U.S. population to reach 300,000,000

Doctor Q

Administrator
Original poster
Staff member
Sep 19, 2002
37,398
3,504
Los Angeles
I read in the newspaper that we are approaching a milestone of note: the 300 millionth inhabitant of the United States.

Current U.S. Census Bureau estimates are that the U.S. population (including immigrants and illegal aliens, but not tourists or other temporary visitors) will reach 300,000,000 about October 27, 2006.

Statistically, the new inhabitant will most likely be a boy, born to a white non-Hispanic 28 or 29-year-old woman living in the South.

If all goes well, he will become a Mac user (beating the odds) and will join MacRumors on October 27, 2019.
 

WildCowboy

Administrator/Editor
Staff member
Jan 20, 2005
17,233
1,124
The main U.S. Census Bureau page has US and world "population clocks." (They're obviously not based on actual births and deaths but on a mathematical formula based on projections.) About 514,000 to go to 300 million!
 

Danksi

macrumors 68000
Oct 3, 2005
1,554
0
Nelson, BC. Canada
I always thought there was 360-Million in the US already, not sure why.

I seem to recall that only 50-million people voted in the last US election.. which was a record high turnout. Is this correct?

The other 250-Million people can't all be non-US citizens, criminals, too young or just too lazy to vote can they?
 

WildCowboy

Administrator/Editor
Staff member
Jan 20, 2005
17,233
1,124
Danksi said:
I always thought there was 360-Million in the US already, not sure why.

I seem to recall that only 50-million people voted in the last US election.. which was a record high turnout. Is this correct?

The other 250-Million people can't all be non-US citizens, criminals, too young or just too lazy to vote can they?
In the last presidential election (2004), the US had 197 million eligible voters. 125 million of them voted, for a turnout of 63.8%. It was the highest turnout for a presidential election since 1992, when 68% of eligible voters voted.

For more stats than you want to know, see this PDF from the Census Bureau.
 

63dot

macrumors 603
Jun 12, 2006
5,269
339
norcal
Doctor Q said:
I read in the newspaper that we are approaching a milestone of note: the 300 millionth inhabitant of the United States.

Current U.S. Census Bureau estimates are that the U.S. population (including immigrants and illegal aliens, but not tourists or other temporary visitors) will reach 300,000,000 about October 27, 2006.

Statistically, the new inhabitant will most likely be a boy, born to a white non-Hispanic 28 or 29-year-old woman living in the South.

If all goes well, he will become a Mac user (beating the odds) and will join MacRumors on October 27, 2019.
doctor,

here's the first three thoughts that came to my head...it's 630 am so i am sleepy and in that twilight mode when i am a seer ;)

1) i live in collifornia and we already have 300 million people
2) he may be the anti-christ
3) he will win a major shopping spree for life which will be shown on reality tv
 

63dot

macrumors 603
Jun 12, 2006
5,269
339
norcal
exabytes18 said:
I'm full of 300,000,000.
well being that you are from chicago, it probably feels like there are 300 mil right there

same for la, nyc, and the bay area on a bad day (actually the bay area has only 4 mil or so in its center but very few roads to support that population)

and having lived in london which is administered within the 14 million strong london commuter belt (2001 figure), it feels like the whole world is there during rush hour and the metro london region is much more populated than chicago or los angeles for those americans who think they live in a BIG city

only moscow, in europe, can post such numbers

of course, major chinese cities and their surrounding areas and the tri state area in new york (around 30 million people) usually hold the world records but such a massive number of people is hard to track accurately
 

Doctor Q

Administrator
Original poster
Staff member
Sep 19, 2002
37,398
3,504
Los Angeles
Macaddicttt said:
No, we have about 36 million people, not quite 300 million. ;)
And 35 million of those 36 million seem to be on the 405 freeway at rush hour every day. :mad:
 

63dot

macrumors 603
Jun 12, 2006
5,269
339
norcal
Macaddicttt said:
No, we have about 36 million people, not quite 300 million. ;)
you know, beyond a certain point, it all feels the same...really

downtown san francisco is the second most densely populated city centre in the usa, with manhattan being the most densely populated...and even though sf hovers just under a million people, it feels like an uncomfortable sea of humanity and parking is horrendous

the worst congestion i have seen in los angeles still does not compare to downtown sf or the inadequate, small freeways that surround silicon valley

at least los angeles has the massive 5 and 405 and nyc has a sea of superhighways taking commuters in and out of the city
 

macreator

macrumors regular
Oct 23, 2003
105
0
New York City
63dot said:
nyc has a sea of superhighways taking commuters in and out of the city
Superhighways? I wouldn't consider any of the highways within the limits of New York City or Long Island to be a superhighway. All of the NYC Area's highways except for the Long Island Expressway and the West Side "highway" (at most points simply a wide boulevard with traffic lights) haven't been updated since the 1940 - 1950's for the most part. Virtually all NYC highways lack road basics such as proper lane acceleration and deceleration lanes and more closely resemble rural parkways.

The West Coast has much more up-to-date roads.
 

63dot

macrumors 603
Jun 12, 2006
5,269
339
norcal
macreator said:
Superhighways? I wouldn't consider any of the highways within the limits of New York City or Long Island to be a superhighway. All of the NYC Area's highways except for the Long Island Expressway and the West Side "highway" (at most points simply a wide boulevard with traffic lights) haven't been updated since the 1940 - 1950's for the most part. Virtually all NYC highways lack road basics such as proper lane acceleration and deceleration lanes and more closely resemble rural parkways.

The West Coast has much more up-to-date roads.
if you saw highway 1, 17, 101, and portions of 280, 580, 680 in the bay area, you may mistaken them for somebody's country-@$$ driveway or backroad

highway 85 was a needed addition to the region but there needs to be a lot more for the area

also, BART, or bay area rapid transit needs to branch out to all areas of the bay area instead of just the center
 

supremedesigner

macrumors 6502a
Dec 9, 2005
752
222
Gainesville, Fl
the most interesting fact about 300 million America population is that myspace have 1/3 of america's population!!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

edit: myspace.com/tom and scroll down to see his "friends" status.
 

bousozoku

Moderator emeritus
Jun 25, 2002
13,979
3
Gone but not forgotten.
macreator said:
Superhighways? I wouldn't consider any of the highways within the limits of New York City or Long Island to be a superhighway. All of the NYC Area's highways except for the Long Island Expressway and the West Side "highway" (at most points simply a wide boulevard with traffic lights) haven't been updated since the 1940 - 1950's for the most part. Virtually all NYC highways lack road basics such as proper lane acceleration and deceleration lanes and more closely resemble rural parkways.

The West Coast has much more up-to-date roads.
NYC roads often lack a reasonably smooth surface. If not for the bridges and tunnels, you wouldn't know smooth.

Strange that NJ and Philly are so much better but on my recent trip, I noticed that they don't seem all that great now.

The Los Angeles area doesn't seem all that great, either. The Hollywood Freeway looks as if hasn't been maintained for years.

At least, there is some mass transit that works in the northeast.
 

Doctor Q

Administrator
Original poster
Staff member
Sep 19, 2002
37,398
3,504
Los Angeles
bousozoku said:
The Hollywood Freeway looks as if hasn't been maintained for years.
The Pasadena freeway ain't too hot either. It was our first freeway, before lanes were wide enough for today's cars, and it has incredibly short on/off ramps. You have to go from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds or less to merge safely. It's landlocked by terrain so there's probably no way to widen it. They could only improve it by going up, so perhaps it'll be a one-lane 10-level freeway someday.
 

63dot

macrumors 603
Jun 12, 2006
5,269
339
norcal
Doctor Q said:
You have to go from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds or less to merge safely. It's landlocked by terrain so there's probably no way to widen it. They could only improve it by going up, so perhaps it'll be a one-lane 10-level freeway someday.

someone could make a fortune selling after-market rocket boosters for their los angeles area cars that have to brave the freeways there

my old volvo station wagon would not stand a chance

but the brand new grand am rental car...big engine and lightweight body...was perfect for la when i went there a few years back

actually, i think a dodge hennessy viper would do fine for the 0-60 thing...and for a mere $82k, it's the fastest street legal car in the world
 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Jan 9, 2004
29,777
12
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
supremedesigner said:
edit: myspace.com/tom and scroll down to see his "friends" status.
I de-friended him so add one to the count. :eek: :D

So in terms of the statistically likely to be a boy, are there really more live births of boys than girls in the US? I thought it was the other way around by a slight majority...
 

WildCowboy

Administrator/Editor
Staff member
Jan 20, 2005
17,233
1,124
mkrishnan said:
So in terms of the statistically likely to be a boy, are there really more live births of boys than girls in the US? I thought it was the other way around by a slight majority...
No...there are about 105 boys born for every 100 girls in the US.
 

Doctor Q

Administrator
Original poster
Staff member
Sep 19, 2002
37,398
3,504
Los Angeles
WildCowboy said:
No...there are about 105 boys born for every 100 girls in the US.
Boys are born more often but don't live as long as girls, so it balances out. In any case, that's probably why the prediction is that resident number 300,000,000 will be a boy.

I tracked down the Los Angeles Times article here. I'm not sure if you'll have to register to read this story as the web page "ages".

They report that we numbered 100 million in 1915 and 200 million in 1967 and predict 300 million this year and 400 million in 2040. Enjoy the low density now, while you still can!
 

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,684
1
LaLaLand, CA
Doctor Q said:
And 35 million of those 36 million seem to be on the 405 freeway at rush hour every day. :mad:
Couldn't be. There are way more than 1 million people on the 101 during rush hour. Not to mention the 5, 118, 134, 210, 2, 10... I hate it when I have to travel around L.A., well, pretty much anytime between 6am and 9pm.
 

Doctor Q

Administrator
Original poster
Staff member
Sep 19, 2002
37,398
3,504
Los Angeles
solvs said:
Couldn't be. There are way more than 1 million people on the 101 during rush hour. Not to mention the 5, 118, 134, 210, 2, 10... I hate it when I have to travel around L.A., well, pretty much anytime between 6am and 9pm.
That's easy to explain. It's the same 35 million people, driving in circles from one freeway to the other.