dakota also has a rapidly growing Sudanese community...

:eek2:

Moving from Africa to North Dakota...talk about culture shock!

:eek2:

Moving from Africa to North Dakota...talk about culture shock!

Indeed. Go figure...

California = 46,444,861

Dont you people understand?? MOVE TO NEVADA! THERES PLENTY OF ROOM!

Holy crap California is growing like a 3rd world country:(

Some parts are practically 3rd world. :jk:

Look on the bright side... Chicago wont ever surpass LA in population. A plus for all LAers.

Well, I think most of the 46 lives on the voast. what a crowded coast that'll be.

Some parts are practically 3rd world. :jk:


Don't worry there are...I live by one... :yes:

It's amazing that California will eventually hold that many people, especially since so much of its land is held in reserves (below).

http://www.geo.msu.edu/geo333/images/IVD-Jforest.JPG

It's amazing that California will eventually hold that many people, especially since so much of its land is held in reserves (below).

http://www.geo.msu.edu/geo333/images/IVD-Jforest.JPG

and that doesn't even show national parks and the like.

so they are saying new york is basically gonna freeze in time for about 25 years?
Not surprising. All the New Yorkers are moving to South Florida. There are soooooo many New Yorkers here already, they call Miami the sixth borough. Many northerners live in Florida. I'm from DC now living in Fort Lauderdale.

The DC population loss is very hard to believe.

Not surprising. All the New Yorkers are moving to South Florida. There are soooooo many New Yorkers here already, they call Miami the sixth borough. Many northerners live in Florida. I'm from DC now living in Fort Lauderdale.

Yeah, at least one-fifth of the license plates I see are from either New Jersey, New York, or Connecticut. Stay in your own damn states, people! :jk:

Good for Miami, now they just need to develop a high speed MTA train, so people could live in Miami could go to NYC in less than 15 minutes or vice versa ;)

Projected Population Growth (Percent): 2000 to 2030

Projected Population: 2030

1. California = 46,444,861


Source: Table A1 (http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/projectionsagesex.html)

man thats kinda disturbing....Its got me a little more worried about global warming

Yeah, at least one-fifth of the license plates I see are from either New Jersey, New York, or Connecticut. Stay in your own damn states, people! :jk:

are you unaware of our history?
Miami was built by Henry Flagler who was a New Yorker.
asking people from NJ,NY or CT to stay out is like asking a family member not to visit....LOL!

are you unaware of our history?
Miami was built by Henry Flagler who was a New Yorker.
asking people from NJ,NY or CT to stay out is like asking a family member not to visit....LOL!

The Miami Flager "built" was just a mosquito-ridden area with some retirees. Willis Haviland Carrier—the inventor of air conditioning—deserves all the credit for making Miami what it is today. But he was also a Yankee, so I should just shut up. :bash:

DC will not have that low a population, if this is one of those stupid rankings that just takes the current rate and makes a new projection, than it's very much useless for some places.

The rate at which DC has been losing population has been getting smaller and smaller for years now and it should continue to decrease and will soon stabilize, I don't see it lowing past 500k. I think the amount of young people moving in will soon equal the number of people starting families. But hopefully they start staying.

But for other places things like development laws, resources, prices, immigration laws, economy and a myriad of other reasons just makes taking the current projections with some places kinda dumb, especially for 30 yrs.

With this method cities losing people like B'more, DC, Philly(don't know if it still is), Pittsburgh, Detroit, etc. will just continue to lose their populations at their current rate despite some of these cities making huge strides and progress at changing this.

California = 46,444,861

Dont you people understand?? MOVE TO NEVADA! THERES PLENTY OF ROOM!

Holy crap California is growing like a 3rd world country:(

Yep Area 51! :llama: :eek2:

lol

eh?

Area 51 is in New Mexico isnt it?

I thought Nevada.

Area 51 is in Nevada.

And yes, there is more than enough room in that huge, strange state--the entire interior is virtually uninhabited. 70 percent of the population lives in Clark County, which makes up only 7 percent of the state's land area. I know that the federal government owns around 90 percent of the land, but I don't know what they use all that land for...

My bad, I guess I am not up on all of that .....

They probably use it to train the army, thinking that is Iraq, or dump nuclear bombs there.

They probably use it to train the army, thinking that is Iraq, or dump nuclear bombs there.

The government designs and builds secret military technology and equipment at area 51.

Nuclear waste is dumped at Yucca Mountain.

ok...........

By the way, last week's Economist magazine ran a story on how families are moving back to North Dakota and even mentioned Fargo as a possible destination for "California refugees". It also claimed that less young people are leaving than in years past.

I wouldn't be surprised one bit if the Dakotas, along with other plains states begin to truly boom in the coming decade as overpriced homes and crowded schools and highways push many families back to the midwest.

Best schools in the country to boot.

Here's my prediction for ND 2030- 800,000.

The midwest has alot of that crap too....but perhap not North Dakota .... ND SD Nebraska Montana and Iowa have SOOO much room to grow .... I just couldnt imagine anyone living there, but of course, there is nothing there yet.

Except 7 million people.

By the way, last week's Economist magazine ran a story on how families are moving back to North Dakota and even mentioned Fargo as a possible destination for "California refugees". It also claimed that less young people are leaving than in years past.

I wouldn't be surprised one bit if the Dakotas, along with other plains states begin to truly boom in the coming decade as overpriced homes and crowded schools and highways push many families back to the midwest.

Best schools in the country to boot.

Here's my prediction for ND 2030- 800,000.

90% of those people will be moving back to California.
I have met so many people here in North CArolina, that moved here to Raleigh, and one or 2 yerar later, they miss California so much. and they are going back to the Golden State.

I imagine samething will happen in ND, I have been to Fargo, there is not much to do there. even old people won't get use to the cold wether.

Except 7 million people.

I was talking about Fargo .... with the exception of Iowa which has a good deal of crap going on ... those other places really only have people...very cold...very boring. Yeah I really couldnt imagine making a shift from California to Fargo either....

Between 1995 and 2000 over 2.2 million people moved away from California. The states that received the most Californians were:

1. Nevada - 199,125
2. Arizona - 186,151
3. Texas - 182,789
4. Washington - 155,577
5. Oregon - 131,836
6. Colorado - 111,322
7. Florida - 94,265
8. Illinois - 67,970
9. Georgia - 65,590
10. New York - 65,160
11. Virginia - 62,283
12. Utah - 60,389
13. North Carolina - 56,269
14. Michigan - 40,055
15. Missouri - 39,492

However, during that same period, about 1.4 million people moved into California from other states. The states that lost the most to California are:

1. Texas - 115,929
2. New York - 95,952
3. Washington - 95,469
4. Arizona - 92,452
5. Illinois - 74,139
6. Oregon - 67,642
7. Florida - 65,211
8. Nevada - 60,488
9. Colorado - 56,050
10. Virginia - 44,896
11. Hawaii - 44,192
12. Massachusetts - 43,591
13. Pennsylvania - 39,185
14. Michigan - 36,151
15. New Jersey - 35,140

So, all together California had a net loss of 755,536 people. The states that had the largest net gain were:

1. Nevada - 138,637
2. Arizona - 93,699
3. Texas - 66,860
4. Oregon - 64,194
5. Washington - 60,108
6. Colorado - 55,272
7. Georgia - 36,980
8. Florida - 29,054
9. North Carolina - 28,875
10. Utah - 28,546

In total there were 10 states that actually had a net loss to California. They are:

1. New York - -30,792
2. Hawaii - -11,871
3. New Jersey - -8,389
4. Massachusetts - -7,256
5. Illinois - -6,169
6. Pennsylvania - -4,691
7. Connecticut - -2,553
8. Vermont - -453
9. North Dakota - -120
10. Delaware - -26

Wow VERY interesting .....

Hudkina, where did you get that information? Is it available for other states?

Dont forget with births and immigration, california added millions ( i forgot the exact number)

Exactly. That's the only thing keeping California afloat.

By the way, last week's Economist magazine ran a story on how families are moving back to North Dakota and even mentioned Fargo as a possible destination for "California refugees". It also claimed that less young people are leaving than in years past.

I wouldn't be surprised one bit if the Dakotas, along with other plains states begin to truly boom in the coming decade as overpriced homes and crowded schools and highways push many families back to the midwest.

Best schools in the country to boot.

Here's my prediction for ND 2030- 800,000.

I don't know, me and my friends are in congruence that once we leave California we are never coming back. The median price for a home here in San Diego County is over half a million dallors! Unless I want to live in Barstow Im movin to a nice mid-western city. That is of course if things don't change here, which I really hope they do... :bash:

In total there were 10 states that actually had a net loss to California. They are:

1. New York - -30,792
2. Hawaii - -11,871
3. New Jersey - -8,389
4. Massachusetts - -7,256
5. Illinois - -6,169
6. Pennsylvania - -4,691
7. Connecticut - -2,553
8. Vermont - -453
9. North Dakota - -120
10. Delaware - -26

So we are to suppose that Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, South Dakota, Ohio, Michigan, and Iowa all posted net gains. I would guess then that more Californians are moving to the Midwest than vice versa. Last time I was in Chicago last fall I went to a party where there must have been a dozen Californians. I NEVER met one Californian in the late 80's or early 90's in Chicago.

Is the Census Bureau paying attention to such statistics? doubt it.

answered my question at the following pdf file

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/CC_800HJCC.pdf

In all of the 90's (the out migration slowed in the late 90's, peaked in 94)

California lost (net)
732,000 to other Western States
535,000 to the south
306,000 Midwest
66,000 to the Northeast.

I'm guessing Texas would be south???

Welcome to flyover country newcomers!

Doesn't this sound fishy, if you live in California, why move to North Dakota?

five times the house, lowest crime rate in the states, best public schools in the nation, and Fargo is booming.

oh and no traffic.

Doesn't this sound fishy, if you live in California, why move to North Dakota?

Currently Californians aren't moving to Fargo. In fact, North Dakota is one of just two Midwestern states where more people are leaving for California than coming in from California.

Most Californians are moving to Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Oregon, and Washington.

The best explanation for California's domestic migration trends: Housing and living costs in California are ridiculously expensive, and the public school system is pretty bad. Because of this, many lower-middle, middle, and upper-middle class families leave the state, while lots of rich families from other states--who can afford to live comfortably in California--come in.

The best explanation for California's domestic migration trends: Housing and living costs in California are ridiculously expensive, and the public school system is pretty bad. Because of this, many lower-middle, middle, and upper-middle class families leave the state, while lots of rich families from other states--who can afford to live comfortably in California--come in.

I agree with you, the way is going in CA, only rich people would be able to afford those ridiculous prices. I think they should come down, but no sign of that yet.

LA will defanitely go over 5,000,000 by 2030. WE went from 3mill to 4 mil in only about 20 years when we became the second city. I think another million in 30 years is for sho!

You are claiming we LOST population from 1995 to 2000. NO WAY!


Between 1995 and 2000 over 2.2 million people moved away from California. The states that received the most Californians were:

1. Nevada - 199,125
2. Arizona - 186,151
3. Texas - 182,789
4. Washington - 155,577
5. Oregon - 131,836
6. Colorado - 111,322
7. Florida - 94,265
8. Illinois - 67,970
9. Georgia - 65,590
10. New York - 65,160
11. Virginia - 62,283
12. Utah - 60,389
13. North Carolina - 56,269
14. Michigan - 40,055
15. Missouri - 39,492

However, during that same period, about 1.4 million people moved into California from other states. The states that lost the most to California are:

1. Texas - 115,929
2. New York - 95,952
3. Washington - 95,469
4. Arizona - 92,452
5. Illinois - 74,139
6. Oregon - 67,642
7. Florida - 65,211
8. Nevada - 60,488
9. Colorado - 56,050
10. Virginia - 44,896
11. Hawaii - 44,192
12. Massachusetts - 43,591
13. Pennsylvania - 39,185
14. Michigan - 36,151
15. New Jersey - 35,140

So, all together California had a net loss of 755,536 people. The states that had the largest net gain were:

1. Nevada - 138,637
2. Arizona - 93,699
3. Texas - 66,860
4. Oregon - 64,194
5. Washington - 60,108
6. Colorado - 55,272
7. Georgia - 36,980
8. Florida - 29,054
9. North Carolina - 28,875
10. Utah - 28,546

In total there were 10 states that actually had a net loss to California. They are:

1. New York - -30,792
2. Hawaii - -11,871
3. New Jersey - -8,389
4. Massachusetts - -7,256
5. Illinois - -6,169
6. Pennsylvania - -4,691
7. Connecticut - -2,553
8. Vermont - -453
9. North Dakota - -120
10. Delaware - -26

No, we're talking about domestic migration. The great era of "goin' to California" no longer exists. ALL of California's growth is due to birth rates and immigration.

^yes and when those kids grow up there going to leave, I know I am.

America's greatest cities NY and LA are both built on immigration, always have been always will be. It is what makes us so special and unique and diverse.

^
Why do tou have to always include New York everytime you feel the need to boost L.A. True, New York and L.A. are America's largest cities, and both recieve a huge amount of international immigrants (as does Chicago, Miami, the Bay Area....), but the similarities pretty much end there. IMO (and I've visited both).

LA may be a huge immigration city, but California in general (particularly in the 30's through the 70's) was also where many Americans seeking greener pastures ended up. That is hardly the case anymore, as states like Texas, Florida, Georgia, Arizona, etc. have replaced California in that regard.

I don't know, me and my friends are in congruence that once we leave California we are never coming back. The median price for a home here in San Diego County is over half a million dallors! Unless I want to live in Barstow Im movin to a nice mid-western city. That is of course if things don't change here, which I really hope they do... :bash:

I would move to the Bay Area in an instant if I thought I could ever afford to own a home there. But unless there is a huge, sustained bust in housing prices, I'll be in the Midwest or some other rationally-priced region. I think this will become a big issue for overpriced cities in the near future.