Mapping the Quality of Life in the US | NumbersUSA - For Lower Immigration Levels (http://www.numbersusa.com/content/maps?subject=1&type=2&topic=4)

Hard to believe that the other areas is getting more population increase than OKC.

eh, i dont know if id refer to this as exactly a "quality of life" map.

as the saying goes: "one man's trash is another man's treasure".

the areas have basically remained traditionally the same for the last couple of decades, with coastal and/or sunbelted areas generally higher in population and northern inland areas are generally more rural.

The most major change in recent years is the increased habitation of the Rocky Mountain states, these are key states that have seen explosive growth in the last 20 or so years.

But, where one person may love the warmth, urban influx, and vibe of a sunbelt city, another person may enjoy the tranquility and solitude of say, the Dakotas.

btw, according to the map, looks like West Virginia is well on its way to becoming quite possibly America's least populous state. Trading places with a title which Wyoming has held long in being number 50 in population rank.

That's quite a map, a good one to bookmark.

Hard to believe that the other areas is getting more population increase than OKC.

Why on earth would you think that? We don't see anywhere even close to the explosive population growth the coasts or sunbelt does as the other poster pointed out. Most places see more population growth in a year than we do in a decade.

Interesting to see the huge growth into areas where there is no water...

On Edit:

I think you'd also have to take into account the source of the information.

Interesting to see the huge growth into areas where there is no water...

On Edit:

I think you'd also have to take into account the source of the information.
I don't understand what you mean ... did you notice statistical errors or slanting? I didn't check beyond Oklahoma's 2008 estimated population which was correctly shown.

Why on earth would you think that? We don't see anywhere even close to the explosive population growth other the coasts or sunbelt does as the other poster pointed out. Most places see more population growth in a year than we do in a decade.

i think, could be wrong, what thunder was saying, is he didnt understand why the counties surrounding ok are growing faster than the core? maybe?

clicking on the link i provided and it links to nowhere now, huh.

I don't understand what you mean ... did you notice statistical errors or slanting? I didn't check beyond Oklahoma's 2008 estimated population which was correctly shown.

No, on the surface I don't see any bias - I do think it is important to always keep in mind the source of the information is all. And I do love the maps - any kind of maps.

Hard to believe that the other areas is getting more population increase than OKC.

You have to remember the map is coded for percentage growth. It's very easy for a county to show "explosive growth" if no one lived there in 1980.

For example, Canadian county is listed as 70-100% growth over the time period, placing it in the "rapid growth" category. The Census Bureau lists it at 106,079 currently. Oklahoma County falls in the 10-30%, or "medium growth" category, with a current listed population of 706,617.

Now let's say Canadian County grew at the max rate of its category, 100%. That means it grew by about 53,000 people during that time. Let's say Oklahoma Country grew at the lowest end of its spectrum at 10%. The would mean it grew by about 60,000 to get to it's current pop of 706,617. So while it grew at 1/10 the rate as a percentage, it still gained thousands of more people than Canadian County did.

It's kind of a specious way to look at it, really. I mean, you could look at this and say Oklahoma County grew at the same rate as New York/Long Island... well, so what...? NYC/LI still grew by more people than twice the people currently living in Oklahoma City and Tulsa combined.

You have to remember the map is coded for percentage growth. It's very easy for a county to show "explosive growth" if no one lived there in 1980.

For example, Canadian county is listed as 70-100% growth over the time period, placing it in the "rapid growth" category. The Census Bureau lists it at 106,079 currently. Oklahoma County falls in the 10-30%, or "medium growth" category, with a current listed population of 706,617.

Now let's say Canadian County grew at the max rate of its category, 100%. That means it grew by about 53,000 people during that time. Let's say Oklahoma Country grew at the lowest end of its spectrum at 10%. The would mean it grew by about 60,000 to get to it's current pop of 706,617. So while it grew at 1/10 the rate as a percentage, it still gained thousands of more people than Canadian County did.

Wow, I just had flashbacks to reading story problems in algebra books.

lol

i think, could be wrong, what thunder was saying, is he didnt understand why the counties surrounding ok are growing faster than the core? maybe?

clicking on the link i provided and it links to nowhere now, huh.

Yeah, I'm only talking about this state, nowhere else. I was wondering why other counties seen more rapid growth than OKC.


BDP, makes sense.

I just had flashbacks to reading story problems in algebra books.

If a train left Canadian county carrying 53,000 people...

That map was completly useless. First off, you need to be carefull when looking at % change mapped as both a color and area. For instance, all those high growth pink areas out in California, Arizona, and Nevada spread across 100,000+ sq. miles represent less actual people than the tine red counties around metro Atlanta.

The time range in this map is also misleading - nearly 20 years of cummulative data on one map is a bit much. Four maps showing 5 year increments would have been better. I would love to see what some of these pink counties look like over the last 3 years.

nearly 20 years of cummulative data

Actually, nearly 30 years... you're older than you thought.

It is kind of silly.

Yeah, I'm only talking about this state, nowhere else. I was wondering why other counties seen more rapid growth than OKC.


BDP, makes sense.

Remember OKC is in more than just Oklahoma County.

Look at the Metro area option if you want to see overall growth/decline of city areas.

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/maps?subject=1&type=2&topic=4