Source: America's great migration project. https://depts.washington.edu/moving1/migrationhistory-states.shtml

Tool: Mapchart.net

r/peopleliveincities moment

Some of those states didn't exist in 1850.

Territories. And peoples birth locations are recorded in their certificates so it's not hard to track it down.

This is just wrong, we all know that 20% of teh IS population was born in New Jersey. They just won’t admit it.

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.

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.

This chart is difficult to read because it transitions from too a complimentary color too quickly

Either Virginia isn't actually for lovers or they are very good at birth control.

Virginia was the largest state during the 1700s with expansion and rapid industrialization everyone moved north and west.

Great post! MO seems incredibly large and SC and NV so small.

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

40 million from US Virgin Islands and the other island territories?

Nah those are just no data.

This would be much better with a more intuitive color scale

You forgot "in the United States" in the title.

Um...so how does PA have more than CA or TX again?

And how is WI higher than FL?

[removed]

Why does it go from yellow to red to blue?

Total births per capita would be more interesting. Is this not just showing population per state?

We be fuckin

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]

You think Florida has a smaller population than Wisconsin?

No but they sure are younger, haha.

Wisconsin average age 40. Florida average age 42.

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.

Even in the random unlikeliness of being born, I still got placed in a dark purple state. Odds are never in your favor :p

Catholics and Amish, my man.

Thr thumbnail kinda screams what country it is lol

Why is Missouri’s so high

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.

Oh, so what's the reason then?

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.

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.

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.

Data is incomplete. Does not account for migration.

Incredible! States with higher populations had more children?

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

Yeah just shades of pink, red, purple and blue from light to dark.

Obviously not as California is by far most populated followed by Texas and Florida which aren’t not too 3

Wasn't California and Texas also states in 1850? I'm too lazy to Google it I just figured they were.

Per capita is MUCH more insightful data. (Population is the number one driver here.)

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.

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.

[removed]

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.

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.

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).

TRULYTRUE TRUE, I agree with you completely absolutely and I agree with your perspective

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.

Per capita would be terrible for this.

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?

[removed]

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