• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cities Lost Population in 2021, Leading to the Slowest Year of Growth in U.S. History

Tender Branson

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2021
Messages
6,688
Reaction score
4,057
Location
🇦🇹 Austria 🇦🇹
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive

Cities Lost Population in 2021, Leading to the Slowest Year of Growth in U.S. History​

By Robert Gebeloff, Dana Goldstein and Winnie Hu
March 24, 2022

Although some of the fastest growing regions in the country continued to grow, the gains were nearly erased by stark losses in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

24census-web-4b-superJumbo.jpg


Substantial population loss in some of the nation’s largest and most vibrant cities was the primary reason 2021 was the slowest year of population growth in U.S. history, new Census data shows.

Although some of the fastest growing regions in the country continued to boom, the gains were nearly erased by stark losses last year in counties that encompass the New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco metropolitan areas.

The pandemic played a role, as the number of people dying rose substantially and many Americans left cities for smaller places. But experts say that skyrocketing housing costs were also to blame, and that some of the changes are a continuation of fundamental shifts in American demographics that began before the pandemic, such as the steadily falling birthrate and steep drop in immigration.

New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco lost a total of over 700,000 people from July 2020 to July 2021, according to the Census Bureau. Meanwhile, Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Austin and Atlanta gained more than a total of 300,000 residents. And there was also substantial growth in some rural areas and smaller cities like Boise, Idaho, and Myrtle Beach, S.C.

But the 10 fastest growing counties last year accounted for nearly 80 percent of the national total, a testament not so much to the rapid pace of change in these places, but to the lack of significant growth in the rest of the nation. The bureau had previously called 2021 the slowest population growth year on record, with the nation growing by just 0.1 percent.

Population loss, particularly of working-age adults and their children, can separate extended families and lead to funding cuts and labor shortages in schools, health care facilities and other services that are essential to the residents who remain.

The pattern is a notable contrast from a decade ago, when large cities were growing, bolstered by a decades-long boom in immigration and the rising popularity of urban living. At that time, most of the counties losing population were rural or experiencing economic decline.

In the years immediately preceding the pandemic, those factors began to shift. Immigration slowed, urban housing costs rose, and suburban and exurban growth began picking up steam, trends that continued through the pandemic.

The virus wrought other changes. Because Covid-19 caused so many deaths, only 828 counties had more births than deaths in 2021, the figures show, down from more than 1,900 a decade ago.

And the rise of remote work made it less of a requirement for many workers to live in expensive cities to take advantage of high-paying jobs.

The decline in fertility started a decade ago during the Great Recession, and reflects the ways in which women and men of the Millennial generation are prioritizing education and work, delaying marriage and parenthood, and struggling to gain their economic footing as they deal with student debt, slow wage growth and steep housing costs.


The worst seems to be over though, demographically-speaking:

The US only grew by 400.000 last year, but will grow by about 2 million this year until June, or by 0.6% - as births pick up again and deaths a bit lower - and immigration significantly increased.
 
The US always calculates its population growth from 1 July to 1 July of a year.

Unlike European countries, who use the full calendar year (1 Jan. to 1 Jan.)

So, between July 2020 and July 2021, the US only grew by 0.1% or by less than 400.000 people.

Between July 2021 and July 2022, probably by 0.6% or by 1.5 million to 2 million people.

Births are slightly up based on numbers until September, and could reach 3.65 million, while deaths remain high (but a bit lower than in 2020 or 2021 because Covid kills fewer). They should be around 3.45 million for the year to July 2022.

Therefore, 200.000 more kids will be born than people who died.

Then, there’s ca. 1.5 million to 2 million immigration surplus for the year to July 2022.

Basically, immigration helps the US be back to pre-Covid population dynamics.

Just with the difference that 20 years ago, about 50-70% of the annual increase came from more births than deaths - but now 90% of the population growth comes from immigration.
 
Manhattan & San Francisco lost about 7% of their population between July 2020 and July 2021 !

In a single year.


I heard many wealthy city dwellers went to the Rocky Mountains, the Appalachians or to the woods in upper NY, VT, NH, or Maine.
 
Williamson county in North Dakota (a red Republican state) also declined by 6% last year.

Maybe because the oil boom there ended ?
 
The story is threefold:

1. Births are down slightly due to the economic uncertainty surrounding COVID...although they were pretty anemic even before COVID hit.
2. Immigration is massively down, due to US embassies abroad being closed due to COVID.
3. Deaths are massively up, due to COVID.

#3 is likely a historical anomaly that will reverse. And maybe #2 is too, but I'm less sure. #1 is going to be a long-term problem, and the trend is quite alarming. At the very least, we need to get our birth rate back to what it was in the mid-2000s, and our immigration rate back to what it was in the mid-2010s.

I think it would be helpful if the government set a population growth target each year. To start it could be something reasonably healthy like 1.0%, but I'd actually prefer something higher than that, like 1.5%. Then it would subtract the net births, and just admit as many immigrants as are necessary to make up the difference.
 
Last edited:
Good news is bad news?
 

Cities Lost Population in 2021, Leading to the Slowest Year of Growth in U.S. History​

By Robert Gebeloff, Dana Goldstein and Winnie Hu
March 24, 2022
That was a very informative NY Times article, but in typical NYT fashion, the title of this piece is a bit misleading. The article tells us that according to the Census Bureau, from July 2020 to July 2021, the cities that had big losses in population were New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco, while the cities that gained people were Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Austin and Atlanta, with some cities like Boise and Myrtle Beach having "substantial growth".

The problem is, the Times completely ignored the elephant in the room, and my guess is that was by design. The article speculates about the reasons why certain people left one place for another, but overlooked one very important detail that seems to me, ties the whole story together.

The article never bothered to mention the states where those cities are located. The 4 cities with the big losses are from 3 very blue states - New York, California and Illinois... While the 7 cities that gained people came from 5 red states - Arizona, Texas, Georgia, Idaho and South Carolina. Now factor in the cost of living, the unemployment rates and the level of Covid19 restrictions of each of these states and... Well... I think we all know the reason certain cities lost people and certain cities gained them.

.
 

Cities Lost Population in 2021, Leading to the Slowest Year of Growth in U.S. History​

By Robert Gebeloff, Dana Goldstein and Winnie Hu
March 24, 2022

Although some of the fastest growing regions in the country continued to grow, the gains were nearly erased by stark losses in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

24census-web-4b-superJumbo.jpg


Substantial population loss in some of the nation’s largest and most vibrant cities was the primary reason 2021 was the slowest year of population growth in U.S. history, new Census data shows.

Although some of the fastest growing regions in the country continued to boom, the gains were nearly erased by stark losses last year in counties that encompass the New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco metropolitan areas.

The pandemic played a role, as the number of people dying rose substantially and many Americans left cities for smaller places. But experts say that skyrocketing housing costs were also to blame, and that some of the changes are a continuation of fundamental shifts in American demographics that began before the pandemic, such as the steadily falling birthrate and steep drop in immigration.

New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco lost a total of over 700,000 people from July 2020 to July 2021, according to the Census Bureau. Meanwhile, Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Austin and Atlanta gained more than a total of 300,000 residents. And there was also substantial growth in some rural areas and smaller cities like Boise, Idaho, and Myrtle Beach, S.C.

But the 10 fastest growing counties last year accounted for nearly 80 percent of the national total, a testament not so much to the rapid pace of change in these places, but to the lack of significant growth in the rest of the nation. The bureau had previously called 2021 the slowest population growth year on record, with the nation growing by just 0.1 percent.

Population loss, particularly of working-age adults and their children, can separate extended families and lead to funding cuts and labor shortages in schools, health care facilities and other services that are essential to the residents who remain.

The pattern is a notable contrast from a decade ago, when large cities were growing, bolstered by a decades-long boom in immigration and the rising popularity of urban living. At that time, most of the counties losing population were rural or experiencing economic decline.

In the years immediately preceding the pandemic, those factors began to shift. Immigration slowed, urban housing costs rose, and suburban and exurban growth began picking up steam, trends that continued through the pandemic.

The virus wrought other changes. Because Covid-19 caused so many deaths, only 828 counties had more births than deaths in 2021, the figures show, down from more than 1,900 a decade ago.

And the rise of remote work made it less of a requirement for many workers to live in expensive cities to take advantage of high-paying jobs.

The decline in fertility started a decade ago during the Great Recession, and reflects the ways in which women and men of the Millennial generation are prioritizing education and work, delaying marriage and parenthood, and struggling to gain their economic footing as they deal with student debt, slow wage growth and steep housing costs.


The worst seems to be over though, demographically-speaking:

The US only grew by 400.000 last year, but will grow by about 2 million this year until June, or by 0.6% - as births pick up again and deaths a bit lower - and immigration significantly increased.
Some of that is because so many died from Covid19
 
That was a very informative NY Times article, but in typical NYT fashion, the title of this piece is a bit misleading. The article tells us that according to the Census Bureau, from July 2020 to July 2021, the cities that had big losses in population were New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco, while the cities that gained people were Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Austin and Atlanta, with some cities like Boise and Myrtle Beach having "substantial growth".

The problem is, the Times completely ignored the elephant in the room, and my guess is that was by design. The article speculates about the reasons why certain people left one place for another, but overlooked one very important detail that seems to me, ties the whole story together.

The article never bothered to mention the states where those cities are located. The 4 cities with the big losses are from 3 very blue states - New York, California and Illinois... While the 7 cities that gained people came from 5 red states - Arizona, Texas, Georgia, Idaho and South Carolina. Now factor in the cost of living, the unemployment rates and the level of Covid19 restrictions of each of these states and... Well... I think we all know the reason certain cities lost people and certain cities gained them.

.
Arizona voted blue in 2020. So did Georgia. Texas will be blue in 10 years tops. Idaho and South Carolina are lost causes, luckily they have but 20 electoral votes between them. In this digital age it's not surprising people are leaving cities because many can work from anywhere.
 
Arizona voted blue in 2020. So did Georgia. Texas will be blue in 10 years tops. Idaho and South Carolina are lost causes, luckily they have but 20 electoral votes between them. In this digital age it's not surprising people are leaving cities because many can work from anywhere.
I don't know that South Carolina is a lost cause...there are blue areas...Charleston and Orangeburg are among them
 
Republicans always say Democrats from inner-cities are like locusts swarming to red states and transforming them into blue states.

That is not true, because (native) people are leaving cities here too and move to the countryside - because cost of living there is cheaper. Immigrants on the other hand are still moving to the cities, be it in the US or here.

In general, cities in the sunbelt are still growing fast, while rustbelt cities like Chicago, Detroit or Philly are declining. New York and San Francisco are more recent and this has a lot to do with the heavy Covid waves there and the exorbitant rent and property prices.

And it’s mostly educated, younger, Democratic people moving to the sunbelt. So, yeah, these people are transforming red states, but not like locusts - they are making red states smarter and more educated as a result of their moving.
 
Arizona voted blue in 2020. So did Georgia. Texas will be blue in 10 years tops. Idaho and South Carolina are lost causes, luckily they have but 20 electoral votes between them. In this digital age it's not surprising people are leaving cities because many can work from anywhere.
LOL... Look at the state legislators, senates and governors, not who they voted for for president.

Arizona and Georgia are Republican Dominated Red States...

az_ga_partycontrol.jpg
 
That was a very informative NY Times article, but in typical NYT fashion, the title of this piece is a bit misleading. The article tells us that according to the Census Bureau, from July 2020 to July 2021, the cities that had big losses in population were New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco, while the cities that gained people were Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Austin and Atlanta, with some cities like Boise and Myrtle Beach having "substantial growth".

The problem is, the Times completely ignored the elephant in the room, and my guess is that was by design. The article speculates about the reasons why certain people left one place for another, but overlooked one very important detail that seems to me, ties the whole story together.

The article never bothered to mention the states where those cities are located. The 4 cities with the big losses are from 3 very blue states - New York, California and Illinois... While the 7 cities that gained people came from 5 red states - Arizona, Texas, Georgia, Idaho and South Carolina. Now factor in the cost of living, the unemployment rates and the level of Covid19 restrictions of each of these states and... Well... I think we all know the reason certain cities lost people and certain cities gained them.

.


Do you consider Houston/Dallas/Austin to be conservative cities? LMAO. Did you also notice they didn't move to Amarillo/Midland/Abilene/Waco/etc?
 
Do you consider Houston/Dallas/Austin to be conservative cities? LMAO. Did you also notice they didn't move to Amarillo/Midland/Abilene/Waco/etc?
Taxes, the cost of living, Covid restrictions, etc, are the result of policies implemented by the state's.

People have been leaving New York, California and Illinois, for the greener pastures that red states like Texas, Arizona, and Florida offer. Is this news to you?
 
Taxes, the cost of living, Covid restrictions, etc, are the result of policies implemented by the state's.

People have been leaving New York, California and Illinois, for the greener pastures that red states like Texas, Arizona, and Florida offer. Is this news to you?


Since I live in the Dallas area, it's certainly not news to me... They get here to Texas and find out the dirty little secret: Between sales taxes, property taxes, toll roads, etc... It's not quite the panacea they thought... And now that there are people coming here, house prices have skyrocketed (thanks everyone for making some peoples investments pay off), especially in those same liberal Texas cities... You can still buy pretty cheap real estate in rural parts of the state...
 
Since I live in the Dallas area, it's certainly not news to me... They get here to Texas and find out the dirty little secret: Between sales taxes, property taxes, toll roads, etc... It's not quite the panacea they thought... And now that there are people coming here, house prices have skyrocketed (thanks everyone for making some peoples investments pay off), especially in those same liberal Texas cities... You can still buy pretty cheap real estate in rural parts of the state...
I realize the cities in Texas aren't as red as they were 20 years ago, and the cost of living is going up, but when you compare living in Texas to living in states like California and New York, it's paradise.

p.s. I've lived in midland on 2 different occasions.
 
Back
Top Bottom