The US Census Bureau thread

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

Areas with high immigration have high domestic outmigration by definition.

Also, putting aside immigration, it would be nearly impossible for NY and CA to not have permanent negative domestic outmigration.

NY's geography is such that 75% of the population lives in a small, NIMBY, expensive, heavily urbanized area in the extreme south, surrounded by a bunch of other, generally cheaper and sprawlier states. The migration lifecycle usually goes from core to fringe, but the NY fringe is actually other states. The strong majority of the suburban NY MSA/CSA isn't in NYS, so the typical family moving to the burbs or further out for affordability/schools/whatever will count towards outmigration. So even forgetting about all the retirees in FL, Carolinas, all the AA migration South, etc. you'll have huge local outmigration regardless.

You see this in the outmigration stats for NJ, CT and PA. All have the same very high outmigration to FL, Carolinas, the same reverse Great Migration, the same PR migration to Central FL, etc. but they always have much lower outmigration share than NYS bc they're always receiving new suburbanites from NYS.

And CA's geography is such that the vast majority of population lives in a narrow, extremely expensive urbanized coastal strip. There will be some in-state outmigration inland, but a lot will go to other Western states, and you would need a complete economic collapse to make Coastal CA broadly affordable.

My aunt lives in a Coastal CA neighborhood of $5 million homes. She's a retired nurse. Many of her neighbors are retired teachers, civil servants and the like. A lot of their kids and grandkids are in AZ, or TX or CO. How in the hell are those homes ever supposed to be affordable to average American households? Those homes won't be under $1 million short of a zombie apocalypse.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Also, putting aside immigration, it would be nearly impossible for NY and CA to not have permanent negative domestic outmigration.

NY's geography is such that 75% of the population lives in a small, NIMBY, expensive, heavily urbanized area in the extreme south, surrounded by a bunch of other, generally cheaper and sprawlier states. The migration lifecycle usually goes from core to fringe, but the NY fringe is actually other states. The strong majority of the suburban NY MSA/CSA isn't in NYS, so the typical family moving to the burbs or further out for affordability/schools/whatever will count towards outmigration. So even forgetting about all the retirees in FL, Carolinas, all the AA migration South, etc. you'll have huge local outmigration regardless.

That’s why it’s always necessary to check migration figures against age, birth and death, and employment data.

A couple marrying and having children and moving to another state automatically creates a migration deficit.

2 college graduates moving in
2 parents and 2 children moving out.
= -2 Net Domestic Migration.


From my perspective, if a state has a younger median age, then it’s probably in better condition than a state with an older population with more population growth.

Not all population is productive.

Median Age - 2020

[fleonzo]

[QUOTE=IcedCowboyCoffee;10337372]I copy and pasted the numbers directly from the census bureau's data sheet released yesterday:
https://www2.census.gov/programs-sur...2024-COMP.xlsx

International migration in California was +361,507.
Net Domestic migration in California was -239,575.

The combined net migration is simply the combination of those two numbers: +121,482--which is the value Craigs mentioned.

So, California still experienced outward domestic migration that was significantly larger than its inward domestic migration, but that loss was offset by the strong international migration to the state.
And combined with births exceeding deaths by 110,466, California experienced a positive growth of +232,570.

Similarly for New York:
International migration in New York was +207,161
Net Domestic migration in New York was -120,917
Combined net migration: +86,244

These differ from the other states mentioned which saw both positive domestic migration and large international migration.

International migration in Texas was +319,569
Net Domestic migration in Texas was +85,267
Combined net migration: +404,836

International migration in Florida was +411,322
Net Domestic migration in Florida was +64,017
Combined net migration: +475,339

International migration in Arizona was +64,486
Net Domestic migration in Arizona was +34,902
Combined net migration: +99,388


I'm not ascribing any value judgment to these numbers, but if there is an argument to be made that there is mass movement of US residents out of TX, FL, and AZ and in to CA and NY, this is not the data to use because such movement is not reflected in it anywhere. The strongest winners for domestic migration in this data would seem to be the Carolinas. South Carolina had a net domestic migration rate of +1,242 people per 100,000 which was the largest of any state. =Quote]



I came to the same conclusion before you even posted these stats and my agreement had nothing to do with any political take on it but some others, on this forum, can't seem to help themselves. The data, as you just illustrated, is clear. The idea that CA & NY will always continue to be the centers of innovation, commerce, tech, finance, etc simply because they have been for so long is delusional at best and also ignores history in general. BTW- I'm a NYC resident for many years but unfortunately that might not be the case for very long. The bleeding in people and talent is undeniable and it continues with no evidence that it's going to stop anytime soon. With those individuals, also goes their wealth (i.e. tax base). It's a death spiral that many other municipalities have learned the hard way. I'm not hear to cast a rhyme or reason, politically, for why this is the case but pointing out that IT IS happening and when you ask the people that are fleeing why....there's a common theme. Instead of listening to those concerns and maybe addressing some them, the usual suspects continue their delusions with, "We're the best, we're the center of it all, look how may Fortune 500 companies we host" (along with the growing income inequality, etc...), while glossing over, of course, the growing crime, homelessness, crumbling infrastructure, high taxes, fees, tolls, so on and so on....People vote with their feet and have always done so. It's normal for certain levels of out migration but the numbers we've been seeing over the past couple of years should be a major warning sign to some of these legacy hubs (i.e. CA, NY, NJ, IL) and not just dismiss them because of the current heated political environment.

[UrbanImpact]

[QUOTE=fleonzo;10337440]

Originally Posted by IcedCowboyCoffee

I copy and pasted the numbers directly from the census bureau's data sheet released yesterday:
https://www2.census.gov/programs-sur...2024-COMP.xlsx

International migration in California was +361,507.
Net Domestic migration in California was -239,575.

The combined net migration is simply the combination of those two numbers: +121,482--which is the value Craigs mentioned.

So, California still experienced outward domestic migration that was significantly larger than its inward domestic migration, but that loss was offset by the strong international migration to the state.
And combined with births exceeding deaths by 110,466, California experienced a positive growth of +232,570.

Similarly for New York:
International migration in New York was +207,161
Net Domestic migration in New York was -120,917
Combined net migration: +86,244

These differ from the other states mentioned which saw both positive domestic migration and large international migration.

International migration in Texas was +319,569
Net Domestic migration in Texas was +85,267
Combined net migration: +404,836

International migration in Florida was +411,322
Net Domestic migration in Florida was +64,017
Combined net migration: +475,339

International migration in Arizona was +64,486
Net Domestic migration in Arizona was +34,902
Combined net migration: +99,388


I'm not ascribing any value judgment to these numbers, but if there is an argument to be made that there is mass movement of US residents out of TX, FL, and AZ and in to CA and NY, this is not the data to use because such movement is not reflected in it anywhere. The strongest winners for domestic migration in this data would seem to be the Carolinas. South Carolina had a net domestic migration rate of +1,242 people per 100,000 which was the largest of any state. =Quote]



I came to the same conclusion before you even posted these stats and my agreement had nothing to do with any political take on it but some others, on this forum, can't seem to help themselves. The data, as you just illustrated, is clear. The idea that CA & NY will always continue to be the centers of innovation, commerce, tech, finance, etc simply because they have been for so long is delusional at best and also ignores history in general. BTW- I'm a NYC resident for many years but unfortunately that might not be the case for very long. The bleeding in people and talent is undeniable and it continues with no evidence that it's going to stop anytime soon. With those individuals, also goes their wealth (i.e. tax base). It's a death spiral that many other municipalities have learned the hard way. I'm not hear to cast a rhyme or reason, politically, for why this is the case but pointing out that IT IS happening and when you ask the people that are fleeing why....there's a common theme. Instead of listening to those concerns and maybe addressing some them, the usual suspects continue their delusions with, "We're the best, we're the center of it all, look how may Fortune 500 companies we host" (along with the growing income inequality, etc...), while glossing over, of course, the growing crime, homelessness, crumbling infrastructure, high taxes, fees, tolls, so on and so on....People vote with their feet and have always done so. It's normal for certain levels of out migration but the numbers we've been seeing over the past couple of years should be a major warning sign to some of these legacy hubs (i.e. CA, NY, NJ, IL) and not just dismiss them because of the current heated political environment.

What are the age ranges of the people leaving New York and California for Texas and Florida? As a Floridian it feels as if the state is becoming older and older in age by the day and it's not working folk that are mass migrating here. Most of the people I grew up with in South Florida have left for The Northeast, California, or North Carolina.

When I went to middle school and high school down here, they were overcrowded and full of portable classrooms. Nowadays they are mulling shutting down some schools due to low enrollment.

Also, regarding taxes and crime... in my view that can sometimes bring alternative transit options and lower crime. Check out our transit options and crime statistics in the sunbelt.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

That’s why it’s always necessary to check migration figures against age, birth and death, and employment data.

A couple marrying and having children and moving to another state automatically creates a migration deficit.

2 college graduates moving in
2 parents and 2 children moving out.
= -2 Net Domestic Migration.

Right I know many people who moved back "closer to family" after having a kid (or two).

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by eschaton

It's worth noting that Trump's border czar has promised the day one deportation sweep will start in Chicago.

Without getting too deep into actual politics, I 100% believe that enforcement will be politicized, with big blue cities/states seeing more actions. Plays well on Fox News, after all.

Why Chicago? I thought I read somewhere that the state with the most undocumented immigrants is California.

Originally Posted by galleyfox

The politicians can say what they want, but they are still bound by the laws of physics.

You have to actually hire people to locate and apprehend illegal immigrants, have a local government willing to corporate with information and support, pay for their housing and transportation, make agreements with countries to accept them…

The federal government can barely do a census properly in an entire year, just knocking on doors.

Right? Illegal immigrant deportation sweeps? LOL, I'll believe it when I see it.

Incidentally, the majority of undocumented immigrants didn't walk across the border from Mexico, the majority of them entered the US legally but then didn't leave when their visas expired---so, California having the most undocumented immigrants makes sense to me. Most of them FLEW here. Just a personal anecdote, but I'm getting the sense that a lot of the Chinese Uber drivers and food delivery drivers are undocumented. For a long time now, I'll be at various restaurants and a Chinese guy who doesn't even speak English will walk in, the greeter will ask him "Picking up?" and instead of the guy responding, he'll just bump up something on his phone and show it to her. I'm thinking, 'are you mute??'

Yet the next Administration will want to make a show of rounding up and deporting brown people, I'm sure.

[craigs]

For California, the high cost of housing is a major driver of outmigration. The high cost of housing is driven by California's desirability combined with insufficient housing production. The private sector builds new housing, not the state, and the state's largest cities are mostly built-out. State and local governments can try to make new construction easier, but that won't change the high cost of land and of building up rather than building out. There are no easy answers here, and it's not all about partisan politics as some would have us believe.

Los Angeles just allowed, as of right, mixed-use and residential construction in parcels zoned for commercial uses along the major boulevards. I hope eliminating variance requirements and challenges will lead to many more developments with shops, restaurants, and services on the ground level with homes above. That wouldn't singlehandedly solve the city's housing crisis, but it's a start.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by fleonzo

The idea that CA & NY will always continue to be the centers of innovation, commerce, tech, finance, etc simply because they have been for so long is delusional at best and also ignores history in general.

Paris, 1,000 years ago, was the undisputed largest, wealthiest and most important city in what is now the EU, and remains today. Would you bet against Paris 1,000 years from now? How about Istanbul or Beijing or Tokyo 1,000 years from now? There's no question that inherent advantages become self-reinforcing over time.

CA & NY are likely to be the centers of wealth and innovation as long as the institutions that nurture the innovation (the Stanfords and JPLs and HYP) and the environments that sustain the innovation (Sand Hill Rd., Wall St., Hollywood) remain.

And as long as young, talented people want to socialize, get laid and eventually couple, they'll gravitate to urban environments, which in the U.S. context are almost entirely limited to very blue jurisdictions.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by fleonzo

BTW- I'm a NYC resident for many years but unfortunately that might not be the case for very long.

So you spent your youth in NYC like generations before you have, and now you’re aging and looking for greener pastures? Possibly the Carolinas or Florida?

What makes your experience different from the 100 years of people who lived before you saying the exact same things?

Instead of listening to those concerns and maybe addressing some them, the usual suspects continue their delusions with, "We're the best, we're the center of it all, look how may Fortune 500 companies we host" (along with the growing income inequality, etc...), while glossing over, of course, the growing crime, homelessness, crumbling infrastructure, high taxes, fees, tolls, so on and so on....People vote with their feet and have always done so. It's normal for certain levels of out migration but the numbers we've been seeing over the past couple of years should be a major warning sign to some of these legacy hubs (i.e. CA, NY, NJ, IL) and not just dismiss them because of the current heated political environment.

Well, the political environment and media narratives don’t always reflect the actual facts on the ground. And population is merely one indicator and a lagging and incomplete one at that.

For example Cook County, Chicago.

Census estimates proclaim the loss of population most years. At the exact same time, labor and employment estimates come back with the best figures in decades.

If Chicago was disproportionately losing unproductive people in favor of a smaller more educated, high earning population would that actually be a negative? Or were the population estimates simply incorrect?

[LA21st]

[QUOTE=fleonzo;10337440]

Originally Posted by IcedCowboyCoffee

I copy and pasted the numbers directly from the census bureau's data sheet released yesterday:
https://www2.census.gov/programs-sur...2024-COMP.xlsx

International migration in California was +361,507.
Net Domestic migration in California was -239,575.

The combined net migration is simply the combination of those two numbers: +121,482--which is the value Craigs mentioned.

So, California still experienced outward domestic migration that was significantly larger than its inward domestic migration, but that loss was offset by the strong international migration to the state.
And combined with births exceeding deaths by 110,466, California experienced a positive growth of +232,570.

Similarly for New York:
International migration in New York was +207,161
Net Domestic migration in New York was -120,917
Combined net migration: +86,244

These differ from the other states mentioned which saw both positive domestic migration and large international migration.

International migration in Texas was +319,569
Net Domestic migration in Texas was +85,267
Combined net migration: +404,836

International migration in Florida was +411,322
Net Domestic migration in Florida was +64,017
Combined net migration: +475,339

International migration in Arizona was +64,486
Net Domestic migration in Arizona was +34,902
Combined net migration: +99,388


I'm not ascribing any value judgment to these numbers, but if there is an argument to be made that there is mass movement of US residents out of TX, FL, and AZ and in to CA and NY, this is not the data to use because such movement is not reflected in it anywhere. The strongest winners for domestic migration in this data would seem to be the Carolinas. South Carolina had a net domestic migration rate of +1,242 people per 100,000 which was the largest of any state. =Quote]



I came to the same conclusion before you even posted these stats and my agreement had nothing to do with any political take on it but some others, on this forum, can't seem to help themselves. The data, as you just illustrated, is clear. The idea that CA & NY will always continue to be the centers of innovation, commerce, tech, finance, etc simply because they have been for so long is delusional at best and also ignores history in general. BTW- I'm a NYC resident for many years but unfortunately that might not be the case for very long. The bleeding in people and talent is undeniable and it continues with no evidence that it's going to stop anytime soon. With those individuals, also goes their wealth (i.e. tax base). It's a death spiral that many other municipalities have learned the hard way. I'm not hear to cast a rhyme or reason, politically, for why this is the case but pointing out that IT IS happening and when you ask the people that are fleeing why....there's a common theme. Instead of listening to those concerns and maybe addressing some them, the usual suspects continue their delusions with, "We're the best, we're the center of it all, look how may Fortune 500 companies we host" (along with the growing income inequality, etc...), while glossing over, of course, the growing crime, homelessness, crumbling infrastructure, high taxes, fees, tolls, so on and so on....People vote with their feet and have always done so. It's normal for certain levels of out migration but the numbers we've been seeing over the past couple of years should be a major warning sign to some of these legacy hubs (i.e. CA, NY, NJ, IL) and not just dismiss them because of the current heated political environment.

Uhh, you might not wanna ignore all the crumbling shit and crime in the south. Glossing over this doesnt help anyone either.
NYC, SF and LA are much safer than those "safe" southern ctiies. GET REAL

It's so annoying people in red states point out crime in blue states and just flat out ignore their own damn problems. That isnt going to fly.
The South is the most crime ridden part of the United States. By far. Even those little cities are full of crime.

People move there because its cheaper. They're not moving there because its SAFER. Thats a fucking lie.

[IcedCowboyCoffee]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

From my perspective, if a state has a younger median age, then it’s probably in better condition than a state with an older population with more population growth.

I've always found the median age to be an interesting data point, not just as a static value but with regard to how it changes over time and measuring it against the national trend as a baseline.

Here is the 2023 median ages for states, from the American Community Survey, sorted from lowest median age to highest:

Utah 32.3
District of Columbia 34.9
Texas 35.9
North Dakota 36.3
Alaska 36.5
Oklahoma 37.1
Nebraska 37.4
Idaho 37.8
Colorado 37.9
Georgia 37.9
Kansas 37.9
California 38.2
Indiana 38.3
South Dakota 38.5
Washington 38.6
Louisiana 38.7
Arkansas 38.9
Iowa 39.1
Minnesota 39.1
Tennessee 39.1
Kentucky 39.2
United States 39.2
Arizona 39.3
Mississippi 39.3
Missouri 39.3
Virginia 39.3
Wyoming 39.3
Nevada 39.4
North Carolina 39.4
Illinois 39.5
Alabama 39.6
Maryland 39.8
New Mexico 39.9
Ohio 39.9
New York 40.2
Massachusetts 40.3
New Jersey 40.4
Michigan 40.5
South Carolina 40.5
Wisconsin 40.5
Montana 40.6
Oregon 40.7
Rhode Island 40.8
Pennsylvania 41.1
Hawaii 41.4
Connecticut 41.5
Delaware 42
Florida 42.8
West Virginia 42.8
New Hampshire 43.4
Vermont 43.7
Maine 44.9

And here is how much the median age has shifted in those states between 2010-2023, sorted from greatest shift to smallest shift. Incredibly, North Dakota managed to actually lower its median age (having such a small population makes the data more sensitive to any amount of change).

The list above can be read as every state above the "United States" line is younger than the national population at large. For the list below, every state above the "United States" line has shifted older more quickly than the national shift. This all comes down to a bunch of factors working together (like all of this population stuff invariably does) but it's a very fascinating data point to track.

Arizona 3.4
Delaware 3.2
New Mexico 3.2
Mississippi 3.2
Nevada 3.1
Utah 3.1
Idaho 3.1
California 3
Illinois 2.9
Louisiana 2.8
South Carolina 2.7
Alaska 2.7
Hawaii 2.7
Wyoming 2.6
Georgia 2.5
Texas 2.3
Vermont 2.2
Oregon 2.2
New York 2.2
Maine 2.2
New Hampshire 2.1
North Carolina 2.1
Florida 2.1
Wisconsin 2
United States 2
Colorado 1.9
Alabama 1.8
Maryland 1.8
Virginia 1.8
Kansas 1.7
Minnesota 1.6
Arkansas 1.6
West Virginia 1.6
Connecticut 1.5
Michigan 1.5
New Jersey 1.4
Washington 1.4
Indiana 1.4
Missouri 1.3
Kentucky 1.2
South Dakota 1.2
Rhode Island 1.2
Massachusetts 1.2
Tennessee 1.1
Nebraska 1.1
Ohio 1
District of Columbia 1
Pennsylvania 0.9
Iowa 0.9
Oklahoma 0.8
Montana 0.5
North Dakota -1.1

[Crawford]

UT and TX are the youngest states, and both will show substantial growth even absent high domestic immigration or intl. immigration.

But there are no real "policy lessons" here. UT has LDS high birthrates and TX has high Mexican-American birthrates. They have enormous LDS and Mexican-American youth populations.

We'll all be dead, but in a few generations I could see NY and NJ with similar demographic trends via Hasidic Jews. Their populations are still too small to matter, but their exponential growth will eventually matter. Maybe also Amish states like PA and OH, but they don't reproduce like Hasidics, and they're much more mobile.

[IcedCowboyCoffee]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But there are no real "policy lessons" here.

This I certainly agree with. Narrowed down numbers like this about migration, natural changes, and median ages don't actually tell us anything more than what the migration, natural changes, and median ages are (or might roughly be).
I don't subscribe to the idea that such a limited dataset can tell us anything below the surface level about the places and people these numbers refer to.

[mhays]

Low median ages can reflect a lot of children, or a lot of 20-somethings. Like Salt Lake vs. Seattle. It would be useful to isolate how we rank in sample age groups like 0-5 and 25-29. Likewise, high medians may include a lot of 40-somethings and/or a lot of 65+.

[LA21st]

500.000 people left Florida in 2023, a record high. Mostly young people. I beleive almost 500,000 left in 2022 as well. That's a million people moving out in 2 years!

Its the 60 and up crowd that's moving in. That's not a good thing.

As I said, the "noise" of people on social media for leaving is getting loud. A million people in 2 years makes sense.

Sure, a bunch of Grandparents are moving in. Doesnt really help the state though.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by LA21st

500.000 people left Florida in 2023, a record high. Mostly young people. I beleive almost 500,000 left in 2022 as well. That's a million people moving out in 2 years!

Its the 60 and up crowd that's moving in. That's not a good thing.

As I said, the "noise" of people on social media for leaving is getting loud. A million people in 2 years makes sense.

Sure, a bunch of Grandparents are moving in. Doesnt really help the state though.

The right wing megaphone really has pierced the media/public. It is true that many people are moving to the sunbelt states, however, in Florida's case they aren't in the most productive working age group. As an Architectural Project Manager for restaurant and retail chains, many of our customers are having a hard time staffing their stores.

Can you imagine working at a supermarket, restaurant, or pharmacy in The Villages or Naples, FL?!? It is customer service hell on earth.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Paris, 1,000 years ago, was the undisputed largest, wealthiest and most important city in what is now the EU, and remains today. Would you bet against Paris 1,000 years from now? How about Istanbul or Beijing or Tokyo 1,000 years from now? There's no question that inherent advantages become self-reinforcing over time.

Slight nitpick, but Paris was not the most important and wealthiest city one thousand years ago in what is now the EU. It would most likely have been somewhere on the Italian peninsula like Genoa, Venice... even Rome might have still been more populous and important. It could have also been somewhere on the Iberian peninsula like Seville.

The most important city in the world at the time was Constantinople. To your overall point, that city still remains a humongous city today, although not nearly as important as it once was.

[IcedCowboyCoffee]

Originally Posted by mhays

Low median ages can reflect a lot of children, or a lot of 20-somethings. Like Salt Lake vs. Seattle. It would be useful to isolate how we rank in sample age groups like 0-5 and 25-29. Likewise, high medians may include a lot of 40-somethings and/or a lot of 65+.

I started digging in to this out of curiosity but found it would be way too tedious to do this for every state so I only got a handful of states But here is what I did:

For the ten largest states, and any other states that fell into the top ten largest numeric growth and percentage growth rates this year, I pulled the proportions for various age groups in 2010 and compared those to the proportions in 2023 to chart how those proportions have changed in that timespan.

Here are the four largest states, along with the country as a whole:


By comparing the shifts within the states against the shifts of the country as a baseline we can get a tiny glimpse of the impact that migration patterns and local idiosyncrasies are having.
This isn't meant to be a comparison of the total population sizes for each age group, but rather a comparison of the shifting sizes of the pie slices that each group represents within a whole state's population pie, if you will.
Sometimes a pie slice shrinks, even if that age group actually grew in total number, just because the other pie slices grew significantly faster and crowded it out.
________________________________
Below I list the shifts for a handful of states from largest growth shift down to largest shrink shift.

So the way to read this first list is like this:
The proportion of the population that 80+ year olds in Nevada represent grew from 2.5% in 2010 to 3.5% in 2023, so it saw a shift in 1 point (hence where the 1 comes from in the list beside Nevada)

The proportion of 80+ year olds in the population of Pennsylvania has shifted from 5% of Pennsylvania in 2010 down to 4.7% of Pennsylvania in 2023, so it saw a -0.3 point shift (hence the -0.3 value next to Pennsylvania).

Comparatively, the proportion of 80+ year olds in the general population of the U.S. has shifted from 3.7% in 2010 to 3.9% in 2023, so it saw a 0.2 shift (hence where the 0.2 comes from beside United States)

80 years and over
Nevada 1
Arizona 0.9
Delaware 0.6
South Carolina 0.5
California 0.5
Georgia 0.5
Florida 0.4
Illinois 0.4
New York 0.3
Michigan 0.3
Texas 0.2
Idaho 0.2
United States 0.2
North Carolina 0.2
Washington 0.2
Ohio 0.1
New Jersey 0.1
Utah 0.1
Pennsylvania -0.3

70 to 79 years
Delaware 4.3
South Carolina 3.5
Arizona 3.4
Michigan 3.1
New York 3
Nevada 3
Washington 3
Idaho 3
Pennsylvania 2.9
North Carolina 2.9
Florida 2.8
Georgia 2.8
United States 2.8
Illinois 2.6
California 2.5
Ohio 2.5
New Jersey 2.4
Texas 2
Utah 1.8

60 to 69 years
Delaware 3.8
Illinois 3.3
Michigan 3.3
New Jersey 3.2
Ohio 3.1
New York 3
Pennsylvania 3
California 2.7
United States 2.7
Idaho 2.5
South Carolina 2.4
Florida 2.3
Georgia 2.2
North Carolina 2.2
Texas 2.1
Arizona 2
Washington 2
Utah 2
Nevada 1.7

50 to 59 years
Georgia -0.1
Nevada -0.2
California -0.5
North Carolina -0.6
Utah -0.7
Texas -0.8
New York -0.9
Arizona -0.9
Florida -1
New Jersey -1
South Carolina -1.3
Illinois -1.3
United States -1.4
Delaware -1.7
Idaho -1.9
Pennsylvania -2
Michigan -2.1
Ohio -2.2
Washington -2.5

40 to 49 years
Utah 2
Idaho -0.5
Texas -0.5
Arizona -0.9
Washington -1
Nevada -1.1
California -1.2
Illinois -1.4
South Carolina -1.6
United States -1.6
Florida -1.8
Georgia -1.8
North Carolina -1.8
Ohio -2.1
Pennsylvania -2.4
New York -2.4
New Jersey -2.4
Delaware -2.6
Michigan -2.6

30 to 39 years
Washington 2.1
Pennsylvania 1.5
Michigan 1.1
California 1
Florida 0.8
New York 0.8
United States 0.8
Ohio 0.8
Idaho 0.7
Texas 0.4
Arizona 0.4
Nevada 0.4
Delaware 0.3
New Jersey 0.3
South Carolina 0.2
Illinois 0
Georgia -0.1
North Carolina -0.1
Utah -0.4

20 to 29 years
Michigan 0.3
North Carolina -0.2
Ohio -0.3
Arizona -0.3
Utah -0.3
Georgia -0.4
New Jersey -0.4
Idaho -0.4
Texas -0.6
Pennsylvania -0.7
Illinois -0.8
United States -0.8
Washington -0.9
Florida -1.2
New York -1.3
South Carolina -1.3
California -1.4
Nevada -1.4
Delaware -1.6

10 to 19 years
Utah 0
Idaho -0.4
Texas -0.6
Georgia -0.6
Pennsylvania -0.8
North Carolina -0.9
South Carolina -0.9
New Jersey -0.9
Ohio -0.9
United States -0.9
Florida -1
New York -1.2
Washington -1.2
Nevada -1.3
California -1.3
Illinois -1.3
Delaware -1.3
Arizona -1.5
Michigan -1.9

Under 9 years
Ohio -1.1
New Jersey -1.1
Pennsylvania -1.2
Florida -1.2
New York -1.2
Michigan -1.3
South Carolina -1.6
United States -1.7
Delaware -1.7
North Carolina -1.8
Washington -1.8
Illinois -1.9
Texas -2.2
Nevada -2.3
California -2.4
Georgia -2.5
Arizona -2.9
Idaho -3.2
Utah -4.3


Like all data, it only shows the results of a change, not the causes behind it; it doesn't "say" anything. Some of this shouldn't be too surprising though. I would suspect that the largest states generally get older faster than the country's general trend because people in less populated areas may move for better healthcare facilities in more populated areas.

[subterranean]

Fascinating that Michigan is gaining so much relative to other states in the 20-40 categories.

I see this reflected in my friend groups, people who moved away to the west coast and south, now moving back to Michigan for affordable real estate and to be closer to aging parents.

[mhays]

Very interesting.

Washington state was high in the 30-49 groups but slightly below average in the 20-29 group.

I'll theorize. It's always had a lot of 20-29s, but tech was stagnant in 2023 so the numbers eased, while increasing costs turned off some lower earners. Meanwhile, more tech people could be sticking around as the industry matures vs living here in their 20s and leaving when they want cheap houses.