The birth rate has nosedived 53% over the last 60 years, resulting in a 2023 record low of just 1.62 babies per couple. Though most Americans are having fewer children, some states are aging faster than others. A graying population could mean fewer workers to support elders, leading to a stagnating economy and a spiral of even fewer births. Which states are most at risk of population decline?
Key Takeaways
- All 50 states are on track for a population collapse, with South Dakota faring best and Vermont most at risk.
- Washington, D.C. has the lowest fertility rate and the youngest population. They’ll avoid population collapse with their small area and special circumstances.
- Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire’s future look grayest. By 2100, almost half of these states’ populations will be over 65 years old.
- Where will the youngest populations reign in 2100? D.C., Utah, Texas, North Dakota, and Colorado.
How Falling Fertility Rates Will Lead to a Population Collapse
Not one state in the U.S. meets the minimum birth rate to maintain population levels today. To replace themselves and compensate for early deaths and sex discrepancies, each couple would have to have 2.1 children. By the latest count, American families have ban average of 1.62 children (2023).
With fewer children born, the average age of the population grows older. As greater numbers of people reach retirement age, the smaller working cohort cannot contribute enough to healthcare and social security resources to support them.
This imbalance in working vs. retired population strains government services. Profits that companies might share with in-demand workers are limited since companies are less able to scale and grow — they simply can’t find new workers or customers.
In countries like South Korea, an aging population has led to high competition for jobs, long working hours, and a self-reinforcing spiral of ever-declining fertility rates.
In the U.S., the results will be similar: fewer young people who can afford to support a family leads to longer work hours, fewer births, and fewer workers for the next generation.
The economic and social security systems we have built over the last hundred years, and the life trajectories many of us have planned for over decades, will collapse. Further, the area’s population dwindles and finally dies out.
The fertility rate in the U.S. has been on the decline for decades, though it saw a slight uptick in 2020. By 2023, the number of births in the U.S. was about 3.6 million, down 2% from 2022.
We wanted to know where the tipping point of an aging population is coming the fastest. Which states have the lowest fertility rates and which have populations aging the fastest? We combined these factors to predict where fertility collapse will hit first.
Which states will be the oldest by 2050 and 2100?
Which states are aging the fastest? Here at BizInsure, we extrapolated the University of Virginia’s age projections over the next decades to 2050 and then 2100 – a time when today’s Gen Z young people will be centenarians and Gen Alpha toddlers will be nursing home residents.
What did we find? By 2100, Maine will have the highest percentage of its population over 65 years of age.
#10 Florida
Although Florida has a strong growth rate and a big retirement population, it won’t overtake other states for retirees as quickly as you might have guessed.
Although Florida has a strong growth rate and a big retirement population, it won’t overtake other states for retirees as quickly as you might have guessed. It’s #10 because, with Florida’s popularity among out-of-state relocators and its status as the #3 U.S. destination for immigrants, its aging is slightly slowed. But without a higher fertility rate, its graying population will continue to grow, hitting 34% by 2100.
#9 Delaware
Delaware may be able to boast a higher fertility rate than states like Florida, but its youngsters don’t always stay put as adults.
In reality, 20% more young Delawareans move out of state today than did 100 years ago.
#8 Hawaii
Moving from 19% in 2020 to 24.8% in 2050 and finally 34.5% by 2100, paradise is getting crowded with retirees.
And sure, Hawaii is known for its temperate weather and high prices, two factors that favor those with a passion for relaxation and a lifetime of wealth accumulation. Hawaii does have a top-20 fertility rate, but with a small population and little industry, this island state is aging fast.
#7 West Virginia
West Virginia struggles to offer its young people good jobs.
Headlines discuss the “struggle” to stay in-state, even for those career-starters who want to. While fertility is average among the states, it’s below the replacement rate (along with the rest of the country). A bigger issue is that West Virginia isn’t making up the difference with in-moves from other states or through immigration.
#6 Nevada
With just 12% elderly in 2010, Nevada was the state with youngest current population to join 2100’s top ten.
While Nevada is a warm and sunny retirement hotspot, its population over 65 totaled just 18% of its total population in 2020. That’s close to today’s 27th-place country (San Marino). In other words, it’s pretty average for a developed, Western country with low birth rates and long lifespans. In the future, Nevada will surge past every current country. It will support 24.5% elderly in 2050 and 36.7% in 2100.
#5 Arizona
Arizona will have the 5th most elderly residents vis à vis total population by 2050, with 26.3% and 37.6% by 2100.
To reverse the trend, Arizona will have to keep growing as a popular destination for businesses. Arizona, with the nation’s 7th highest rate in 2020 at 19%, will climb 2 spaces in the charts by 2050 as it continues to grow its retiree population.
#4 New Mexico
If trends continue, over 40% of New Mexico’s population will be 65+ by 2100.
New Mexico’s fertility rate is low, but its growing elderly population also stems from out-migrating Millennials seeking better jobs. In one survey, 27 of the 39 young people interviewed planned to leave the state to further their careers. There’s an exception: the Permian Basin, which has seen the mining industry explode in recent years, has the lowest percentage of its population over 65.
#3 New Hampshire
New Hampshire will increase its elderly population by 30.4% between 2010 and 2100, putting it at #3 in our overall list.
More than doubling the current figure is sure to be a shock for a small state with a bottom-5 fertility rate.
#2 Vermont: Rural and Aging
Along with New Hampshire and Maine, Vermont is an unsurprising state on the top ten list.
New England states aren’t known for being magnets for young people: their homes can be large, rural, and expensive, with few urban hubs for jobs. That may be why, as Washington, D.C. gains the most college grad in-moves, Vermont loses more of its grads to other locales than any other state.
#1 Maine: By 2100, nearly half of Mainers will be over 65
In 2100, 45% of Mainers will be over 65.
Why? For starters, Maine has one of the lowest fertility rates in the country, at .5 births per couple. In general, that means that every other couple in Maine produces just one child. As those four individuals age, just one young person steps into the workforce to replace their labor and contributions to social security.
Washington, D.C. Prevents Population Decline Despite Low Fertility Rates
The nation’s capital is a special case where a rock-bottom fertility rate of 1.24 doesn’t reflect population decline.
Washington, D.C.’s small footprint favors students, interns, and politicos who often uproot themselves for a term or two inside the nation’s think tanks. The plentiful career opportunities in Washington, D.C. make the nation’s capital the U.S. leader in “brain gain,” attracting college graduates at a much higher rate than any state.
However, it lacks renowned public schools and big suburban lots, pushing families to leave The District. Retirees who no longer need to battle traffic also move afield, and that puts them outside D.C.’s miniature borders.
This unique combination of losing both young families and retirees makes for a young population with a low fertility rate (it’s actually the lowest of any state). However, The District relies on interstate migration to prevent population decline within its limited boundaries.
Which States Will Be Showing Their Gray in 2100?
Elsewhere, a low fertility rate means an aging population.
The problem is most stark in the Northeast where the highest proportion of the population will be retirees by 2100. In New Hampshire and Maine, the 2100 retiree population represents a 30% jump from 2010, and in Vermont, retirees will jump 29%.
With the oldest overall percentage of retirees by 2100, Maine will have the highest number of residents aged 65+.
And more than older, these states will see their overall populations decline significantly, too.
And that’s worrisome for younger residents.
Take Vermont. With the lowest fertility rate (except for the District of Columbia), at just 1.36 babies per couple, the Green Mountain State could see its overall population decline to around 193,000 residents in the next 100 years (estimate based on an exponential growth model without migration factored in). At the current rate, Vermont would wind up around the size of a city like Fort Lauderdale, FL.
As the population of aging states hollows out, losing children and workers, they’ll go even grayer.
The States Most Likely to Avoid Population Decline
The states devoting the smallest percentages of their populations to retirees include Utah, which has the 4th highest fertility rate of any U.S. state, North Dakota, Nebraska, and Louisiana.
All were in the top ten for fertility in 2020, and all will see their retirees grow to less than 25% of the total population by 2100.
As recently as 2010, Utah’s 2.45 fertility rate was above replacement. While the fertility rate has since fallen, the teens produced by the recent fertility surge are poised to keep the population young for decades to come.
In South Dakota, fertility rates nearing replacement level (at 2.01 babies per woman) will fend off population collapse longer than in other states. In 100 years, South Dakota’s population will still be higher than Vermont’s today.
It’d take the Mount Rushmore State 306 years to shrink to 193,000 residents, where Vermont will be in 100 years.
Is Population Decline a Crisis?
For most other states, population decline is coming faster.
As they age, the population will shrink, and ultimately reinforce the downward spiral.
That’s already happening in the U.S. overall. In 2010, there were 74.2 million children living in America. In 2020, there were 73.6, and by 2022? America was home to just 71.6 million kids aged 0 to 17.
Don’t get us wrong. There are benefits to the current “crisis”.
A shrinking population can lead to environmental relief, innovations like robots and automation, and the fact that more Americans are living longer should be celebrated. America’s future growth currently depends on immigration, which can also buoy our economic future. But as the population ages and the economy slows, we may lose more of that, too.
In short, a baby-free future isn’t a win for any society.
Building a new future amidst a declining population may not mean a constantly expanding economy. But does that mean an economy without prosperity?
It doesn’t have to.
As states like Maine approach the population decline, they’ll have the opportunity to author their own futures and find out how.
Methodology
To project the future percentage of the population aged 65 and older, we built upon the foundational work of the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the University of Virginia, which projected population ages by state through 2040 using the Hamilton-Perry method.
Our main formula uses an exponential growth model with diminishing returns, providing a balanced and practical method for projecting long-term population changes. Using their projections as a base, we calculated historical growth rates for the periods 2010 to 2020, 2020 to 2030, and 2030 to 2040.
These rates were averaged to establish a baseline growth rate. Recognizing that the rate of increase in the elderly population tends to slow over time, we applied a decay factor of 0.8 to temper these growth rates for each subsequent decade.
This approach ensures realistic projections by gradually reducing the growth rate by 20% each decade, reflecting demographic patterns observed in mature populations. While we did not directly use the Hamilton-Perry method, our approach benefits from its foundational principles, offering a robust framework for long-term population forecasting.
