WaPo: Mapping changes in the US youth population

[Miles]

Article.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As a percentage of the overall county population, though, the youth share in the midwest looks much better, especially vis-à-vis Appalachia:

[muon2]

The two plots together suggest that the Plains are losing population in all age groups are are not getting older.

The surprise for me is FL. Not only is the youth population rising, but the share of the youth population is rising, too. Orlando, Tampa Bay, the Panhandle (except Pensacola), and Metro Miami all saw an increase in the youth share.

[King]

People are finally moving out of Appalachia and the Rust Belt. Thank god.

[jimrtex]

The two plots together suggest that the Plains are losing population in all age groups are are not getting older.

The surprise for me is FL. Not only is the youth population rising, but the share of the youth population is rising, too. Orlando, Tampa Bay, the Panhandle (except Pensacola), and Metro Miami all saw an increase in the youth share.

In 1970, I imagine persons aged 25-34 would have been more likely called parents, rather than youth. These would be persons born during the Depression and WWII.

With lower birth rates due to the Depression and WWII, these would represent an atypically low share of the population pyramid.

1970 USA Population Pyramid

In rural areas this number would have been further depressed due to their parents being forced off their family farms.  The baby boom further reduced their share of the population.  Between 1950 and 1970, the male share of the population 10-14 in 1950, decreased from 3.7% to 2.9% in 1970 when they were 30-34.

It would have been excess baby boomers who would have left when they reached adulthood.

25-34 year old in 2010, were born between 1965 and 1975, post baby boom.   Since then the population pyramid has flattened considerably, with aging (and dying) baby boomers representing only a slight broadening at the shoulders, compared to the broad hips they had once represented.

The share of 30-34 year old in 2010 is 3.3%, only slightly less than the 3.6% they represented as 10-14 year old in 1990.   Further, they represent a considerably larger share of the overall population than those born 40 years earlier, despite being born post baby boom.

2010 USA Population Pyramid

A more stable population structure, along with stabilization of the overall population translates into a larger share of the population in rural areas (eg a county that might have dropped from 10,000 to 5,000 between 1910 and 1970, may have only dropped to 4,000 by 2010.

In Florida, you are seeing a decrease in the share of 25-34 in more modern retirement areas, such as The Villages and Fort Myers.  In areas that have been retirement havens for a longer time, you see an emergence of the population that moved to provide services, etc. and their progeny, and the retirement population stabilizing, as the older retirees dying off or moving back North to be with family, and some newer replacements.   Retirees typically seek a low cost area where they can live on SS and whatever savings.   They may be priced out of places like Miami.

[ilikeverin]

You could drive through a lot of those youth-gaining counties in the Upper Midwest in one route: https://goo.gl/maps/B0Jqb

People are finally moving out of Appalachia and the Rust Belt. Thank god.

That's a little simplistic, though; compare WV and eastern KY to western VA and western NC.  Western VA really stands out, actually.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Finally? The domestic migration rate is at historically low levels.

[memphis]

This is a highly misleading representation. As jimrtex pointed out, there were far fewer babies born during the Depression and WWII versus a "normal" time. So, of course the 25-34 set was low in 1970. You could just as easily have done a comparison from 1980 and shown subsequent a drop in youth percentage just about everywhere. Where we've really grown substantially overall are the high immigration states.

[jimrtex]

The two plots together suggest that the Plains are losing population in all age groups are are not getting older.

The surprise for me is FL. Not only is the youth population rising, but the share of the youth population is rising, too. Orlando, Tampa Bay, the Panhandle (except Pensacola), and Metro Miami all saw an increase in the youth share.

In 1950, that age group represented 15.9% of the population.

By 1970 it dropped to 12.6% as increasing longevity of those older, and baby boomers reduced the share of persons born in the latter part of the Depression and WWII.   The minimum was 11.9% in 1965.

By 1980 it had increased to 16.5% as Baby Boomers entered that age group, hitting a peak of 17.5% in 1985.

By 1990 it had dropped slightly to 17.2% as the last stages of the Baby Boom were in the age range.

By 2000 it dropped to 14.2% and by 2010 to 13.5%.

Comparing 2010 (13.5%) to 1970 (12.6%), there was a 7% increase in relative share, which placed a green bias on the map.

If the Washington Post repeats their study in 2024, comparing 1980 to 2020, there will be around a 19% negative bias, and the country will be shown in vast expanses of pink.

[muon2]

The two plots together suggest that the Plains are losing population in all age groups are are not getting older.

The surprise for me is FL. Not only is the youth population rising, but the share of the youth population is rising, too. Orlando, Tampa Bay, the Panhandle (except Pensacola), and Metro Miami all saw an increase in the youth share.

In 1950, that age group represented 15.9% of the population.

By 1970 it dropped to 12.6% as increasing longevity of those older, and baby boomers reduced the share of persons born in the latter part of the Depression and WWII.   The minimum was 11.9% in 1965.

By 1980 it had increased to 16.5% as Baby Boomers entered that age group, hitting a peak of 17.5% in 1985.

By 1990 it had dropped slightly to 17.2% as the last stages of the Baby Boom were in the age range.

By 2000 it dropped to 14.2% and by 2010 to 13.5%.

Comparing 2010 (13.5%) to 1970 (12.6%), there was a 7% increase in relative share, which placed a green bias on the map.

If the Washington Post repeats their study in 2024, comparing 1980 to 2020, there will be around a 19% negative bias, and the country will be shown in vast expanses of pink.

So WaPo picked a cohort primarily from the Silent Generation for 1970. That also explains the intense green on the map in much of the plains, since the the youth of that generation were known to leave the farms for college and stay in the cities afterwards. The comparison is to a Gen X cohort, so at least they are comparing two groups near the minimum of the population distribution.

[Mr. Illini]

People are finally moving out of Appalachia and the Rust Belt. Thank god.

Ah yes, how wonderful that people are moving to the Sunbelt, with endless suburban sprawl and already strained and rapidly dwindling water supplies. Yeah, great.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

You could drive through a lot of those youth-gaining counties in the Upper Midwest in one route: https://goo.gl/maps/B0Jqb

People are finally moving out of Appalachia and the Rust Belt. Thank god.

That's a little simplistic, though; compare WV and eastern KY to western VA and western NC.  Western VA really stands out, actually.

Yeah, the "right-to-work" areas are losing people.