Fascinating graphic showing the distribution of population in the US:



Click to enlarge

Source: Visualizing Economics

Category: Data Analysis, Digital Media

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

7 Responses to “Population Distribution of USA”

  1. Maseratij says:

    First the movie “Lincoln” (http://goo.gl/wyTUh) and now Visual Economics …. Connecticut just can’t get any respect. So VE really that 20 mil for the NY Metro area does not include anyone in CT (http://goo.gl/MdwCV) ?

    So mashup this article with an earlier post on this blog about the Allocation of Federal Stimulus Spending and CT and the rest of the Northeast are getting the short end of the stick.

  2. zulumojo says:

    Awesome visual, it would be even better if you could compare it with the 2010 census, the data for this one comes from the population in 1990.

  3. dsawy says:

    1. Nevada is no longer the fastest growing state. It is difficult for people to understand from outside how badly their economy crashed in ’07/’08. Most of Nevada’s growth is fueled by the stupidity of California next door. If California got their act together, much of Nevada’s growth could stop overnight.

    2. Wyoming has the lowest overall population and lowest overall density, but unlike other areas of the intermountain west, Wyoming’s population is relatively evenly distributed and feels “more populated” than many other areas. There are huge areas of central Nevada, Utah, southwestern Idaho and eastern Oregon that have less than one person per square mile, and those are only averages. I’ve lived in areas in the west where you could drive for 80 miles in any direction and run into at most a dozen people… and then only if you went out of your way to find them. Wyoming isn’t quite that unpopulated…

    3. The vast empty areas of the west are mostly rangelands, not croplands. West of the 100th parallel, precipitation drops off rapidly, and the landscape changes quickly from grasslands to rangelands with more forbs and shrubs, with some grass understory. Due to the climate in these high elevation, low-precip areas, they’re poorly suited to most row-crop, fruit and vegetable agriculture. They’re best suited for hay/forage production and grazing.

  4. jaredran says:

    It would be extremely cool to see how the top 3 metro areas of the US compare to large international cities such as Delhi, Laos, Rio, and Mexico City.

  5. if anyone can point to a) a visualization with more recently updated city populations; or b) data showing the relative size of urban populations have changed dramatically — please do

  6. WillBtK says:

    Very interesting visualisation. From where did it come? The link takes me to the image file stored on Amazon’s servers, but I’m interested to find out the website of the individual or team who actually created this (if I search for “Visual Economics” on Google, I get a plethora of listings, none of which seem to be the right one).


    BR: Updated source: Visualizing Economics

  7. bear_in_mind says:

    Checked the Urban Institute and Brookings; didn’t see the type of info-graphics you’re seeking, but I suspect someone out there either has published something, or in the process of doing so. Will keep an eye out.

    One obvious tidbit which no one else commented is the huge concentration of population in coastal regions. Not news to anyone, of course, but in light of the growing body of evidence that Global Warming is, dare I say… “REAL”, the implications for 25-50-75 year time horizons bear consideration.

    I know, that timeframe is of zero utility to families struggling to make ends meet, but could have a real disruptive effect globally at some not-so-distant point.