Submitted by BLAZENIOSZ t3_yg8som in dataisbeautiful
Comments
YetAnotherZombie t1_iu7krf5 wrote
Either Virginia isn't actually for lovers or they are very good at birth control.
BLAZENIOSZ OP t1_iu7l3cw wrote
Virginia was the largest state during the 1700s with expansion and rapid industrialization everyone moved north and west.
[deleted] t1_iu9r1f6 wrote
[removed]
jaytea86 t1_iu8lbfu wrote
Total births per capita would be more interesting. Is this not just showing population per state?
Lie2gether t1_iu8ohmh wrote
You think Florida has a smaller population than Wisconsin?
jaytea86 t1_iu8ooas wrote
No but they sure are younger, haha.
Lie2gether t1_iu8p7ac wrote
Wisconsin average age 40. Florida average age 42.
threaddew t1_iu8u03o wrote
This may be skewed though as Florida has so many retirees, thy could still have more young people in their child bearing years than Wisconsin.
Lie2gether t1_iu8wi9c wrote
Instead of just guessing you can look all this up in one Google search. Percent of population aged 20-34 is 18.8% in Florida 19.7% in Wisconsin
threaddew t1_iu9guc5 wrote
So roughly 4.09 million in Florida vs 1.16 million in Wisconsin, based on current googled populations. I think this is a better comparison given that the OP’s chart is not births per capita but births total, though obviously current population is different than the OP’s post.
jaytea86 t1_iu8swwc wrote
Oh, so what's the reason then?
Historic_Owl t1_iu8sef7 wrote
How many people from 1850 are still around? This is more showing the area under a moving population curve over 172 year period. Some of the states came up late in population, some peaked early and declined, etc.
Senor_legbone t1_iu8xuc8 wrote
Obviously not as California is by far most populated followed by Texas and Florida which aren’t not too 3
back-that-sass-up t1_iub48zw wrote
Two main reasons: 1) this is over 172 years, meaning changes over time are considerable, and 2) this is tracking births, specifically excluding people who immigrate and those who move between states from the tally. My first instinct would be to think that Florida is lower than expected for both of those reasons, but especially number 2.
DeplorableCaterpill t1_iub5053 wrote
Per capita would be terrible for this.
Oboener1 t1_iuberjo wrote
Population per state would be different to track. Births is different due to emigration patterns. If I lived in 10 different states throughout my lifetime, would I count towards the population of each state?
soon23 t1_iu7yr96 wrote
This would be much better with a more intuitive color scale
Antifogmatic_Head t1_iu8xnad wrote
Yeah just shades of pink, red, purple and blue from light to dark.
Turbulent-Mango-2698 t1_iu7lnnd wrote
Great post! MO seems incredibly large and SC and NV so small.
mikeman7918 t1_iu7hu8f wrote
r/peopleliveincities moment
Vilko3259 t1_iu7jm43 wrote
not quite, which makes things interesting. Florida's pretty low while Iowa's much higher than I expected. It's interesting to speculate about which states people go to and which they move from. I only hear stories of people going from rural states/areas to the coasts/cities but not the reverse and I think that plays out a little on this map.
mikeman7918 t1_iu7k61n wrote
I’d be interested in seeing these numbers per capita or compared to the total population change, because without that you have to do a lot of math and research other numbers to conclude anything interesting which kind of defeats the purpose of a polished data visualization.
Vilko3259 t1_iu7n2kp wrote
per capita is usually the way to go but in this case it might be strange as the populations have changed a ton over the years.
Also, you can pretty clearly draw conclusions from the graph already, like judging which proportion of US residents since 1850 were born where. Per capita numbers would just obfuscate
Maguncia t1_iuam78c wrote
Well, I think that's exactly what the map is trying to show, that "ton of change" - how some states have historically been much larger. Per capita makes that a bit clearer.
Mandoman1963 t1_iu7ibom wrote
Some of those states didn't exist in 1850.
BLAZENIOSZ OP t1_iu7if5e wrote
Territories. And peoples birth locations are recorded in their certificates so it's not hard to track it down.
Interesting-Month-56 t1_iu7ja4y wrote
This is just wrong, we all know that 20% of teh IS population was born in New Jersey. They just won’t admit it.
[deleted] t1_iu8bsoq wrote
[removed]
-Ernie t1_iu7sbcf wrote
40 million from US Virgin Islands and the other island territories?
BLAZENIOSZ OP t1_iu7scf5 wrote
Nah those are just no data.
TotallynottheCCP t1_iu8bkxn wrote
Um...so how does PA have more than CA or TX again?
And how is WI higher than FL?
AnyOldNameNotTaken t1_iu8ljo5 wrote
We be fuckin
Oddity_Odyssey t1_iu8mu2r wrote
I would assume it's because Pennsylvania is a lot older than Texas and California. Also everyone moved to Florida in the last 50 years or so. Not enough time to catch up.
[deleted] t1_iu8nqqc wrote
[deleted]
TotallynottheCCP t1_iu90u0e wrote
Wasn't California and Texas also states in 1850? I'm too lazy to Google it I just figured they were.
BroSnow t1_iu8pniw wrote
California and Florida’s population didn’t explode until after the 1950s, whereas Pennsylvania was one of the most populous states at the start of the country and continued to be so through industrialization until the rust started to form in the 1970s. That’s almost 200 years of growth compared to CA and FLs recent 50.
FoxFourTwo t1_iu8qbpx wrote
Catholics and Amish, my man.
DarkAgeOutlaw t1_iudyrcc wrote
Pennsylvania’s population in 1850 was over 2 million. California was like 90 thousand. California wouldn’t reach 2 million people until 1900, with the majority of those moving in from the east, not born there. By that point Pennsylvania’s population was over 6 million. They just had a huge head start
FoxFourTwo t1_iu8q7ch wrote
Even in the random unlikeliness of being born, I still got placed in a dark purple state. Odds are never in your favor :p
J-D_M t1_iu93ixf wrote
Per capita is MUCH more insightful data. (Population is the number one driver here.)
-TheRightTree- t1_iu8hkbq wrote
Why does it go from yellow to red to blue?
JonahRobo t1_iu8utth wrote
From Rhode Island. Can confirm the small rate. We literally all come from the same hospital. Me and my kin are all proud “Women and infants” hospital babies.
BdotEscro t1_iuazpjb wrote
TRULYTRUE TRUE, I agree with you completely absolutely and I agree with your perspective
BLAZENIOSZ OP t1_iu7hkf7 wrote
Source: America's great migration project. https://depts.washington.edu/moving1/migrationhistory-states.shtml
Tool: Mapchart.net
lopedopenope t1_iu8scfj wrote
Why is Missouri’s so high
sbamkmfdmdfmk t1_iu8v5d4 wrote
Really not beautiful at all. what would've been more beautiful is showing something insightful about population beyond the simple volume of people. For example what percentage of current residents + deceased residents since 1850 were born in that state (i.e. which states were more likely to remain one's home state vs which states were destinations for migration). Also, an actual color gradient would be nice since these random colors mean nothing.
[deleted] t1_iubk2eq wrote
[removed]
denisrennes t1_iu86mnz wrote
You forgot "in the United States" in the title.
FoxFourTwo t1_iu8qg19 wrote
Thr thumbnail kinda screams what country it is lol
denisrennes t1_iua2axe wrote
Sorry but there is no thumbnail in my list view.
Moreover most of the posts with data about a country obviously put this country into the title.
Equal_Ad_9977 t1_iu8why0 wrote
Incredible! States with higher populations had more children?
PolarDorsai t1_iu8wfbm wrote
Data is incomplete. Does not account for migration.
ZweitenMal t1_iu9kq6e wrote
This isn’t good. Older states, and those with higher populations, have seem more births. Not a meaningful statistic.
Do per-capita births for the duration of statehood, or percentage of current residents who were born in the state. Those tell us something.
Maguncia t1_iuamhjd wrote
Per capita for duration is pointless. It will just show the same trend (older states higher, since a larger percentage of birth occurred when birth rates were high).
ruthanne2121 t1_iu7k6al wrote
This chart is difficult to read because it transitions from too a complimentary color too quickly