Census population estimates 2011-2019

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'm surprised Minnesota grew faster than the national average.  This hasn't happened often recently at all.  Hopefully it keeps up.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'd imagine growth slowed down significantly in North Dakota.  The boom is over for the time being so I'd imagine many have left the state again.

Minnesota is probably around +0.7%.  Domestic migration continues negative even though millennials are moving to the state (esp the 25-34 age group).  It is being offset by baby boomers leaving.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'd imagine the census won't catch the rapid migration due to the oil boom... at least not this year.  So I'd say ND will still have decent growth.  The price crash was thought to be very temporary and many banks still lent money to oil companies until quite recently.

But even during the rush many employees were doing 2 weeks on 2 weeks off rotations and many of those people were commuting from Minnesota.  A guy I know bought a house that way... in MN of course.

[Ban my account ffs!]

In other news, Hudson seems to be on track to fall a tad below 6,000 (excluding the prisoner population). No, I have not crunched the numbers - it was just an eyeball thing. On my block, since the 2010 census, I suspect that the drop has been around 40% - just massive. But I am bring a new unit on line on my block. But I see no abatement to the trend. If anything it is accelerating, and since the local school district is so horrible, the new folks moving in, into refurbished housing, or who refurbish, convert multi family dwellings to single family, etc., are almost always folks with no kids, or with kids who don't live at home (they have achieved the age of majority). So Hudson is moving slowly towards more well to do folks with no kids in school, or in private school, or folks with kids, who are poor.

Quite a toxic combo really, and replicated across the Fruited Plain. We have a problem! Who knew?

Basically what demographers predicted to happen by the 1990s is only now starting to occur.  An irreversible trend of fast aging and population decline for the vast majority of the U.S.  Already the winners and losers among big cities are being picked... Denver, Seattle, Houston, Dallas win... Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis lose...

Upstate New York is in for it... without a new baby boom.. because people tend to have kids in place (as opposed to attracting immigrants)

[Ban my account ffs!]

In other news, Hudson seems to be on track to fall a tad below 6,000 (excluding the prisoner population). No, I have not crunched the numbers - it was just an eyeball thing. On my block, since the 2010 census, I suspect that the drop has been around 40% - just massive. But I am bring a new unit on line on my block. But I see no abatement to the trend. If anything it is accelerating, and since the local school district is so horrible, the new folks moving in, into refurbished housing, or who refurbish, convert multi family dwellings to single family, etc., are almost always folks with no kids, or with kids who don't live at home (they have achieved the age of majority). So Hudson is moving slowly towards more well to do folks with no kids in school, or in private school, or folks with kids, who are poor.

Quite a toxic combo really, and replicated across the Fruited Plain. We have a problem! Who knew?

Basically what demographers predicted to happen by the 1990s is only now starting to occur.  An irreversible trend of fast aging and population decline for the vast majority of the U.S.  Already the winners and losers among big cities are being picked... Denver, Seattle, Houston, Dallas win... Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis lose...

Upstate New York is in for it... without a new baby boom.. because people tend to have kids in place (as opposed to attracting immigrants)

I didn't get what you were saying in that last paragraph, about having kids "in place" as opposed to attracting immigrants.  I'm admitting to it as from your overall post, I imagine it will be something worth "getting", once I do.

These areas don't attract immigrants or domestic migrants because there are not jobs available and they might be seeking nicer climes.

But if people started having more children, which can happen for myriad reasons that have nothing to do with the economy, it would increase demand for products and services which would push up demand for productivity from the parents, increasing job security.  The aggregate effect is a more vibrant economy and community.

Reinforcing this would be that families with children try to avoid picking up and moving far away.  A baby boom would likely decrease mobility and there would be a desire for companies to invest where they were rather than somewhere that immigrants or domestic migrants want to go.

At this point, we are so far along in the aging and deindustrialization process, that this would likely not fix the situation... but it would slow the decline.

New England has a top heavy age structure because fertility there is low.  In 15 years the largest cohorts of people will be in their early 70s and without a major change in migration, the population will be declining quickly.  And the problem is that unlike with growth, which can be directed into neat, new subdivisions one at a time... shrinkage is piecemeal... one older couple dies out down the street, another across the street... now you have two empty houses with no chance of being filled again... and the lawns become overgrown, etc.  Empty lots slowly replace the once bustling, tidy neighborhood... this drives the remaining people out... to places like Florida.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The 10 states that had the highest domestic migration surpluses (= intra-US movements between the states) between 2017 and 2018:

FL +133K
AZ +83K
TX +83K
NC +67K
SC +51K
NV +48K
WA +47K
CO +43K
GA +42K
TN +40K

... and the biggest net losses:

NY -180K
CA -156K
PR -123K
IL -114K
NJ -51K
LA -28K
MA -26K
MD -25K
CT -22K
PA -21K
MI -17K

Puerto Rico lost 4% of its population last year (a record) and that was not only because of out-migration (-123K people), but also because a -7K death surplus. A loss of 130K people in total.

Since the Census 2000, more than 1 million Puerto Ricans have left the island - or about 1/4 of the population ...

Please cite your original source.  Paraphrasing data still needs a citation.  I suspect you are possesive of your data sources.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The 10 states that had the highest domestic migration surpluses (= intra-US movements between the states) between 2017 and 2018:

FL +133K
AZ +83K
TX +83K
NC +67K
SC +51K
NV +48K
WA +47K
CO +43K
GA +42K
TN +40K

... and the biggest net losses:

NY -180K
CA -156K
PR -123K
IL -114K
NJ -51K
LA -28K
MA -26K
MD -25K
CT -22K
PA -21K
MI -17K

Puerto Rico lost 4% of its population last year (a record) and that was not only because of out-migration (-123K people), but also because a -7K death surplus. A loss of 130K people in total.

Since the Census 2000, more than 1 million Puerto Ricans have left the island - or about 1/4 of the population ...

Please cite your original source.  Paraphrasing data still needs a citation.  I suspect you are possesive of your data sources.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-kits/2018/pop-estimates-national-state.html

Table 5, sorted by "domestic".

Thank you!

[Ban my account ffs!]

Illinois is a big, hot mess.  But I am confident it will do just fine in the long run.

As a good Chicagoan might say "yeah we're hayfe way between a raaaahck an a haaaaahrd place but we've sitch-uh-wated ourselves exeaaactly half way tuh minimize the deaaaahmage"