Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ruthanne2121 t1_iu7k6al wrote

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

39

YetAnotherZombie t1_iu7krf5 wrote

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

29

BLAZENIOSZ OP t1_iu7l3cw wrote

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

10

jaytea86 t1_iu8lbfu wrote

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

29

Lie2gether t1_iu8ohmh wrote

You think Florida has a smaller population than Wisconsin?

9

jaytea86 t1_iu8ooas wrote

No but they sure are younger, haha.

4

Lie2gether t1_iu8p7ac wrote

Wisconsin average age 40. Florida average age 42.

4

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.

1

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

1

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.

0

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.

9

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

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.

2

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?

1

soon23 t1_iu7yr96 wrote

This would be much better with a more intuitive color scale

20

Turbulent-Mango-2698 t1_iu7lnnd wrote

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

14

mikeman7918 t1_iu7hu8f wrote

r/peopleliveincities moment

7

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.

13

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.

2

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

7

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.

1

Mandoman1963 t1_iu7ibom wrote

Some of those states didn't exist in 1850.

6

BLAZENIOSZ OP t1_iu7if5e wrote

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

12

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.

5

-Ernie t1_iu7sbcf wrote

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

5

TotallynottheCCP t1_iu8bkxn wrote

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

And how is WI higher than FL?

4

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.

8

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.

1

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.

6

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

2

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

3

J-D_M t1_iu93ixf wrote

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

3

-TheRightTree- t1_iu8hkbq wrote

Why does it go from yellow to red to blue?

2

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.

2

BdotEscro t1_iuazpjb wrote

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

2

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.

1

denisrennes t1_iu86mnz wrote

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

0

FoxFourTwo t1_iu8qg19 wrote

Thr thumbnail kinda screams what country it is lol

1

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.

0

Equal_Ad_9977 t1_iu8why0 wrote

Incredible! States with higher populations had more children?

0

PolarDorsai t1_iu8wfbm wrote

Data is incomplete. Does not account for migration.

−1

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.

−1

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).

2