How Minnesota’s population is growing, and how it isn’t
Census Bureau data show that, between July 1, 2020, and July 1, 2024, Minnesota’s population grew by 1.4%, a rate slower than in 31 other states, as Figure 1 shows. This, incidentally, was a rate below that for three of our four neighbors (highlighted in red). What lies behind this relatively slow population growth?
Figure 1: Population change, 2020 to 2024
Populations can change either for “natural” reasons — births minus deaths — or because of net migration — immigrants minus emigrants. Table 1 shows the rates of natural change and migration from 2020 to 2024 per 100,000 of the 2020 population and how those rates rank among the 50 states.
With more births than deaths, Minnesota’s natural rate is positive — 903.7 per 100,000. This rate is also comparatively high: It ranks 10th, with Utah at the top and West Virginia at the bottom.
It is a different story when we look at migration, however. While Minnesota’s rate of migrants per 100,000 is still positive — more people moved into the state than moved out — at 581.1, this ranks below 41 other states. Given the good performance on natural growth, this comparatively low level of migration is the main factor behind Minnesota’s relatively low rate of population growth seen in Figure 1.
Table 1: Rates and rankings of rates of components of population change, 2020 to 2024
Migration can be either domestic — originating from/moving to elsewhere in the United States — or international — originating from/moving to another country. Table 2 shows the rates of international and domestic migration from 2020 to 2024 per 100,000 of the 2020 population.
We have long noted that Minnesota loses residents, on net, to other parts of the United States. We see that again here, with a negative rate for domestic migration — more people moving out than moving in — of -839.9 per 100,000, a rate below that of 40 other states. Idaho scores best here, and New York worst.
Overall, as noted above, Minnesota generally records positive net migration numbers because arrivals from abroad more than offset those residents leaving for elsewhere in the United States. Again, we see this in Table 2, with a positive rate for international migration of 1,421.0, but even this ranks 30th out of 50 states: Hardly stellar. Few states are as reliant on international migrants for their positive migration numbers as Minnesota: The total number of international migrants between 2020 and 2024 was 2.4 times the total number of all migrants, the third highest such ratio, behind only Maryland and Massachusetts. But even within this category, we struggle, relatively speaking, to attract residents.
Table 2: Rates and rankings of migration rates, 2020 to 2024
Minnesota’s relatively slow population growth is a source of much debate. A look at the causes show that our state’s failure to attract residents is the biggest drag, and that this applies to both domestic and international migrants. Of course, we should always remember that the point of policy is not to grow GDP, necessarily, but per capita GDP.