Check out the map, it’s particularly interesting. I love maps like that.
The map is very interesting. I wonder what they are feeding them in Utah - I guess the ability to have multiple wives is helping that particular demographic.
Moving thread from IMHO to MPSIMS.
Every one of those places that has more deaths than births, I can’t help but think, “well duh, why would any one of child-bearing age want to live there?”
Before long, there really won’t be any “North” Dakota.
“Will the last person out of Minot please shut off the lights?”
West Virginia is really hurting.
Saw the headline and thought that certainly the hometown must get a mention. Sure 'nuff!
anyone buffalonians see the typo?
It’s Amigone, not Amgione. Pronounced am-i-go-nee, written “Am I gone”
LDS have always had large families. My LDS officemate was from a pretty large one. The LDS also have a pretty big presence in the Intermountain West, which probably accounts for the big blip in northern Arizona, as well as Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. But I’ll bet the blips along the Rio Grande are due to Catholic folk. (I’m from a Catholic family myself, although my generation consisted of small families, but I had lots of cousins because the previous generation didn’t.)
Just at a glance, the ratios are also very high in Alaska, California south of the Bay Area, Columbus, OH, the Twin Cities, Atlanta, Raleigh-Durham, the DC metro area, suburban Chicago, and on and on. Texas’s high rates are restricted not just to the Rio Grande area, but also all the big cities - which look smaller on the map but have far more population. Unless the Mormons really get around (ha!) I doubt all this can be attributed to Mormonism and Catholicism.
At least to my eyes, the connection is not cultural so much as it’s economic. Buffalo is a city that does have its charms, but economically it’s a complete shithole, and it’s been declining in population for a hundred years. Scranton-Wilkes Barre is a horrible city from what I have seen, so on and so forth. There’s a consistency to “places where the economy is truly moribund” - primarily the rust belt and the plains - and reverse growth rates.
I chalk it up to the Osmonds.
Does the map take into account the effect of immigration?
I would assume that the big growth areas in the Southwest have a lot to do with the Mexican population, possibly with some Evangelicals thrown in.
I’m not attributing it all to Mormons and Catholics, but the comment was made (tongue in cheek, I’m sure) about polygamy being responsible for the Utah results. From my experience in Utah, monogamous families can handle the increase without recourse to multiple wives. The IRS reportedly had to modify their fraud-tracking software for Utah because people routinely do mark down large numbers of dependents. But the Mormons settled a broad swath along the mountains, so you don’t limit it to just Utah. Catholics traditionally have large families, too, although not in my generation (or the next I’ll bet), so the grouping along the Rio Grande stood out.
I have no idea why Alaska or the other high-birthrate spots have that demographic.
Well Mexican Catholics still tend to have big families.
It’s like the fabled SD columns about where pigeons and squirrels go to die: they find somewhere quiet, protected, and away from everyone else.
Welcome to Fortuna and Elgin, ND: “Where geezers flock to die.”
It explains the Nørsk Høstfest though–the worlds largest gathering of geriatric Scandinavians.
Now I know what people do in Alaska when it’s too cold to go outside.
No, it’s Southern California that’s hurting. The last thing we need is more people.