The US Census Bureau thread

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by IcedCowboyCoffee

Pittsburgh 2.4 million / +.02% / Year 6544

Can't wait to wake up from my 4,500 year cryogenic slumber to see Pittsburgh finally hit the 6 million mark.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by IcedCowboyCoffee

Certainly maybe but I'm really not sure. For me it feels like a coin toss. The last census estimates put Phoenix at 5,186,958 with a growth rate of +1.66% (+84,938) for the 2023-2024 time period. So the question is what the timeline would be to cover that 800,000 gap.

If Phoenix kept up 1.66% growth every year it would get them past the 6 million mark in 2033.

BUT, that year the state grew by +1.5% and the current estimate for 2025 has Arizona's growth down from +1.5% to +0.9% (+67,394).
If Phoenix again represents 77% of the state's growth for the year that would put Phoenix's growth around +1% (+52,365) for the upcoming metro estimates. This is down from +1.66% the year before.
At +1% every year it would take until 2039 for Phoenix reach 6 million which is certainly within the realm of possibility.

The problem with me projecting using these current state estimates we just got and with the upcoming metro estimates is that they estimate growth between July 2024 to July 2025--meaning they capture 6 months of business as usual and 6 months of anything but. What portion of these new growth numbers are stuffed into those first six months? We probably won't have a good sense of that until we get the July 2025-July 2026 estimates a year from now.
Will Phoenix then still have at least +1% growth? Seems unlikely. >+1% growth for July 2025-July 2026 seems a tough reach for any metro to be honest. That would be a huge drop off considering we saw 7 metro areas with >2% growth rates for 2023-2024. Even if growth rates rebound down the line that will still be several years of hampered growth delaying the 6 million milestone for Phoenix even further.

Just going down the list of other <6 million metros to complete this thought exercise, next comes Boston at 5 million. Maybe Boston has a chance to bridge that 1 million gap to reach 6 million, but with it's 2023-2024 growth rate it would take until 2040 to do so. Who knows what the rate will be for 2024-2025.

Then next comes Riverside which I kind of just lump with L.A., and then next San Francisco which I just lump with San Jose. Which then begs the question of why I'm not just talking about the CSAs instead of the MSAs and yeah in that case I'd change it to any CSA larger than 7 million will stay above 7 million and any CSA less than 7 million will never reach 7 million. Miami CSA at 7.3 is questionable though.

But continuing down the list of metros:

Next comes Detroit at 4.4 million. If it could continue its 2024 growth rate of .71% it would take until 2068 to reach 6 million.

Next Seattle at 4.1 million it would take until 2047 if it could keep it's 2024 growth rate of 1.63%.

These are far enough timelines that we're talking about when the country will have rapidly aged and likely shrunk so these growth rates will be difficult to hang onto.



And the metros fewer than 4 million start to see some absurd impossible-to-actually-predict timelines to reach 6 million. These of course are meaningless and I'm just posting them for fun.

Minneapolis at 3.7 million with its 2024 growth rate of .95% would take until 2074 to reach 6 million.

Tampa at 3.4 million with its 2024 growth rate of 1.5% would take until 2062 to reach 6 million.

San Diego at 3.3 million with its 2024 growth rate of .39% would take until 2179 to reach 6 million.

Denver at 3 million with its 2024 growth rate of 1.05% would take until 2089 to reach 6 million.

Orlando at 2.9 million with its 2024 growth rate of 2.65% (the best rate among the large metros that year) would take until 2052 to reach 6 million.

Charlotte at 2.9 million and +2.17% would take until 2059.

Baltimore at 2.9 at +.4% would take until the year 2210

St. Louis 2.8 million / +.23% per year / Reaches 6 million in year 2354
San Antonio 2.8 million / +1.74% / Year 2069
Austin 2.6 million / +2.33% / Year 2062
Portland 2.5 million / +.64% / Year 2159
Sacramento 2.5 million / +1.18% / Year 2100
Pittsburgh 2.4 million / +.02% / Year 6544
Las Vegas 2.4 million / +1.89% / Year 2073
Cincinnati 2.3 million / +.88% / Year 2134
Kansas City 2.2 million / +1.11% / Year 2113
Columbus 2.2 million / +1.38% / Year 2097
Indianapolis 2.2 million / +1.24% / Year 2107
Cleveland 2.2 million / +0.26% / Year 2416
Nashville 2.2 million / +1.73% / Year 2084

We could argue that "Detroit metro area" includes both Ann Arbor and Monroe as well. That would raise its population to 4.9 million. Flint is a bit more iffy, but as we're talking about a 6 million people Detroit, it might be inside as well, so 5.3 million. A 700k bridge to gap.

Seattle could include Bremerton MSA. 4.4 million. Fast growing place, extremely rich, it certainly amongst the attractive big cities. If it engulfs Olympia and Mount Vernon, then it's 4.9 million. I see it's easier for them to get to the 6 million than Phoenix.

Boston, Worcester and Manchester are effectively a single metro area. 6.3 million people in 2024. It's already there. Same for the San Francisco Bay Area with 7.7 million people.

So it's basically Detroit, Phoenix and Seattle that might get above 6 million. Everybody else, not even reach the 5 million. Above 4 million, only Denver (including Boulder and Greeley), Minneapolis and Tampa will get there.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

We could argue that "Detroit metro area" includes both Ann Arbor and Monroe as well. That would raise its population to 4.9 million. Flint is a bit more iffy, but as we're talking about a 6 million people Detroit, it might be inside as well, so 5.3 million. A 700k bridge to gap.

Seattle could include Bremerton MSA. 4.4 million. Fast growing place, extremely rich, it certainly amongst the attractive big cities. If it engulfs Olympia and Mount Vernon, then it's 4.9 million. I see it's easier for them to get to the 6 million than Phoenix.

Boston, Worcester and Manchester are effectively a single metro area. 6.3 million people in 2024. It's already there. Same for the San Francisco Bay Area with 7.7 million people.

So it's basically Detroit, Phoenix and Seattle that might get above 6 million. Everybody else, not even reach the 5 million. Above 4 million, only Denver (including Boulder and Greeley), Minneapolis and Tampa will get there.

That's only based on 2024 growth estimates, which I don't think is a very defensible projection. If you use the 2010-2020 growth rate then Minneapolis-St. Paul likely makes it to 6 million well before Detroit (MSA only). Detroit hasn't posted more than 5% growth in a decade since the 1960s, and is highly unlikely to do so without a complete shakeup. Minneapolis, on the other hand, has only twice posted less than 10% growth in its entire history. If Detroit had continued posting Minneapolis-St. Paul growth rates after the 1960s then it would already be well above 6 million.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

That's only based on 2024 growth estimates, which I don't think is a very defensible projection. If you use the 2010-2020 growth rate then Minneapolis-St. Paul likely makes it to 6 million well before Detroit (MSA only). Detroit hasn't posted more than 5% growth in a decade since the 1960s, and is highly unlikely to do so without a complete shakeup. Minneapolis, on the other hand, has only twice posted less than 10% growth in its entire history. If Detroit had continued posting Minneapolis-St. Paul growth rates after the 1960s then it would already be well above 6 million.

The thing is Minneapolis got four decades of double-digit growth on a period the US gained 105 million inh. (1980-2020). The US will probably add between 10-15 million this decade and might reach zero on the next one.

Aside some crazy event there is no way for Minneapolis to overtake Detroit that's already pushing 5 million (Ann Arbor and Monroe are Metro Detroit). I'd bet the best case for Minneapolis this decade is a 5%. That will give them 3.87 million in 2030. Let's give them a 3% for the next decade: that 3.99 million in 2040.

If we give a 1.5% growth for Detroit this decade, we'll have 4.99 million in 2030. Even a robust negative for Detroit on the 2030's, would leave than almost 1 million people ahead Minneapolis in 2040.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

The thing is Minneapolis got four decades of double-digit growth on a period the US gained 105 million inh. (1980-2020). The US will probably add between 10-15 million this decade and might reach zero on the next one.

Aside some crazy event there is no way for Minneapolis to overtake Detroit that's already pushing 5 million (Ann Arbor and Monroe are Metro Detroit). I'd bet the best case for Minneapolis this decade is a 5%. That will give them 3.87 million in 2030. Let's give them a 3% for the next decade: that 3.99 million in 2040.

If we give a 1.5% growth for Detroit this decade, we'll have 4.99 million in 2030. Even a robust negative for Detroit on the 2030's, would leave than almost 1 million people ahead Minneapolis in 2040.

Minneapolis has never grown less than 8% in a decade so that would be remarkable if it only grew by 5%, or even more remarkably by 3%. Whenever the U.S. returns to growth (likely sooner than later) Minneapolis will likely continue to grow faster than Detroit, so I can absolutely see MSP eventually overtaking Metro Detroit.

[Velvet_Highground]

With the current crackdown hitting immigration so hard it's possible that Detroit area growth may stagnate or decline in the long term. There are more children being born recently with the state citing some of the highest number in the country however the baby boomer generation is aging and that's a massive generation.

America may end up running into the same demographic crisis that a large part of the world including the developing world is facing down. I worry about the 2030's if we don't stop this path we are on immediately.

Massive demographic shifts are destabilizing whether it's a massive influx of immigrants over a short period or even worse is a demographic collapse. With how birth rates are falling across the world America may not have time later to fix its reputation and help flesh out our population before there in 20-30 years could possibly be a dearth of migrant labor internationally seeing nations competing except from warfare and or unrest. Demographic collapse and climate change could certainly cause that to happen, if I had a crystal ball I would cash in on Polymarket though so who knows.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Minneapolis has never grown less than 8% in a decade so that would be remarkable if it only grew by 5%, or even more remarkably by 3%. Whenever the U.S. returns to growth (likely sooner than later) Minneapolis will likely continue to grow faster than Detroit, so I can absolutely see MSP eventually overtaking Metro Detroit.

It had grown 1.6% between 2020-2024, a period with a very large number of immigration.

I would be completely surprised if Minneapolis managed to grow more than 5% this decade. I’d risk to say it’s impossible. That’s the optimistic number really. And 3% for the next one is the most likely/optimistic scenario, a decade the US population growth will be pretty flat.

Minneapolis hadn’t grown faster than the US average in none of those past four decades and there is no reason to assume it will do it now. And goes without saying patterns change: Minneapolis won’t grow forever just because it had grown in the past.

And the US won’t return to grow: the natural growth (births minus deaths) in the US was 2 million as late as 2007; it’s 500k now and it will be negative within 6-7 years from now. For the US resuming growth (1990-2010 levels), it would require 3 million (and growing) immigrants every single year for the rest of the century.

For Minneapolis to overtake Detroit it will have to bridge this 1.2 million people. I don’t see how.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Minneapolis hadn’t grown faster than the US average in none of those past four decades and there is no reason to assume it will do it now.

That's not true. Minneapolis has grown faster than the U.S. in 4 out of the past six decades, and probably for the majority of its existence. There is no reason to believe that Minneapolis won't regularly grow faster than the U.S. in the future. On the other hand, Detroit has not grown faster than the U.S. since the 1950s.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

That's not true. Minneapolis has grown faster than the U.S. in 4 out of the past six decades, and probably for the majority of its existence. There is no reason to believe that Minneapolis won't regularly grow faster than the U.S. in the future. On the other hand, Detroit has not grown faster than the U.S. since the 1950s.

Well, 5% in the 2020's and specially 3% in the 2030's will probably be above the US average.

Minneapolis MSA
1990 --- 15.1%
2000 --- 16.8%
2010 --- 10.4%
2020 --- 10.3%
2024 ---- 1.8%

Minnesota
1990 ---- 7.3%
2000 --- 12.4%
2010 ---- 7.8%
2020 ---- 7.6%
2025 ---- 2.2%

US
1990 ---- 9.8%
2000 --- 13.2%
2010 ---- 9.7%
2020 ---- 7.4%
2025 ---- 3.1%

I don't think the US will manage to grow above 5% by 2030. And Minneapolis fell behind it considerably. That's why the 5% I said it's very optimistic.

[IcedCowboyCoffee]

Originally Posted by Yuri

And the US won’t return to grow: the natural growth (births minus deaths) in the US was 2 million as late as 2007; it’s 500k now and it will be negative within 6-7 years from now. For the US resuming growth (1990-2010 levels), it would require 3 million (and growing) immigrants every single year for the rest of the century.

Yeah that's really the thing; the writing for the national population drop was on the wall well before these estimated drops in Net International Migration numbers from the census. The latter is going to accelerate how quickly that begins to happen if it spells a longer trend.

Just to expand on the numbers you've already given and illustrate further:

Year --- Births in the U.S. --- Deaths in the U.S.
1950 --- 3,632,000 --- 1,452,454
1955 --- 4,097,000 --- 1,528,717
1960 --- 4,257,850 --- 1,711,982
1965 --- 3,760,358 --- 1,828,136
1970 --- 3,731,386 --- 1,921,031
1975 --- 3,144,198 --- 1,892,879
1980 --- 3,612,258 --- 1,989,841
1985 --- 3,760,561 --- 2,086,440
1990 --- 4,158,212 --- 2,148,463
1995 --- 3,899,589 --- 2,312,132
2000 --- 4,058,814 --- 2,403,351
2005 --- 4,138,349 --- 2,447,903
2010 --- 3,999,386 --- 2,468,435
2015 --- 3,978,497 --- 2,712,630
2020 --- 3,605,201 --- 3,383,729
2025 --- 3,620,461 --- 3,101,603

Year --- Births minus Deaths (Natural Increase)

1950 --- 2,179,546
1955 --- 2,568,283
1960 --- 2,545,868
1965 --- 1,932,222
1970 --- 1,810,355
1975 --- 1,251,319
1980 --- 1,622,417
1985 --- 1,674,121
1990 --- 2,009,749
1995 --- 1,587,457
2000 --- 1,655,463
2005 --- 1,690,446
2010 --- 1,530,951
2015 --- 1,265,867
2020 --- 221,472
2025 --- 518,858

An aside but I think people in general underestimate just how bad COVID really got, its impact was staggering. We typically experienced 20k to 50k year-to-year increases in the total number of deaths, but the total number of deaths in 2020 jumped from the 2019 total by 528k.

But to the original point, the shrinking trend of the national population was already occurring well before 2020. The "jump" up to 518,858 natural increase in 2024 above is just a return to the general trend line occurring before COVID. If you use pre-COVID years, the trend had us sitting around 520k natural increase in 2025 and here we are at exactly that number.

Here are the past 19 years where the trend before COVID in 2020 is clear:

Year --- Births minus Deaths (Natural Increase)
2005 --- 1,690,446
2006 --- 1,839,291
2007 --- 1,892,521
2008 --- 1,775,710
2009 --- 1,693,502
2010 --- 1,530,951
2011 --- 1,438,132
2012 --- 1,409,562
2013 --- 1,335,188
2014 --- 1,361,658
2015 --- 1,265,867
2016 --- 1,201,627
2017 --- 1,041,997
2018 --- 952,507
2019 --- 890,702
2020 --- 221,472
2021 --- 195,058
2022 --- 387,901
2023 --- 505,053
2024 --- 550,007
2025 --- 518,858

The trend line has the country's natural increase reaching 0 around 2030-2033. And that's not too surprising. When you consider the generation representing the huge natural population increase that happened between 1950 and 1970, their oldest members sadly just reached the age of the average U.S. life expectancy a year or two ago.

Once we've moved from an era of Natural Increase to an era of Natural Decrease, then the question becomes whether or not the country's Net International Migration can remain large enough offset it and keep the country growing.

In July 2023-July 2024--a very strong year for International Migration--the census estimated the U.S. saw 2.8 million in international migration.

In July 2024-July 2025--a partially strong and partially weak year for International Migration--the census estimated the U.S. saw 1.2 million in international migration.

What would the number be in a very weak year for the census's International Migration estimates? 700k? In that range it doesn't seem like it would take long at all for the Natural Decrease to exceed that and cause the country's first ever total population drop in its history.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Well, 5% in the 2020's and specially 3% in the 2030's will probably be above the US average.

Minneapolis MSA
1990 --- 15.1%
2000 --- 16.8%
2010 --- 10.4%
2020 --- 10.3%
2024 ---- 1.8%

Minnesota
1990 ---- 7.3%
2000 --- 12.4%
2010 ---- 7.8%
2020 ---- 7.6%
2025 ---- 2.2%

US
1990 ---- 9.8%
2000 --- 13.2%
2010 ---- 9.7%
2020 ---- 7.4%
2025 ---- 3.1%

I don't think the US will manage to grow above 5% by 2030. And Minneapolis fell behind it considerably. That's why the 5% I said it's very optimistic.

I strongly doubt that Minneapolis has been growing slower than the U.S. since 2020.

[Steely Dan]

Making hard, definitive statements about reality based on 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 CB estimates is monumentally foolish.


Patience is a virtue
Possess it if you can
Found rarely in a woman
And never in a man

[JManc]

The fact that the Twin Cities are as big as they are amazes me considering they are basically the tundra. I've been to all 50 states and Minnesota took the prize as being the harshest weather I've ever witnessed.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JManc

The fact that the Twin Cities are as big as they are amazes me considering they are basically the tundra. I've been to all 50 states and Minnesota took the prize as being the harshest weather I've ever witnessed.

And then there's Winterpeg.

Which makes Minneapolis look like Miami.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

And then there's Winterpeg.

Which makes Minneapolis look like Miami.

Yeah, Canadians from the Prairies are just built different.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by IcedCowboyCoffee

(...)

An aside but I think people in general underestimate just how bad COVID really got, its impact was staggering. We typically experienced 20k to 50k year-to-year increases in the total number of deaths, but the total number of deaths in 2020 jumped from the 2019 total by 528k.

Indeed. It was massive (1.1 million in the US) and we saw the same thing in Brazil (700k). Number of deaths are usually very regular and Covid is a massive historical event. In the US, you should go back to the Spanish Flu (an excess of 500k deaths). The World Wars did nothing with deaths rates.

It's very overlooked.

Originally Posted by IcedCowboyCoffee

But to the original point, the shrinking trend of the national population was already occurring well before 2020. The "jump" up to 518,858 natural increase in 2024 above is just a return to the general trend line occurring before COVID. If you use pre-COVID years, the trend had us sitting around 520k natural increase in 2025 and here we are at exactly that number.

Here are the past 19 years where the trend before COVID in 2020 is clear:

Year --- Births minus Deaths (Natural Increase)
2005 --- 1,690,446
2006 --- 1,839,291
2007 --- 1,892,521
2008 --- 1,775,710
2009 --- 1,693,502
2010 --- 1,530,951
2011 --- 1,438,132
2012 --- 1,409,562
2013 --- 1,335,188
2014 --- 1,361,658
2015 --- 1,265,867
2016 --- 1,201,627
2017 --- 1,041,997
2018 --- 952,507
2019 --- 890,702
2020 --- 221,472
2021 --- 195,058
2022 --- 387,901
2023 --- 505,053
2024 --- 550,007
2025 --- 518,858

The trend line has the country's natural increase reaching 0 around 2030-2033. And that's not too surprising. When you consider the generation representing the huge natural population increase that happened between 1950 and 1970, their oldest members sadly just reached the age of the average U.S. life expectancy a year or two ago.

Exactly my thoughts. Zero will be within 5-7 years. Considering the US life expectancy (78 y/o), the baby boomers born between 1950-1955 will be dying off around that time: over 4 million of them were born every year so we can expect the number of deaths will be mirroring this number.

Then it will be free fall as we'll have less and less births as the population of women on reproductive age will start to shrink.

Originally Posted by IcedCowboyCoffee

Once we've moved from an era of Natural Increase to an era of Natural Decrease, then the question becomes whether or not the country's Net International Migration can remain large enough offset it and keep the country growing.

In July 2023-July 2024--a very strong year for International Migration--the census estimated the U.S. saw 2.8 million in international migration.

In July 2024-July 2025--a partially strong and partially weak year for International Migration--the census estimated the U.S. saw 1.2 million in international migration.

What would the number be in a very weak year for the census's International Migration estimates? 700k? In that range it doesn't seem like it would take long at all for the Natural Decrease to exceed that and cause the country's first ever total population drop in its history.

Pew Center estimated a drop of 1.4 million of the foreign born population on the first half of 2025 only. Census Estimates might have been very generous as their models might not have captured the full impact of policies.

For the US to keep the 3 million people/year increase it enjoyed up to the late 2000's, they should welcome 3 million immigrants every single year from now on and this number should increase to 4 million by the late 2030's.

We're talking about massive numbers here. Foreign-born population in the US peaked at 53 million in 2024. We're talking about to increase it by an extra 30 million in mere 10 years.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I strongly doubt that Minneapolis has been growing slower than the U.S. since 2020.

Give me a number to illustrate it.

Its growth was 1.8% between 2020-2024. What's your bet for the second half of the decade? What will make Minneapolis' growth surge while the US as a whole will certainly have a much weaker second half?

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Making hard, definitive statements about reality based on 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 CB estimates is monumentally foolish.


Patience is a virtue
Possess it if you can
Found rarely in a woman
And never in a man

It usually works very well for the country and quite well for the states and even for most MSAs. Minneapolis might have grown faster than those 1.8%, but not by much. In fact, there are more evidences 2025 estimates are very rosy.

[IcedCowboyCoffee]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Making hard, definitive statements about reality based on 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 CB estimates is monumentally foolish.

In the discussion between Minneapolis and Detroit: with regard to births and deaths, the CB's numbers are hard counts of the registered birth and death certificates supplied by the states to the NCHS, and through that data alone we know we are entering a increasingly shrinking era of growth regardless of how off the CB's estimates on migration patterns might be.

That is to say, whatever a metro area's growth rates might have truly been in the recent past--aligned with the CB's estimates or not--those rates are only going to become increasingly difficult to hang on to as time passes unless there is a commensurate increase in migration that offsets the yearly drops in natural increase. Not just steady migration, but steadily increasing migration. So in that context the gap between Detroit and Minneapolis is wider than it looks.
I personally think it could be tough for the Minneapolis MSA to reach the Detroit MSA, but it does help Minneapolis that they have a lower median age than Detroit.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by IcedCowboyCoffee

In the discussion between Minneapolis and Detroit: with regard to births and deaths, the CB's numbers are hard counts of the registered birth and death certificates supplied by the states to the NCHS, and through that data alone we know we are entering a increasingly shrinking era of growth regardless of how off the CB's estimates on migration patterns might be.

That is to say, whatever a metro area's growth rates might have truly been in the recent past--aligned with the CB's estimates or not--those rates are only going to become increasingly difficult to hang on to as time passes unless there is a commensurate increase in migration that offsets the yearly drops in natural increase. Not just steady migration, but steadily increasing migration. So in that context the gap between Detroit and Minneapolis is wider than it looks.
I personally think it could be tough for the Minneapolis MSA to reach the Detroit MSA, but it does help Minneapolis that they have a lower median age than Detroit.

On the US "super growth" era, on the 1990's and 2000's, it grew by 3 million every year. It's a time where immigration reached record high levels and yet, close 2 million of this growth came from natural growth and only 1 million and something was result from immigration.

By 2030 natural growth will have all but disappeared and if we want to see the same growth, immigration will have by three fold compared to the good immigration years during Clinton and Bush tenure.

It's not about Minneapolis growing faster than Detroit. I'd bet it will. The problem is there are more than 1 million people distance between them (and here I'm including Ann Arbor and Monroe inside Detroit). It's too much.

We cannot expect trends we saw between 1980-2020, Sun Belt cities growing 5 fold will be present on the next decade. It's a completely different world.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by JManc

Yeah, Canadians from the Prairies are just built different.

Calgary being the exception - chinooks make winter much more manageable. Still cold, but probably overall comparable to Minneapolis.

But yea.. Winnipeg, Edmonton, Saskatoon.. all really, really harsh environments for a good chunk of the year.