Quote:
Originally Posted by jubguy3
I hope that Utah can shift some of its economic outlooks away from the assumption that our population is going to keep exploding. It is incredibly rare for a highly developed entity like Utah to maintain such a high birth rate (until last year, Utah had a similar total fertility to India, matched with one of the lowest death rates in the United States, both as a result of low cancer mortality and obesity rates and a younger population). Eventually demographic transition is going to catch up and people are going to want to stop having kids.
So no, I don't believe Utah's boom is "sustainable".
|
I think he was referring to Utah having a stable, sustainable growth outlook compared to other states currently losing population (like Wyoming or North Dakota). ND, for example , reached its current population in the 1930’s, having any gains eventually eaten away since then. WY has had growth more consistent than ND, but even there it can be volatile. For example, that state saw stagnant growth from 1960 to 1970, then boomed 40% from 1970 to 1980, then lost 3.5% from 1980 to 1990. In recent years, it has grown not even 4% so far this decade, yet grew by 14% from 2000 to 2010.
Another sorry tale can be told of NM, which has stagnated to an absolute crawl in recent years. The Santa Fe New Mexican puts it this way:
Quote:
|
“With fewer births, more deaths and nearly no migration into New Mexico at a time when young people are seeking opportunities elsewhere, the state is in the midst of its slowest population growth since statehood — and that is not likely to change. ‘We’ve had nominal growth,’ said Robert Rhatigan, associate director of Geospatial and Population Studies at The University of New Mexico. ‘Births are down, deaths are up and migration is out.’ ”
|
In contrast, UT has grown consistently every decade over the past century, with its worst showing being 8.5% decadal growth in the 1930’s (still growing modestly despite the Great Depression). This steady growth pushed the Beehive State past WY’s current population in the 1940’s, ND’s current population in the 1950’s, and NM’s current population by the year 2000. Even in neighboring NV (which has had pretty consistent gains since a rough patch in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s), growth halved in the Silver State from the 1990’s (66%) to the 2000’s (35%) and has grown only 8% so far this decade (likely to not even reach half the growth achieved last decade.)
Utah has maintained a very steady growth rate over its entire existence, which has steered clear of the boom/bust cycles that have ensnared other Western states. This due to its unique ability to fall back on a steady natural increase that has helped smooth over prolonged economic downturns or migratory demographic shifts. I think you are right that this natural increase could diminish in the future, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it will disappear altogether. I have a feeling Utah will continue to grow at a steady pace for many decades to come. It also helps that the state has diversified its economy, with a burgeoning tech sector and finance industry along with tourism, mining/gas, etc (unlike WY and ND).
While you make a good observation, what your analysis overlooks is the “Mormon Factor.” Utah not only has high birth rates due to its Mormon culture, it is also a Mecca to the faith’s adherents, attracting many Mormons from around the country and the globe. This unique dynamic is unlikely to change. While Utah’s fertility rate may be similar to developing societies, the state is clearly very developed (even more so than many regions of the U.S.) This dynamic is not resultant from an economic necessity to bare more children, as is the case in developing nations. It is a result of a pervasive culture that is well established in the state and is unlikely to ever completely disappear.
Prev
Yes, very good to have you back Future Mayor. Hopefully you'll stay around for a while.
Linear Mode
