Energy and controlling its costs are why people are moving to the South in addition to the lower taxes for the most part. But that will end when they realize the real threat to some regions is the availability of water, particularly as aquifers begin to run low. West of the Pecos through New Mexico, Arizona and into Southern California will become increasingly stressed. The population flow to the Southeast will stress the natural aquifers in the region, and the new mecca will be the Great Lakes. Of all of the threats to the world right now if you are paying attention to the growing water shortages, which people are attributing to climate change, you'll find overpopulation vs available supply to be the main issue. Retreating glaciation is redirecting melt and hurting the natural flow of some rivers globally. The Pentagon built its 21st century defense plan around potable water supplies, not the usual suspects. Say hello to the next existential crisis and maybe start paying attention to the real issue with what they are finding at the bottom of lake Mead, and I'm not referring to crashed aircraft, sunken landing boats, and mob submerged corpses, just the mud and the ridiculously low water levels.

I wonder who the next pro team to move to the South is. Not as an expansion but flat-out pack their bags.
People like the Midwest / East Coast teams b/c they're historic so even when they move to the South they stay a fan, but it's happened before.

Sometimes you hear Buffalo's teams.

It is not just the south growing quickly.

Idaho, Montana, Utah, South Dakota, Arizona, Tennessee, Delaware.

Also growing are Washington, Nevada, North Dakota, Colorado, Oklahoma, Maine and New Hampshire.

Losing population.
California, Oregon, New Mexico, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Mass, PR, Hawaii and Alaska.

Not growing or losing population.
Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, Missouri, Wisconsin, Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Vermont, DC and Virginia.

(12-21-2023 04:18 PM)Porcine Wrote:  
https://vividmaps.com/population-change-by-us-county/

Least surprising thing ever that the Triangle is dark blue. Hopefully we get a baseball team in the near future. As big as the sport of baseball is in NC and the population of the state as a whole it's always been wild we don't have a team.

(12-28-2023 05:19 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-21-2023 04:18 PM)Porcine Wrote:  
https://vividmaps.com/population-change-by-us-county/

Least surprising thing ever that the Triangle is dark blue. Hopefully we get a baseball team in the near future. As big as the sport of baseball is in NC and the population of the state as a whole it's always been wild we don't have a team.

Maybe Pittsburgh can move there.

(12-28-2023 06:09 PM)Porcine Wrote:  

(12-28-2023 05:19 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-21-2023 04:18 PM)Porcine Wrote:  
https://vividmaps.com/population-change-by-us-county/

Least surprising thing ever that the Triangle is dark blue. Hopefully we get a baseball team in the near future. As big as the sport of baseball is in NC and the population of the state as a whole it's always been wild we don't have a team.

Maybe Pittsburgh can move there.

No teams move out of new, beautiful, taxpayer-funded stadiums/ballparks no matter their attendance numbers. Just look at the Marlins.

(12-28-2023 06:11 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(12-28-2023 06:09 PM)Porcine Wrote:  

(12-28-2023 05:19 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-21-2023 04:18 PM)Porcine Wrote:  
https://vividmaps.com/population-change-by-us-county/

Least surprising thing ever that the Triangle is dark blue. Hopefully we get a baseball team in the near future. As big as the sport of baseball is in NC and the population of the state as a whole it's always been wild we don't have a team.

Maybe Pittsburgh can move there.

No teams move out of new, beautiful, taxpayer-funded stadiums/ballparks no matter their attendance numbers. Just look at the Marlins.

It was a joke since Pittsburgh and ECU are both Pirates.

(12-28-2023 12:11 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  I wonder who the next pro team to move to the South is. Not as an expansion but flat-out pack their bags.
People like the Midwest / East Coast teams b/c they're historic so even when they move to the South they stay a fan, but it's happened before.

Sometimes you hear Buffalo's teams.

Buffalo would be a reasonable guess, but I don't think that the Pegulas want to leave, they're not hurting for money, and the city isn't going to screw up and push them out like Houston did with Adams in the 90s. They own the Bills, the Sabres, a minor league team in Buffalo, and 2 other minor league teams in Rochester.

The next team I look to move is Jacksonville to London.

(12-28-2023 05:05 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  It is not just the south growing quickly.

Idaho, Montana, Utah, South Dakota, Arizona, Tennessee, Delaware.

Also growing are Washington, Nevada, North Dakota, Colorado, Oklahoma, Maine and New Hampshire.

Losing population.
California, Oregon, New Mexico, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Mass, PR, Hawaii and Alaska.

Not growing or losing population.
Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, Missouri, Wisconsin, Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Vermont, DC and Virginia.

Straight from the article quoted in the OP:

The top six states that saw the biggest numeric growth are all in the South. Texas led the way with 473,000 people, followed by Florida’s estimated 365,000 head growth. North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee then followed. Arizona, classified as a western state, was seventh.

This thread is about growth in the South, and the top 6 fastest-growing States per the article are in the South. You also forgot that Tennessee was in the South, an unforgivable sin in some quarters.

(12-28-2023 05:19 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-21-2023 04:18 PM)Porcine Wrote:  
https://vividmaps.com/population-change-by-us-county/

Least surprising thing ever that the Triangle is dark blue. Hopefully we get a baseball team in the near future. As big as the sport of baseball is in NC and the population of the state as a whole it's always been wild we don't have a team.

The map does a poor job at showing how much of the growth is focused in certain areas b/c the color coding is by county and splashed onto a standard map. The large swathes of red in Alabama, Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas are in low-population areas. Put it on a map that's weighted by population rather than area and you'd see how dominant the growth is in the South right now. JR has some valid points about future water scarcity, however, and it's certainly no guarantee that the South will continue to out grow the North and West indefinitely, but that's the trend today and it has been for some time.

(12-28-2023 08:17 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-28-2023 05:05 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  It is not just the south growing quickly.

Idaho, Montana, Utah, South Dakota, Arizona, Tennessee, Delaware.

Also growing are Washington, Nevada, North Dakota, Colorado, Oklahoma, Maine and New Hampshire.

Losing population.
California, Oregon, New Mexico, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Mass, PR, Hawaii and Alaska.

Not growing or losing population.
Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, Missouri, Wisconsin, Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Vermont, DC and Virginia.

Straight from the article quoted in the OP:

The top six states that saw the biggest numeric growth are all in the South. Texas led the way with 473,000 people, followed by Florida’s estimated 365,000 head growth. North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee then followed. Arizona, classified as a western state, was seventh.

This thread is about growth in the South, and the top 6 fastest-growing States per the article are in the South. You also forgot that Tennessee was in the South, an unforgivable sin in some quarters.

(12-28-2023 08:17 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-28-2023 05:05 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  It is not just the south growing quickly.

Idaho, Montana, Utah, South Dakota, Arizona, Tennessee, Delaware.

Also growing are Washington, Nevada, North Dakota, Colorado, Oklahoma, Maine and New Hampshire.

Losing population.
California, Oregon, New Mexico, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Mass, PR, Hawaii and Alaska.

Not growing or losing population.
Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, Missouri, Wisconsin, Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Vermont, DC and Virginia.

Straight from the article quoted in the OP:

The top six states that saw the biggest numeric growth are all in the South. Texas led the way with 473,000 people, followed by Florida’s estimated 365,000 head growth. North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee then followed. Arizona, classified as a western state, was seventh.

This thread is about growth in the South, and the top 6 fastest-growing States per the article are in the South. You also forgot that Tennessee was in the South, an unforgivable sin in some quarters.

I am pointing out it is not just the south, and it went towards the south. Louisiana and Mississippi lost population and Alabama was not changed. The population of the two states of Louisiana and Mississippi may have moved to Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia and Florida. It would be a wash to some. Washington, Idaho, Montana and Utah could be the northwest since Montana is listed to some as northwest. So, that is where the two main growth areas in the country is right now.

(12-28-2023 08:44 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-28-2023 08:17 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-28-2023 05:05 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  It is not just the south growing quickly.

Idaho, Montana, Utah, South Dakota, Arizona, Tennessee, Delaware.

Also growing are Washington, Nevada, North Dakota, Colorado, Oklahoma, Maine and New Hampshire.

Losing population.
California, Oregon, New Mexico, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Mass, PR, Hawaii and Alaska.

Not growing or losing population.
Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, Missouri, Wisconsin, Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Vermont, DC and Virginia.

Straight from the article quoted in the OP:

The top six states that saw the biggest numeric growth are all in the South. Texas led the way with 473,000 people, followed by Florida’s estimated 365,000 head growth. North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee then followed. Arizona, classified as a western state, was seventh.

This thread is about growth in the South, and the top 6 fastest-growing States per the article are in the South. You also forgot that Tennessee was in the South, an unforgivable sin in some quarters.

I am pointing out it is not just the south, and it went towards the south. Louisiana and Mississippi lost population and Alabama was not changed. The population of the two states of Louisiana and Mississippi may have moved to Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia and Florida. It would be a wash to some. Washington, Idaho, Montana and Utah could be the northwest since Montana is listed to some as northwest. So, that is where the two main growth areas in the country is right now.

Mississippi and Louisiana combined only have about 7.5m people. Texas and Florida, which, again, were #1 and #2 in growth, have more like 53m between them. So...big growth in the largest population states, stagnation or slight decreases in smaller population centers, big growth overall.

FYI, Idaho, Montana, Utah, SD and Delaware are hardly contiguous, they're in 3 different regions of the country. I mentioned Arizona as #7 already, and Tennessee is part of the South. Take out Arizona and Tennessee, and the rest only have 8.5m people.

To recap, what happens in 5 widely dispersed States that have 8.5m combined people has very little bearing on a conversation about a cohesive and high-population region of the US.

(12-28-2023 11:13 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-28-2023 08:44 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-28-2023 08:17 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-28-2023 05:05 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  It is not just the south growing quickly.

Idaho, Montana, Utah, South Dakota, Arizona, Tennessee, Delaware.

Also growing are Washington, Nevada, North Dakota, Colorado, Oklahoma, Maine and New Hampshire.

Losing population.
California, Oregon, New Mexico, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Mass, PR, Hawaii and Alaska.

Not growing or losing population.
Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, Missouri, Wisconsin, Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Vermont, DC and Virginia.

Straight from the article quoted in the OP:

The top six states that saw the biggest numeric growth are all in the South. Texas led the way with 473,000 people, followed by Florida’s estimated 365,000 head growth. North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee then followed. Arizona, classified as a western state, was seventh.

This thread is about growth in the South, and the top 6 fastest-growing States per the article are in the South. You also forgot that Tennessee was in the South, an unforgivable sin in some quarters.

I am pointing out it is not just the south, and it went towards the south. Louisiana and Mississippi lost population and Alabama was not changed. The population of the two states of Louisiana and Mississippi may have moved to Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia and Florida. It would be a wash to some. Washington, Idaho, Montana and Utah could be the northwest since Montana is listed to some as northwest. So, that is where the two main growth areas in the country is right now.

Mississippi and Louisiana combined only have about 7.5m people. Texas and Florida, which, again, were #1 and #2 in growth, have more like 53m between them. So...big growth in the largest population states, stagnation or slight decreases in smaller population centers, big growth overall.

FYI, Idaho, Montana, Utah, SD and Delaware are hardly contiguous, they're in 3 different regions of the country. I mentioned Arizona as #7 already, and Tennessee is part of the South. Take out Arizona and Tennessee, and the rest only have 8.5m people.

To recap, what happens in 5 widely dispersed States that have 8.5m combined people has very little bearing on a conversation about a cohesive and high-population region of the US.

When a state of 5 million people loses 17% of its total population, which none did, just 17% of some counties, it still only amounts to 850,000. You could see the deep red in Alabama counties in the Southwest part of the state, and smatterings of blue in the middle both in the North and South of the state, and yet the population remained stagnate. Loose 17% from a county which has 40,000 people and it turns your county red, but what have you lost when Huntsville is high growth? Color charts are often deceiving.

It's not that misleading at all. dbackjon and IWokeUpLikeThis nailed it. Urban areas are blowing up and most of those are in the South. The Mississippi Delta isn't known for The Blues for nothing.

That county map is interesting. CA is losing population but almost all the counties saw growth? I think that map's misleading. I'm guessing it includes births & in-state moving.

(12-28-2023 11:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-28-2023 11:13 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-28-2023 08:44 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-28-2023 08:17 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-28-2023 05:05 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  It is not just the south growing quickly.

Idaho, Montana, Utah, South Dakota, Arizona, Tennessee, Delaware.

Also growing are Washington, Nevada, North Dakota, Colorado, Oklahoma, Maine and New Hampshire.

Losing population.
California, Oregon, New Mexico, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Mass, PR, Hawaii and Alaska.

Not growing or losing population.
Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, Missouri, Wisconsin, Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Vermont, DC and Virginia.

Straight from the article quoted in the OP:

The top six states that saw the biggest numeric growth are all in the South. Texas led the way with 473,000 people, followed by Florida’s estimated 365,000 head growth. North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee then followed. Arizona, classified as a western state, was seventh.

This thread is about growth in the South, and the top 6 fastest-growing States per the article are in the South. You also forgot that Tennessee was in the South, an unforgivable sin in some quarters.

I am pointing out it is not just the south, and it went towards the south. Louisiana and Mississippi lost population and Alabama was not changed. The population of the two states of Louisiana and Mississippi may have moved to Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia and Florida. It would be a wash to some. Washington, Idaho, Montana and Utah could be the northwest since Montana is listed to some as northwest. So, that is where the two main growth areas in the country is right now.

Mississippi and Louisiana combined only have about 7.5m people. Texas and Florida, which, again, were #1 and #2 in growth, have more like 53m between them. So...big growth in the largest population states, stagnation or slight decreases in smaller population centers, big growth overall.

FYI, Idaho, Montana, Utah, SD and Delaware are hardly contiguous, they're in 3 different regions of the country. I mentioned Arizona as #7 already, and Tennessee is part of the South. Take out Arizona and Tennessee, and the rest only have 8.5m people.

To recap, what happens in 5 widely dispersed States that have 8.5m combined people has very little bearing on a conversation about a cohesive and high-population region of the US.

When a state of 5 million people loses 17% of its total population, which none did, just 17% of some counties, it still only amounts to 850,000. You could see the deep red in Alabama counties in the Southwest part of the state, and smatterings of blue in the middle both in the North and South of the state, and yet the population remained stagnate. Loose 17% from a county which has 40,000 people and it turns your county red, but what have you lost when Huntsville is high growth? Color charts are often deceiving.

It gets really funny when you look at Texas. The Texas Triangle is all Blue, with 1 or 2 small exceptions, but West Texas makes half the state look Red. If the counties were weighted by population instead of physical area then almost all of the South would be blue, from the Rio Grande Valley to the Research Triangle, with a few sparsely-populated counties here and there experience some losses.

(12-29-2023 01:36 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  That county map is interesting. CA is losing population but almost all the counties saw growth? I think that map's misleading. I'm guessing it includes births & in-state moving.

I called it "unintentially misleading", in that it's clearly marked that it's a county by county comparison, but a few highly-populated counties in the blue or red columns can have an outsized impact on the totals. LA County lost more than 90k people NET. You can have a whole lot of blue in rural California counties that all get wiped out by that much net change in a single year. On the flip side, counties in Texas with 15k total population could lose 10% over a decade, they could all move to Dallas County, and it would barely even be a rounding error for Dallas.

As I said above, it's hard to extrapolate current trends out very many years, good or bad, but things do look pretty good in the short term for the South.

(12-27-2023 12:42 AM)whittx Wrote:  

(12-21-2023 01:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-20-2023 10:42 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(12-20-2023 09:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-20-2023 09:39 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  How come people never mention population stagnation as a reason for Nebraska falling off? And people seldom note that Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas have been very low growth states. In 1980 Iowa (the most populous) was more populous than Colorado, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada, but has been passed by CO, AZ, and UT and will probably be passed by Nevada within a year or two. Meanwhile Nebraska on the low end will likely be passed by Idaho in the next few years. And for combined statistical areas the drop off has been as sharp if not sharper. KC will soon be behind all of Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake, and Las Vegas while Boise will overtake Des Moines in the next few years.

This is why I don’t see the B12 being the “de facto” third conference. By the time 2030 or 2036 rolls around, the demographics of the Great Plains are going to be even farther behind the Intermountain West. I don’t see anybody other than Arizona being able to support two schools which mean more of the B12 is going to have to be trimmed.

13) PHX
18) Denver
22) SLC
29) KC
30) LV
55) Tucson
60) Omaha
65) Des Moines
67) Boise
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined...tical_area

Seems like you don't remember Dallas, Houston, Orlando and Cincinnati.

I do remember them. TCU, Houston, UCF, and Cincinnati have a lot in common with the old WAC schools and less in common with the old Big8 schools who have a lot in common with OSU and WSU in being demographically challenged legacy schools in an old power conference.

I've read Texas Tech has more alumni in DFW than anyone but Texas. UH, UCF and Cincinnati have a strong presence in their cities. OSU and WSU are not in Portland or Seattle.

UCF has become the school as far as fan base goes in metro Orlando and the immediately surrounding counties as both the number of alumni grows and the transplants adopt the Knights as their college team since there is no NFL team to compete with for attention.

We will see if the population stays when they see the increased tax bill and fees yearly as the population increases. Hospitals, schools and roads have to be built those costs are huge amounts of money even with the increased population. The cost will be a lot power grids and sewer systems needed to be added plus more seniors to take care of who retired to the South that all add to the costs of living. It doesn’t matter there is no way to get around that added costs. Along with someone will have there hand in the money cookie jar. Because where there is money there is corruption ask the Northeast and Midwest populations. So like I said we will see if those taxes and fees stay low. I say no they won’t other than the nicer weather that is all you are getting it’s fools gold. Like thinking everyone is going to only watch 32 college football teams in a Super Conference good luck with that in my opinion. UB Horns Up! Go Bulls! Let’s Go Buffalo

(12-28-2023 11:13 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-28-2023 08:44 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-28-2023 08:17 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-28-2023 05:05 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  It is not just the south growing quickly.

Idaho, Montana, Utah, South Dakota, Arizona, Tennessee, Delaware.

Also growing are Washington, Nevada, North Dakota, Colorado, Oklahoma, Maine and New Hampshire.

Losing population.
California, Oregon, New Mexico, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Mass, PR, Hawaii and Alaska.

Not growing or losing population.
Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, Missouri, Wisconsin, Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Vermont, DC and Virginia.

Straight from the article quoted in the OP:

The top six states that saw the biggest numeric growth are all in the South. Texas led the way with 473,000 people, followed by Florida’s estimated 365,000 head growth. North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee then followed. Arizona, classified as a western state, was seventh.

This thread is about growth in the South, and the top 6 fastest-growing States per the article are in the South. You also forgot that Tennessee was in the South, an unforgivable sin in some quarters.

I am pointing out it is not just the south, and it went towards the south. Louisiana and Mississippi lost population and Alabama was not changed. The population of the two states of Louisiana and Mississippi may have moved to Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia and Florida. It would be a wash to some. Washington, Idaho, Montana and Utah could be the northwest since Montana is listed to some as northwest. So, that is where the two main growth areas in the country is right now.

Mississippi and Louisiana combined only have about 7.5m people. Texas and Florida, which, again, were #1 and #2 in growth, have more like 53m between them. So...big growth in the largest population states, stagnation or slight decreases in smaller population centers, big growth overall.

FYI, Idaho, Montana, Utah, SD and Delaware are hardly contiguous, they're in 3 different regions of the country. I mentioned Arizona as #7 already, and Tennessee is part of the South. Take out Arizona and Tennessee, and the rest only have 8.5m people.

To recap, what happens in 5 widely dispersed States that have 8.5m combined people has very little bearing on a conversation about a cohesive and high-population region of the US.

Washington, Idaho, Utah, Montana, Colorado, Arizona, Oklahoma and South Dakota are connected to each other. But, Washington, Idaho, northwest Colorado, Utah, Montana and South Dakota put together like the south spreads across a wide area of country as well.

Seattle is still growing even if they lost population.

Bellingham, Cheney, Spokane, Ellensburg, Walla Walla, Yakima, etc are growing cities in Washington.

Moscow, Boise, Coure D' Laine, Potecolla, Idaho City, Lewiston, etc are growing.

Salt Lake City, Ogdon, Cedar City, St. Charles, etc are growing.

Colorado Springs, Peublo, Grand Junction, Boulder, Golden, Ft. Collins, Trinidad are growing in Colorado.

Spearfish, Helen, Dillon, Missoula, Bozeman, Billings are growing in in Montana.

Of course Sioux City in South Dakota is growing bigger. That could be where a lot of people from Iowa moved to as well. Iowa is losing population and South Dakota is gaining.