CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on June 13, 2025, 11:09:01 AM
-
I made this chart where I kept the Population of NY as a constant. Ie, This is the populations of States as a percentage of NY's population over time:
(https://i.imgur.com/VFBiPpG.png)
I've included (I don't think I missed any) every state that was in the top-15 in population in any census from 1880-2020.
-
I think the biggest factor here is Air Conditioning. If you look closely, Texas, Florida, and Arizona specifically all got a boost in roughly 1940 and then an even bigger boost in roughly 1970.
My thinking is that A/C became common in large institutional buildings in roughly the 1940's and it became relatively common in residential homes in roughly the 1970's. I googled that to check my theory and it roughly confirms it:
- "Air conditioning in office buildings became common gradually throughout the 20th century, starting in the 1930s and accelerating in the 1950s and 1960s."
- "Air conditioning in homes became common during the 1950s and 1960s"
-
California:
In the late 1800s and early 1900s the "big four" states were NY, PA, IL, and OH. Back then, California's population was a fraction of even the least populous of those and it didn't really even start gaining until after the turn of the century.
In 1900 California's population was a shade under 1.5M which was:
- roughly 1/3 of Ohio's population of 4.2M
- less than 1/3 of Illinois' population of 4.8M
- less than 1/4 of Pennsylvania's population of 6.3M
- roughly 1/5 of New York's population of 7.3M
From then through 1940 California was gaining on the "big four" but only gradually compared to what was to come. In 1940 on the eve of US involvement in WWII California's population was still (barely) less than Ohio's, substantially less than Illinois and Pennsylvania and barely over 1/2 of New York's population.
Starting in 1940 California's population just exploded. They passed OH, IL, and PA in the 1950 census and moved ahead of NY into #1 twenty years later. The VERY rapid growth continued through 1990 then slowed and in the most recent decade (2010-2020) California's growth slowed to barely faster than NY, PA, IL, OH, etc.
A lot of this, I think, is a result of the war and it's aftermath. California's economy for many years was tightly tied to the defense industry both through the basing of large numbers of troops there and a lot of defense contractors having operations there.
Air Conditioning was less of a factor for California than TX/FL/AZ because coastal California's temperatures are moderated by the relatively cool Pacific Ocean and, at least until relatively recently, the vast majority of California's population lived in coastal areas.
-
Texas:
If you look at the line for Texas, their population grew only marginally faster than NY up through 1940. Then from 1940-1970 it still grew only a little faster than NY.
Comparing Texas to Ohio, Texas' from 1940 to 1970 Texas' population grew from slightly less than Ohio's to slightly more than Ohio's.
Texas' really fast growth started in the 1970's. My theory is that this is mostly due to two factors:
- Widespread air conditioning. Without this I don't think a whole lot of people would willingly choose to live in Austin, and
- The 1970's oil boom. OPEC's embargo pushed up the price of Oil which sucked for everyone who needed oil but it was GREAT for the people who owned oil wells and Texas has led all states in Oil production since the 1920's. Thus, when the per-barrel price of oil shot up in the 1970s a whole lot of Texas ranchers saw their wealthy skyrocket.
-
Florida:
I think Florida is probably more A/C dependent than any of the states listed previously. Prior to A/C I think that Florida was fine to visit in the winter but not somewhere a lot of people wanted to stay.
Their population grew marginally faster than most states up through 1970ish then just exploded. In the 1970 census their population of 6.8M was:
- Less than NJ and MI
- Nearly 4M less than OH (10.7M)
- Nearly 4.5M less than IL (11.1M)
- Barely over 1/2 of PA (11.8M)
- Barely over 1/3 of NY (18.2M)
In the half-century since their population grew to #3 behind only CA and TX.
Looking back it amazes me that the first time I visited FL (1979) I travelled from a more populous state (OH) to a less populous state (FL).
-
Great data, enjoy the analysis.
I'll add that another reason for growth in Texas since the 70s and accelerating in the 90s, was the increase in the state's "business friendly" political environment. This was a direct result of the dissolution of the "Solid South" and the electorate putting more Republicans into high government office, over time.
-
@OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) this might help give some context to the discussion we had about the Rose Bowl and the Coliseum. One can in hindsight look back and see them as failures because they weren't able to fill them the way you think they should...
But in the context of the Roaring 20's, in a state that was rapidly growing in population, and that looked like everything was going to be "up and to the right" forever... I understand why the people behind building those stadiums perhaps were dreaming big.
Perhaps it didn't pan out, but I understand why they thought it would.
-
Pennsylvania:
This one really interests me because I can't come up with an obvious explanation. If anyone has one or a theory, I'd be interested to hear it.
From 1880-1920 Pennsylvania was not only the second most populous state but they were also a LOT closer to #1 NY than they were to #3 (IL) and #4 (OH). Since then their population relative to the others has drifted downward considerably.
I understand or at least I think I understand why CA, TX, and FL have grown faster than PA but I'm at a loss to explain why NY, IL, and OH have grown faster. In 1920 PA was almost as populous as NY and substantially ahead of IL and OH. A century later their population is roughly 2/3 of NY's, only barely over IL, and not all that far above OH. Why?
-
Pennsylvania:
This one really interests me because I can't come up with an obvious explanation. If anyone has one or a theory, I'd be interested to hear it.
From 1880-1920 Pennsylvania was not only the second most populous state but they were also a LOT closer to #1 NY than they were to #3 (IL) and #4 (OH). Since then their population relative to the others has drifted downward considerably.
I understand or at least I think I understand why CA, TX, and FL have grown faster than PA but I'm at a loss to explain why NY, IL, and OH have grown faster. In 1920 PA was almost as populous as NY and substantially ahead of IL and OH. A century later their population is roughly 2/3 of NY's, only barely over IL, and not all that far above OH. Why?
I can't necessarily explain OH. But NY and IL make sense...
If you think of the gradual urbanization of the US during that time, there was growth of certain "dominant" cities. New York and Chicago are two of those. DC is obviously one, Atlanta is another, I'd say Dallas/Houston both qualify, LA/SF/SD, Seattle, Boston and Denver might round out the list. Dominant cities are attractors of population at the regional (and sometimes even national) level, not just state level.
I don't see Pittsburgh or Philly as "dominant" cities. So they might attract rural Pennsylvanians who were migrating to the city, but rural Pennsylvanians might also get pulled away by NY or DC... Or even Chicago. If they stayed in the area at all--they might also move South or West.
But the dominant cities draw from beyond their own state's rural population. Think of Atlanta... It's not just the hub for Georgians that were moving to "the big city", but they'll pull from AL/MS/SC/TN/etc. Chicago will pull from the entire Midwest, not just IL. Denver pulls from the entire Mountain West, not just CO. Seattle from the entire Northwest, not just WA. And the California cities, quite frankly, pull nationally, just as NY or DC would.
I look at it like the way I look at Purdue & Indiana football. Indiana football kids grow up dreaming of playing for ND... Or UM or OSU... OH kids dream of playing for OSU. MI kids dream of playing for UM. So Purdue & Indiana have trouble even keeping their own kids in state, and much MORE trouble pulling from neighboring states, because nobody in Michigan or Ohio State is really all that excited about a Purdue or IU offer.
I think Pennsylvania might be like that. Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are pretty solid cities. They're going to end up with a lot of the "in state recruits" so to speak. But they're going to have a hard time keeping NY or DC or Chicago (or LA) from poaching "recruits", and a VERY hard job pulling them from states outside PA.
-
That is an interesting explanation and it all makes sense and seems plausible except for the fact that, as you pointed out, Pennsylvania's population also drifted downward relative to Ohio and I'll add Michigan. Michigan's and Ohio's big cities are less dominant or at least no more dominant than Philly.
I was thinking that maybe Philly and Pittsburgh had lost more relative to cities like Cleveland and Detroit but I looked it up and it is actually the opposite. Philly, Detroit, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh all hit their peak census population in 1950. Philly was a little over 2M, Detroit was a little under 2M, Cleveland was about half their population at a little under 1M, and Pittsburgh had just under 700k. Since then Detroit and Cleveland have each lost about 2/3 of their populations but Pittsburgh has lost only around half and Philly has only lost about 1/4 of theirs so today (2020 census):
- 1.6M, Philly
- 656k, Detroit
- 373k, Cleveland
- 303k, Pittsburgh
I think you are right for PA's population relative to NY and IL but that still leaves us wondering why PA's population has drifted downward relative to OH and MI.
-
We moved to ATL in 1964. I recall most of the houses we looked at had central AC, and it was a big factor even though the house we bought (new) did not. We had a large window unit in the family room and a whole house fan. My parents installed central air in 1970. I think by 1970 every new middle class house had central air.
There is a residential area just north of me that was started in 1904. Nearly every house there has a large front porch, which was their version of AC along with fans. It's now a rather expensive area so they all have AC today. Some of the houses have been demo'd and replaced with new, most were just restored/updated. They look really nice.
Living here without central air, even today in June, would be ... unpleasant. I was just out running and I'm soaked. There are other factors for population growth, in the 1950s there were a lot of cloth mills around, carpet production, etc., because labor was cheap, so was land. The textile industry then moved to Asia leaving some towns here bereft.
But I think without AC, the South would have half its current population.
-
Yeah, I'm sure there's more analysis that we're missing.
The other thing I always come back to is jobs. There was CD's infographic post about where "50% of the country's GDP" occurs, and [unsurprisingly] it's the big cities. People talk about the insanely high cost of living out here in CA... But people live here because there are also high-paying jobs, in industries that grow.
I can't speak with any authority about the various industries that are growing or declining in that area of the country. But is it possible that some of the ones declining--especially in the "rust belt"--are hitting PA harder? From what I've read, isn't Ohio somewhat of a hotbed of medical companies--signifying perhaps they better made the transition from heavier manufacturing to the knowledge economy?
I don't really know... Just spitballing here. But perhaps "It's the economy, stupid" could more fully explain this.
-
I broadly viewed Pennsylvania to be heavily into heavy industry back in the day, Ohio less so save Cleveland/Akron/etc.
I dimly recall that ca. 1880 Cincinnati was the fourth largest city in the country. I wouldn't like to survive their summers with AC either.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/BXR6Vls.png)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/BXR6Vls.png)
While I do find this interesting, it is slightly off point WRT A/C.
Indoor heating has obviously been around for a very long time. What changed is the availability of A/C so what would be more relevant to population trends would be a map of basically "Number of days of comfortable OR COOLER weather". Ie, instead of daily high of 50-85, just daily high of <85. That would obviously increase the # of days for everything in the North while having little or no impact in the South*.
*There are exceptions, of course. Parts of Arizona get REALLY cold as do parts of Texas, etc.
-
It's 94 today and I'm comfortable.
-
I was just at the pool, it's 84°F here with a slight breeze, partly cloudy, it felt comfortable after I got out of the pool and had dried off.
Humidity is listed at 58%. I could manage without AC today. But it's June.
Earlier when I was running I was definitely hot though
-
While I do find this interesting, it is slightly off point WRT A/C.
Indoor heating has obviously been around for a very long time. What changed is the availability of A/C so what would be more relevant to population trends would be a map of basically "Number of days of comfortable OR COOLER weather". Ie, instead of daily high of 50-85, just daily high of <85. That would obviously increase the # of days for everything in the North while having little or no impact in the South*.
*There are exceptions, of course. Parts of Arizona get REALLY cold as do parts of Texas, etc.
Well, I disagree to an extent. Because while heating can make you nice and comfortable indoors, you have to leave the house eventually. And for a couple of months per year in the Midwest, that's just... Painful.
I've said before that one of my most happy days was the day--about 8 months into living in CA, when I realized the plastic ice scraper on the floor in my back seat could just be... thrown away. I wasn't going to be needing it. I wouldn't have to shovel or snowblow. I wouldn't have any days where I had to bundle up. I mean... It still got chilly in San Jose in the winter. Overnight. But it didn't get frigid, and once the sun came up it was typically still nice.
So it's a cuts both ways. The introduction of AC made it feasible for people to move to the South because they could finally exist comfortably indoors. But even though houses in the North were heated during the winters... People still moved south to flee those same winters.
-
There is a pretty neat town in the NC mountains called Highlands, I think it's around 4400 feet, and it's where a lot of wealthy southerners would venture in summer.
It's a pretty ritzy town today, no touristy spots, no chain restaurants or motels. Each thousand feet of altitude cuts 4.5°F in temperature, on average.
So, if it's 90°F in Atlanta, add 3400 feet and it's 74° or so.
-
Well, I disagree to an extent. Because while heating can make you nice and comfortable indoors, you have to leave the house eventually. And for a couple of months per year in the Midwest, that's just... Painful.
But it is the same with A/C.
I guess it also depends on HOW hot we are talking. I had some relatives that lived in Tucson and we visited them in the early 80s. They had an air-conditioned garage. We thought that was a silly extravagance until we visited them in the summer. Good god. It routinely gets above 110 there. I know it is a personal preference. You might rather deal with 110-120 outdoor temperatures and be able to throw your scraper away. I'll keep my scraper.
If we are talking about a situation where heat is commonly available and A/C is either not invented yet or not accessible to the masses there is a BIG difference between heat and cool. You CAN get out of the cold, you CANNOT get out of the hot.
If this is 1900 and A/C hasn't been invented yet and it is 120 in Tucson you are just plain suffering through 120 with no respite. If this is 1900 in Minneapolis and it goes down to -20 overnight, throw an extra lump of coal on the fire and you'll be snug.
-
But it is the same with A/C.
I guess it also depends on HOW hot we are talking. I had some relatives that lived in Tucson and we visited them in the early 80s. They had an air-conditioned garage. We thought that was a silly extravagance until we visited them in the summer. Good god. It routinely gets above 110 there. I know it is a personal preference. You might rather deal with 110-120 outdoor temperatures and be able to throw your scraper away. I'll keep my scraper.
If we are talking about a situation where heat is commonly available and A/C is either not invented yet or not accessible to the masses there is a BIG difference between heat and cool. You CAN get out of the cold, you CANNOT get out of the hot.
If this is 1900 and A/C hasn't been invented yet and it is 120 in Tucson you are just plain suffering through 120 with no respite. If this is 1900 in Minneapolis and it goes down to -20 overnight, throw an extra lump of coal on the fire and you'll be snug.
In cold -- you can put on enough clothes to stay warm
In hot -- you cannot take off enough clothes to get cool.
That Cali weather though.....just right.
Minneapolis is the coldest I've ever been in my life. F that place.
-
San Diego was the coldest I’ve been in weeks.
-
But it is the same with A/C.
I guess it also depends on HOW hot we are talking. I had some relatives that lived in Tucson and we visited them in the early 80s. They had an air-conditioned garage. We thought that was a silly extravagance until we visited them in the summer. Good god. It routinely gets above 110 there. I know it is a personal preference. You might rather deal with 110-120 outdoor temperatures and be able to throw your scraper away. I'll keep my scraper.
If we are talking about a situation where heat is commonly available and A/C is either not invented yet or not accessible to the masses there is a BIG difference between heat and cool. You CAN get out of the cold, you CANNOT get out of the hot.
If this is 1900 and A/C hasn't been invented yet and it is 120 in Tucson you are just plain suffering through 120 with no respite. If this is 1900 in Minneapolis and it goes down to -20 overnight, throw an extra lump of coal on the fire and you'll be snug.
We're not disagreeing here.
My point is that you're talking about indoor temps, though.
I'll use myself here as anecdata. I DO NOT want to move back to Chicago. I DO NOT want to deal with those winters any more.
However, if it was a question of winter in Chicago vs heat in Austin w/o AC, or heat in Atlanta w/o AC, or heat in Tucson w/o AC or heat in Miami w/o AC... I might choose Chicago.
But once you introduce AC, now you have comfortable indoor temps in the South, and HORRIFIC outdoor temps in the North. It's not just a pull... It's also a push. People WANT to get out of the cold--and AC makes that possible because it allows you to deal with the heat.
-
Extreme hot is just less of a hassle today than extreme cold. Icy roads, snow chains, digging your car out, shoveling snow, etc.....vs discomfort in the hot.
Multiple pairs of socks, gloves, hats, jackets......just so much STUFF. Such a pain in the ass.
-
It's 94 today and I'm comfortable.
I am heading to my cabin on the lake in Michigan- for the summer. They have been having overnight lows in the high 50s and low 60s where you can actually have your windows open!
I will have to come back to Florida at least once a month for work purposes, but that’s OK
-
true
91 here, I'm comfortable - no A/C
yet
-
Looking forward to it.
-
expected overnight low of 64, my windows will be open
-
It'll be 112 here in Phoenix on Sunday. I'll be up in Sedona with friends. 4300'
-
It'll be 112 here in Phoenix on Sunday. I'll be up in Sedona with friends. 4300'
You guys should go to Death Valley instead.
-
You guys should go to Death Valley instead.
Baton Rouge or Clemson?
-
Pennsylvania:
This one really interests me because I can't come up with an obvious explanation. If anyone has one or a theory, I'd be interested to hear it.
Why?
Philadelphia peaked in high school.
Pittsburgh was reliant on a now-obsolete economy.
Should have learned to code.
-
@OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) this might help give some context to the discussion we had about the Rose Bowl and the Coliseum. One can in hindsight look back and see them as failures because they weren't able to fill them the way you think they should...
But in the context of the Roaring 20's, in a state that was rapidly growing in population, and that looked like everything was going to be "up and to the right" forever... I understand why the people behind building those stadiums perhaps were dreaming big.
Perhaps it didn't pan out, but I understand why they thought it would.
Right.
Stupid thinking.
-
We're not disagreeing here.
My point is that you're talking about indoor temps, though.
I'll use myself here as anecdata. I DO NOT want to move back to Chicago. I DO NOT want to deal with those winters any more.
However, if it was a question of winter in Chicago vs heat in Austin w/o AC, or heat in Atlanta w/o AC, or heat in Tucson w/o AC or heat in Miami w/o AC... I might choose Chicago.
But once you introduce AC, now you have comfortable indoor temps in the South, and HORRIFIC outdoor temps in the North. It's not just a pull... It's also a push. People WANT to get out of the cold--and AC makes that possible because it allows you to deal with the heat.
I think I get where you are coming from now. I was thinking more in a historical context so lack of a/c anywhere, as you indicated, makes places like Tuscon, Austin, Atlanta, Miami pretty unappealing.
I also think that @jgvol (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1567) has a good point. Costal California has a moderate climate such that you never have to deal Chicago winters AND you also don't get brutally hot summers either.
-
AC produced "Florida man."
In the 'before time,' people could only live near the coasts of FL, due to the seabreeze limiting temps. Inland was stagnant, moist, and hot.
Then the AC was invented, allowing people to populate the middle of the state, which gave rise to "Florida man."
Facts are facts.
-
Wyoming, the least populated state (587k) now has 11 cities with at least 10,000 people, none over 70k. Montana with 1.1m only has 8 cities with 10k. Meanwhile, Texas has 12 cities with over 250,000 people. California with 15.
-
I prefer the weather here to Cincinnati's by quite a bit. It stays "hot" longer here, but the hottest months are not as humid here, and the T is about the same on average.
The winters of course are vastly different. Cincinnati got really humid at times, and hot, it was ... unpleasant.
-
got down to 61 this morning - windows open and a box fan in a window
cooling down the house for the expected afternoon high of 90
haven't run the A/C yet - it's been mild
-
I also think that @jgvol (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1567) has a good point. Costal California has a moderate climate such that you never have to deal Chicago winters AND you also don't get brutally hot summers either.
You don't have to tell me twice. I live it :57:
-
It'll be 112 here in Phoenix on Sunday. I'll be up in Sedona with friends. 4300'
I will probably golf in the morning and send the day in my pool, drinking an adult beverage and smoking a cigar. Rather have 112 which I dont mind than anything below 50 degrees
-
112 is better than -12
-
Especially when you have a pool behind your house.
I wouldn't live here without one, but many do.
-
Every time I go home, I’m like “damn this is nice.”
Then I look at home prices and say, “well, I guess someone is paying for that.”
-
We moved to ATL in 1964. I recall most of the houses we looked at had central AC, and it was a big factor even though the house we bought (new) did not. We had a large window unit in the family room and a whole house fan. My parents installed central air in 1970. I think by 1970 every new middle class house had central air.
There is a residential area just north of me that was started in 1904. Nearly every house there has a large front porch, which was their version of AC along with fans. It's now a rather expensive area so they all have AC today. Some of the houses have been demo'd and replaced with new, most were just restored/updated. They look really nice.
Living here without central air, even today in June, would be ... unpleasant. I was just out running and I'm soaked. There are other factors for population growth, in the 1950s there were a lot of cloth mills around, carpet production, etc., because labor was cheap, so was land. The textile industry then moved to Asia leaving some towns here bereft.
But I think without AC, the South would have half its current population.
Really? June? Realistically speaking, most of the time we have to crank our AC's up in late February or certainly March. By June it's at least 90+ degrees, and as always the humidity is super high.
-
I work for a large company with HQ squarely in the Midwest and we get a lot of Midwesterners in our division, many of whom will stay here or other points down south for their entire career. They always tell me the would much rather handle the heat/summers here than the cold up North.
-
I think a lot of the population increase of the southern states can be traced back to several different factors, not just necessarily AC. For example, Union labor is much less common in the South, so companies have a much easier time getting things done. There are lots of other things that I think are "pro-business" but also we're simply less regulated as an individual and also much of the time less taxed.
There are just natural things that exist in much of the south that you simply cannot reproduce like oil, which leads to oil refineries, which needs shipping which needs ports. Last I checked there is no ocean front property in Ohio and many of the more northern states.
-
There are just natural things that exist in much of the south that you simply cannot reproduce like oil, which leads to oil refineries, which needs shipping which needs ports. Last I checked there is no ocean front property in Ohio and many of the more northern states.
Ehhh. More than a few lake ports in those cities.
Those northern places did have certain natural things, which fed factories. But certian products were made cheaper elsewhere, or resources were stripped away to a degree.
Southern infrastructure also caught up too, in a grander scale.
-
Ehhh. More than a few lake ports in those cities.
Also lots of railways connecting them...
-
lots of railways thru nebraska
not a huge population
-
We also had reverse migration as blacks went north for jobs. When I was a kid, the South was impoverished, mostly, the small towns were suffering, infrastructure was problematic. The black folks had it worst of course because of the Jim Crow stuff. There were low taxes and a small tax base. The Interstate highway system helped a lot, I think. Every exit on a new expressway soon attracted stuff, often not very pretty stuff, but stuff. As noted, companies opened factories because labor was cheap, and now transportation by truck became practicable. DoTs built bypasses around many towns that led to Walmarts which tended to ruin the downtown areas, some of which recovered a bit due to tourism (see freeways). I think much of north Georgia exists because of Atlanta, it's an easy drive up into the mountains and the tourist towns have stuff to do.
-
(https://bunny-wp-pullzone-2v7xwnunut.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Fire-Drones_MDW_25-1024x684.jpg)