The US Census Bureau thread

[edale]

Originally Posted by mhays

That's why I differentiated shrinking from stagnating.

What do you mean?

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by mhays

Smart shrinking is great when there's a massive generational shift. But I'm also worried about basic stagnation.

I want to consider every parking lot a likely development site. I want transit ridership to grow every year. I want to dream about sidewalks getting busier and busier. My dream requires a growing, densifying city.

Some places will do better than others. Maybe climate, etc., will keep my region on the positive side, but who knows.

I don't think smart shrinking like we're already seeing in Japan will work in the US. The country is completely driven by constant growth, social cohesion today is much lower, very unstable politically. Look at the size of stock market, for instance: companies worthing trillions based on their (hopeful) future revenue and not on the present. How that will play in a declining US (and world)?

I asked for AI to help me to determine when the world's population will start declining, assuming a TFR of 2.1 in 2026 (it's probably lower) with a smooth decline to 1.7 in 2040 and 1.6 in 2050. In this scenario the world population will most likely decline by the early 2050's. Less than 30 years from now.

[IcedCowboyCoffee]

Originally Posted by Six Corners

With those figures and the current political climate, I'm curious if Texas's growth will decrease significantly over the next couple Census estimates. Of course the populations of California, Florida, New York, and Illinois are heavily driven by international migration as well. State population rankings and growth among the most populous states could get pretty wacky.

International migration has always been a large growth factor for the entire country and its sudden drop seems to be effecting just about every state. I sadly expect every state will see growth slow down significantly over the coming years if the country's international migration continues to slow down and as the current population continues aging.

Comparing all 50 U.S. states, this top 15 list is ordered by the largest negative percentage drop in the international migration numbers from 2024 to 2025.

State (2024 International Migration / 2025 International Migration) %Change

West Virginia (+2,841 / +244) -91.41%
Wyoming (+1,285 / +258) -79.92%
Utah (+33,133 / +7,501) -77.36%
New Mexico (+12,103 / +2,879) -76.21%
Idaho (+7,899 / +2,148) -72.81%
California (+361,057 / +109,278) -69.73%
Iowa (+19,439 / +5,903) -69.63%
Vermont (+2,024 / +623) -69.22%
D.C. (+12,502 / +3,915) -68.69%
Nevada (+33,005 / +10,551) -68.03%
Wisconsin (+22,146 / +7,260) -67.22%
Pennsylvania (+82,101 / +26,921) -67.21%
Maryland (+53,100 / +20,503) -61.39%
Illinois (+112,955 / +44,752) -60.38%
Hawaii (+11,893 / +4,768) -59.91%


If we look at only the top 15 most populous U.S. states, the list looks like this:


California (+361,057 / +109,278) -69.73%
Pennsylvania (+82,101 / +26,921) -67.21%
Illinois (+112,955 / +44,752) -60.38%
New Jersey (+130,692 / +53,064) -59.40%
Florida (+411,322 / +178,674) -56.56%
Arizona (+64,486 / +28,219) -56.24%
Michigan (+67,608 / +30,706) -54.58%
Ohio (+62,378 / +28,505) -54.30%
New York (+207,161 / +95,634) -53.84%
Texas (+319,569 / +167,475) -47.59%
Washington (+81,581 / +46,202) -43.37%
Tennessee (+27,648 / +17,990) -34.93%
North Carolina (+69,792 / +46,890) -32.81%
Georgia (+63,088 / +42,579) -32.51%
Virginia (+56,155 / +40,436) -27.99%

[mhays]

Originally Posted by edale

What do you mean?

Youngstown has gotten dramatically smaller.

Stagnation is more about staying level. I assumed this was a common term.

[edale]

Originally Posted by mhays

Youngstown has gotten dramatically smaller.

Stagnation is more about staying level. I assumed this was a common term.

I obviously know what the term stagnation means, but thanks for the condescension. You said you were worried about Seattle stagnating, and how that would mean less busy sidewalks, less development of parking lots, etc.

I provided an example of Chicago, which has shrunk dramatically, but has been more or less stagnant for two decades, that counters your claim that stagnation results in those things you fear. Chicago's core has boomed and become more urban and vibrant despite a pretty stagnant city and region.

I was also responding to Big Dipper's claim that there would be scores of Youngstowns around if growth stopped. I don't think that's accurate, at least for decent sized cities with diversified economies.

I swear, urbanists from the Sunbelt/West Coast who only know constant growth are tiresome. Oh nooo what will we do if growth slows or *gasp* stops!? Well, about a third of the country has been living that reality for...60 years.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Yuri

I don't think smart shrinking like we're already seeing in Japan will work in the US. The country is completely driven by constant growth, social cohesion today is much lower, very unstable politically. Look at the size of stock market, for instance: companies worthing trillions based on their (hopeful) future revenue and not on the present. How that will play in a declining US (and world)?

I asked for AI to help me to determine when the world's population will start declining, assuming a TFR of 2.1 in 2026 (it's probably lower) with a smooth decline to 1.7 in 2040 and 1.6 in 2050. In this scenario the world population will most likely decline by the early 2050's. Less than 30 years from now.

MENA and Sub-Saharan Africa are the wildcards when it comes to birth rates and are the only regions with well above replacement rate; everyone else is dropping and/ or approaching < 2.1. iran is a major outlier but once everyone else starts declining in significant numbers, then we'll see global population drop.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by edale

I obviously know what the term stagnation means, but thanks for the condescension. You said you were worried about Seattle stagnating, and how that would mean less busy sidewalks, less development of parking lots, etc.

I provided an example of Chicago, which has shrunk dramatically, but has been more or less stagnant for two decades, that counters your claim that stagnation results in those things you fear. Chicago's core has boomed and become more urban and vibrant despite a pretty stagnant city and region.

I was also responding to Big Dipper's claim that there would be scores of Youngstowns around if growth stopped. I don't think that's accurate, at least for decent sized cities with diversified economies.

I swear, urbanists from the Sunbelt/West Coast who only know constant growth are tiresome. Oh nooo what will we do if growth slows or *gasp* stops!? Well, about a third of the country has been living that reality for...60 years.

So basically my concern is undeserving. Got it.

[edale]

Originally Posted by mhays

So basically my concern is undeserving. Got it.

I'm offering a perspective on your concern, as one does on a forum.

[IcedCowboyCoffee]

Looking at the natural change data, here is a comparison of births to deaths. The way to read this is Utah had 113% more births than it had deaths (it had 46k births and 21k deaths), Texas had 67% more births than it had deaths (it had 390k births and 232k deaths), West Virginia had 31% fewer births than it had deaths (16k births, 24k deaths), etc.

Single Year Period
2024-2025
Utah 113.53%
Texas 67.84%
Alaska 59.51%
District of Columbia 52.20%
Colorado 46.03%
Idaho 41.08%
California 37.97%
North Dakota 36.89%
New Jersey 34.71%
Nebraska 33.60%
South Dakota 29.96%
Georgia 29.27%
New York 26.72%
Washington 26.05%
Minnesota 23.90%
Maryland 21.33%
Virginia 17.66%
Kansas 16.80%
Hawaii 16.05%
Massachusetts 14.12%
North Carolina 14.02%
Indiana 12.04%
Arizona 10.73%
Nevada 10.36%
Illinois 9.55%
Iowa 8.80%
Connecticut 7.04%
Louisiana 5.65%
Oklahoma 5.56%
Wyoming 5.11%
Tennessee 4.45%
Wisconsin 2.00%
South Carolina 0.95%
Missouri 0.26%
Kentucky -0.16%
Ohio -0.57%
Florida -0.59%
Montana -0.79%
Rhode Island -2.94%
Arkansas -3.34%
Alabama -3.65%
Michigan -4.77%
Delaware -5.09%
Mississippi -7.29%
Pennsylvania -7.78%
New Mexico -8.52%
Oregon -8.94%
New Hampshire -15.39%
Vermont -26.22%
Maine -29.87%
West Virginia -31.75%


Five Year Period
2020-2025
Utah 110.33%
Alaska 61.58%
Texas 56.51%
District of Columbia 50.26%
Colorado 36.12%
North Dakota 35.49%
California 32.83%
Idaho 31.65%
Nebraska 29.95%
South Dakota 24.94%
Washington 24.44%
New Jersey 23.61%
Minnesota 23.56%
Georgia 21.75%
Maryland 19.23%
Hawaii 19.16%
New York 18.30%
Virginia 15.99%
Kansas 11.33%
North Carolina 8.25%
Massachusetts 8.07%
Nevada 7.05%
Iowa 6.97%
Indiana 6.69%
Illinois 5.84%
Arizona 4.94%
Louisiana 4.35%
Wyoming 1.70%
Oklahoma 1.60%
Connecticut 1.45%
Wisconsin 0.33%
Tennessee -2.23%
Missouri -3.18%
Delaware -5.41%
South Carolina -5.52%
Montana -5.84%
Kentucky -6.35%
Ohio -6.38%
Arkansas -6.40%
Rhode Island -6.89%
Michigan -7.71%
Florida -8.20%
Alabama -8.33%
Oregon -8.62%
Mississippi -9.36%
New Mexico -9.37%
Pennsylvania -11.64%
New Hampshire -15.25%
Vermont -24.32%
Maine -29.97%
West Virginia -35.64%

Comparing each state to themselves between these two lists you see the ratios increased for most of them in the single year period v 5 year period, but I think that is a reflection of the pandemic's effect in the first half of that 5-year period more than anything else, both in terms of how many people were having children at that time and how many people were passing away.


Looking at how these birth-to-death ratios changed from the year before (2024) to this year (2025) is also an interesting data point.
(And just to reiterate the way to read this list is that Colorado went from having 38.3% more births than deaths in 2024 to having 46% more births than deaths in 2025, being a change of +7.7 points.)

State (2024→2025) %change in%
Colorado (38.3%→46%) +7.7
Idaho (37.2%→41.1%) +3.8
Massachusetts (11%→14.1%) +3.1
Utah (110.5%→113.5%) +3
Florida (-3.2%→-0.6%) +2.62
North Carolina (11.6%→14%) +2.39
South Carolina (-0.9%→1%) +1.84
Kentucky (-1.7%→-0.2%) +1.52
Connecticut (5.6%→7%) +1.46
New Hampshire (-16.7%→-15.4%) +1.32
.
.
.
Missouri (2.3%→0.3%) -2.04
Wyoming (7.2%→5.1%) -2.04
New Mexico (-6.5%→-8.5%) -2.07
Hawaii (18.3%→16.1%) -2.24
Louisiana (7.9%→5.6%) -2.3
North Dakota (39.7%→36.9%) -2.8
Iowa (11.8%→8.8%) -2.99
D.C. (55.4%→52.2%) -3.19
Arizona (14.1%→10.7%) -3.34
Delaware (-0.2%→-5.1%) -4.89

A huge swing in the positive direction would be a sign of either a large surge in births, a sudden drop in the number of deaths, or a shift in both; A huge swing in the negative direction would be a sign of either a sudden drop in the number of births, a large surge in the number of deaths, or both.

For example, Colorado's shift can be explained by its +4.6% increase in the number of births from the previous year, and a -1% decrease in the number of deaths.

Delaware's shift can be explained by its -1% decrease in the number of births, and a 4.1% increase in the number of deaths.

Most states fall in the middle of this list, meaning they did not experience a significant change year-to-year in how many births relative to deaths they have.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by JManc

MENA and Sub-Saharan Africa are the wildcards when it comes to birth rates and are the only regions with well above replacement rate; everyone else is dropping and/ or approaching < 2.1. iran is a major outlier but once everyone else starts declining in significant numbers, then we'll see global population drop.

Not anymore. Egypt recorded as late as 2014 2.72 million births sparking concerns about overpopulation (and even famine) as the entire population of Egypt lives in 3% of the territory which is the only arable land for them. TFR was at 3.5 children/woman. In 2024, this number fell dramatically to 1.97 million and TFR plunged as well to 2.4 children/woman.

Same story in Algeria: 1.067 million births (2016) to 873k (2024); Tunisia much more dramatic: 225,887 births and 2.46 children/woman (2014) to 120,983 births (2024) and 1.45 (!!!) children/women. Free fall, Mediterrnean Europe levels. Number of births fell by half in mere 10 years.

You mentioned Iran, but we also have another big actor in the region, Turkey: 1.351 million births, 2.2 children/woman (2014) to 889,000, 1.4 children/woman (2025). Another country at European Mediterranean levels.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Not anymore. Egypt recorded as late as 2014 2.72 million births sparking concerns about overpopulation (and even famine) as the entire population of Egypt lives in 3% of the territory which is the only arable land for them. TFR was at 3.5 children/woman. In 2024, this number fell dramatically to 1.97 million and TFR plunged as well to 2.4 children/woman.

Same story in Algeria: 1.067 million births (2016) to 873k (2024); Tunisia much more dramatic: 225,887 births and 2.46 children/woman (2014) to 120,983 births (2024) and 1.45 (!!!) children/women. Free fall, Mediterrnean Europe levels. Number of births fell by half in mere 10 years.

You mentioned Iran, but we also have another big actor in the region, Turkey: 1.351 million births, 2.2 children/woman (2014) to 889,000, 1.4 children/woman (2025). Another country at European Mediterranean levels.

Iran and Turkey are also the most secular (culturally) states in the region so their fertility rates shouldn't be a surprise. Though Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria are but they are also in the least hospitable climate. I Google Earth'ed Algeria and other than a green sliver along the Mediterrainan, it is hell on earth.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by JManc

Iran and Turkey are also the most secular (culturally) states in the region so their fertility rates shouldn't be a surprise. Though Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria are but they are also in the least hospitable climate. I Google Earth'ed Algeria and other than a green sliver along the Mediterrainan, it is hell on earth.

That's the thing: the falling fertility rates is happening everywhere: secular countries, religious countries. Egypt, for instance, at this pace will below replacement level within 5 years. Tunisia might fall below Spain or Italy and Turkey below Greece within 2-3 years.

For most Subsaharan Africa figures are less reliable, but there are some signs that number of births are also falling in a pace not expected by UN.

[Crawford]

Not everywhere. Religious communities are maintaining fertility.

Even in the U.S., Utah has easily the highest fertility rate, and groups like Hasidic Jews, Amish, etc. have very high birthrates. The hospital in NYC with the most babies delivered, year after year, is in the middle of the biggest Hasidic community outside of Israel.

And Israel and Palestine both have very high birthrates. We will outbreed you, basically.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Yuri

That's the thing: the falling fertility rates is happening everywhere: secular countries, religious countries. Egypt, for instance, at this pace will below replacement level within 5 years. Tunisia might fall below Spain or Italy and Turkey below Greece within 2-3 years.

For most Subsaharan Africa figures are less reliable, but there are some signs that number of births are also falling in a pace not expected by UN.

Yeah, they are all trending lower (a very very good thing) but on a much farther timeline to where they are at or below 2.1. Egypt and Tunisia are pretty wild though. I think even India is expected to plateau and start falling by mid century.

[kittyhawk28]

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/30/us/texas-population-growth-migration-census.html

Texas is already starting to slow down, 2025 was the lowest net migration into Texas in 20 years

[R1070]

Originally Posted by kittyhawk28

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/30/us/texas-population-growth-migration-census.html

Texas is already starting to slow down, 2025 was the lowest net migration into Texas in 20 years

I'm sure Austin's slowed growth has definitely contributed to that. Will be interesting to see how Houston and DFW areas do. I imagine San Antonio will continue to grow roughly as it has in the past.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by R1070

I'm sure Austin's slowed growth has definitely contributed to that. Will be interesting to see how Houston and DFW areas do. I imagine San Antonio will continue to grow roughly as it has in the past.

But San Antonio seems to have grown roughly 20% a decade since 1990. It just has not gotten the publicity of the other metros. I bet it will slow as well.

[IcedCowboyCoffee]

Originally Posted by R1070

I'm sure Austin's slowed growth has definitely contributed to that. Will be interesting to see how Houston and DFW areas do. I imagine San Antonio will continue to grow roughly as it has in the past.

We can sort of make a wobbly guesstimate as to what the individual MSA's growth numbers will be close to by using the census's new 2025 estimate for the state.

Between 2020-2024, the state of Texas saw a numeric growth of +2,141,373

In that time frame,
DFW: +705,774 (33% of state's total numeric growth)
Houston: +645,949 (30.2% of state's total)
San Antonio: +204,619 (9.6% of state's total)
Austin: +267,251 (12.5% of state's total)
That's a combined 85% of the state's growth.

Assuming these proportions hold ~relatively~ steady across the state's new estimated growth of +391,243 for 2025, that would roughly proportion out among these four metros like this:

Dallas-Fort Worth MSA:
+129,000 / +1.55%
(Down from +177,922 / +2.18% the year before)
New Pop of 8,473,000


Houston MSA:
+118,000 / +1.51%
(Down from +198,171 / +2.61% the year before)
New Pop of 7,914,000


San Antonio MSA:
+38,000 / +1.37%
(Down from +47,297 / +1.74% the year before)
New Pop of 2,801,000


Austin MSA:
+49,000 / +1.92%
(Down from +58,019 / +2.33% the year before)
New Pop of 2,599,000

[Yuri]

Those areas might have a larger share as probably more counties in Texas were pushed even further into negative ground.

And including Sherman-Denison MSA (Dallas) and Huntsville (MSA) we have an extra 22,000 people between 2020-2024. So over 86.3% of the entire growth happened in those areas.

I'd bet by the end of the decade, the growth outside those will be close to zero.

[wwmiv]

^^^ Which is more than likely counterbalanced by deportations, which have hit Texas hard (I’ve seen estimates that 1 in every 4 people deported under Trump has been in Texas). Most of those deported were likely in the big four.