Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Overall population growth in Indiana will nearly skid to a halt by the 2050s while the Indianapolis metropolitan area attracts residents at relatively robust clip over several decades, according to new projections from Indiana University demographers.
More than two-thirds of Indiana’s 92 counties will see losses in population over the next 30 years. Meanwhile, the 11-county Indianapolis metro area is expected to hit about 2,497,000 residents by 2050—an increase of nearly 405,000 from 2020.
In the 2050s, the state’s already meager overall population growth will slow further to an average gain of less than 1,000 new residents per year, according to the analysis released Wednesday by the Indiana Business Research Center at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business.
The near-static growth can be explained by a grim but relatively simple phenomenon: The number of deaths in the state will begin surpassing the number of births in the 2040s.
“To some degree, this trend was always inevitable,” said IBRC Senior Demographer Matt Kinghorn. “With the aging of the baby boom generation—a cohort that today is between the ages of 60 and 78—Indiana was sure to see … a slowdown in population growth.”
Once deaths outpace births, migration from other states will account for all of Indiana’s population growth, putting pressure on officials across the state to make Indiana as appealing a place to live as possible.
“Indiana will need to exert magnetic attraction to bring in young people from places near and far—which puts us in direct competition with every other state facing slow-to-no growth,” said Carol Rogers, director of the IBRC.
Overall, the analysis from the IBRC projects a 5.6% increase in Hoosiers between 2020 and 2060, climbing from 6.79 million to 7.17 million. However, the majority of those gains—about 60%—will take place by 2030.
Kinghorn put the state’s flagging population growth in sharp relief by noting that the number of Indiana residents grew by about 403,000 in the 2010s, which is greater than the total expected growth of 392,000 residents between 2020 and 2060.
The Indiana Business Research Center is part of a national network of state data centers and serves as Indiana’s official representative to the U.S. Census Bureau on matters relating to the census and population estimates.
So-called “natural increase”—the difference between the number of birth and deaths—has been the dominant source of Indiana’s population growth for decades. But the number of births in Indiana has been on a steep and steady decline since 2008.
At the other end of the age spectrum, Indiana’s life expectancy peaked in 2010 at 77.65 years old and has since declined by about a year. And within 10 years, the entire baby boom generation will be older than the traditional retirement age of 65, with seniors comprising one out of every five Hoosiers.
Natural increase is expected to shift from Indiana’s primary driver of growth to a drag on it in the 2040s, Kinghorn said.
Meanwhile, a handful of metropolitan areas will be responsible for nearly all of Indiana’s population growth, according to the study. The population of the 11-county Indianapolis metro area—defined as Marion County, the eight doughnut counties and Tipton and Brown counties—is expected to grow by 19.3% between 2020 and 2050.
The state’s five fastest-growing counties will be suburban Indianapolis counties. The populations of Hamilton, Boone, Hancock, Hendricks and Johnson counties will each grow by at least 25% by 2050. Marion County will finally pass the 1 million mark and reach more than 1,011,000 residents. (It was 977,203 in 2020.)
Here are the projected populations for the five fastest-growing Indy-area suburban counties in 2050 (followed by their populations from the 2020 U.S. Census).
— Hamilton: 529,505 (347,467)
— Hendricks: 250,688 (174,788)
— Johnson: 203,455 (161,765)
— Hancock: 115,401 (79,840)
— Boone: 107,634 (70,812)
Elsewhere across the state, Clark, Warrick, Allen and Bartholomew counties will grow by at least 10% by 2050, according to the IBRC projections. Lake and St. Joseph counties will see modest gains through 2035 before beginning to see slight population declines. Both counties are projected to reach 2050 with fewer residents than they have today.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
There’s an expression in finance: you can’t fight the tape. Think about everything Indiana has tried and done since 1900 – and see that the fall in growth just continues straight line down. The cold reality is that there might not be an answer for the state, given that every single other state in the 23-state “Old North” region has very similar challenges.
The only thing we can say that will definitively hurt future population growth is increasing use of abortion at any gestational age.
D.H. with an opinion like that, one can only assume that you’re one of the boomers referred to in the article. I’m a married millenial who, at least currently, is childless. Here are the factors that my wife and I consider when we discuss children:
1. We both work full time jobs and did not grow up here, so we do not have family childcare support that many enjoy. Paid childcare continues to be prohibitively expensive. A child tax credit would help drastically with this.
2. Indiana continues to wage war on any family that does not fit into its extremely narrow definition of what a “moral” family unit looks like. If Indiana wants to welcome new families into the state, it should drop the culture war BS and welcome ALL families with open arms.
3. Abortion restrictions actually have the same effect that you are worried about with legal abortion. We fear a situation in which an abortion would be required to save the life of the mother but having to deal with red tape and potential criminal liability in that emergency situation.
4. Climate change and resource overutilization are real problems that future generations will need to contend with. We’ve known this for decades now and continue to act much too slowly. My generation has to consider what the world will look for our children and our children’s children.
D H., your comment is not consistent or supported with the five prior decades where abortion was widely available and accessed…and our population grew in each of those decades. In fact, some of the increase in deaths may be attributed to the new, strict abortion ban where pregnant mothers will die as physicians fear prosecution just for doing their jobs.
Brent and Michael, can you point to a single case where a pregnant mother has died as a result of not obtaining an abortion? Ectopic pregnancies are not considered elective abortions by the way.
Can you describe a single medical condition that requires abortion to “treat” otherwise the mother dies?
Go look at the women in the Texas abortion case. This isn’t hard.
What I find ironic about the abortion laws is that what ends up happening is that WILLING MOTHERS end up losing the ability to have kids in the future because a pregnancy that has gone sideways … is now forced to persist for no good reason. Because as much as the pro-forced birth camp wants to claim otherwise, the vast majority of late term abortions (which are around 5% of the total to begin with) are for medical reasons.
What’s better, a woman forced to have an abortion for medical reasons who grieves and goes on to have kids in the future … or a woman sterilized by the State who has to grieve the inability to have her own kids the rest of her life?
It’s amazing how the people who complain about abortion … seem to overlap with those who complain about how they’re being “replaced” by immigrants … and how they’re both the types of people not willing to spend one red cent more to encourage the type of folks like Michael N. to have a kid or two or three.
Make childcare cheaper? NOPE.
Boost wages to make it viable to have a stay at home parent? NOPE.
College tuition costs not leaving people paying loans for decades? NOPE.
Baby boomers, the generation intent on pulling the ladder up after them.
Aaron R, your post reminds me of what our legislators miss be thinking … “there is no future in Indiana worthy investing in, so let’s just cut some more taxes” …a truly self-fulfilling prophecy if there ever was one.
D H, please share your expertise. I am certain you are a medical professional with data backed by peer reviewed studies to support your position, correct? You are definitely not getting your opinions from a cult posing as a church on S Madison Ave, are you?
No mountains, only a few miles of beach, and relatively cold winters (compared to the mid-South).
These are things that a landlocked Northern state can’t change…you can’t fight the tape.
Hey, you “pro-abortion” folks….abortion is quite legal if the mother’s life is in danger. Any “red tape” revolves around those using that as a phony excuse as that situation is extremely rare.
Except they can’t, because what constitutes “a life in danger” was never defined, and there are many other reasons to need an abortion other than something that is life-threatening. Women are going septic in Texas hospital parking lots because these abortion restriction bills are so poorly written. Why? Because the men who write these laws have absolutely *no clue* how complicated pregnancies can be, such as yourself.
John S, you should read, and re-read over and over, what A R just outlined for you until you understand it.
Indiana is failing because our General Assembly has demanded divesting away from common Hoosiers and using the State as a money pipeline for low-wage companies that build giant fulfillment centers in the middle of nowhere, allegedly to “replace” good jobs that left. The “race to the bottom” on taxes, incentives, transportation, and education that Indiana has decided to participate in will ultimately be a failure. Businesses and people vote with their feet, and they go to states and cities that have higher taxes and better public services.
A. R. you are delusional to believe that people “go to states and cities that have higher taxes” sooooo Illinois, California, New York, New Jersey are gaining population???? Tennessee, Florida and Texas are low-tax, warmer climate locations that are burgeoning because of LOWER TAXES!!!
John S., but what about Minnesota, with its snow and frigid weather four months a year, and high taxes? It is thriving, and added 60,000 people to its population in 2022 alone. You get what you pay for.
California and New York are flailing because of their garbage housing laws that restrict supply and drive up prices. There’s certainly no shortage of demand to live in these places.
And even when people move to Texas, Tennessee, and Florida, they don’t move to the areas with minimal taxes and no public services, they move to large metropolitan areas where taxes are higher. This is true even in Indiana. Our rural, conservative, low-tax counties are dying. Only Indiana’s metropolitan areas, with higher taxes and more public services, are growing in any kind of meaningful sense.
I suspect population growth is tied to the well being of Indiana Citizens. Here is one explanation of why Indiana is facing the probability of a shrinking population.
Political Polarization and diverging economies are related:
https://indianacapitalchronicle.com/2024/08/12/political-polarization-and-diverging-economies-are-related/
D.H. This statement is completely wrong. Humans will never run out of recourses. In fact, we are now at the point where we need more babies.
“Climate change and resource overutilization are real problems that future generations will need to contend with. We’ve known this for decades now and continue to act much too slowly. My generation has to consider what the world will look for our children and our children’s children.”
Is there an accepted standard way to define metropolitan area? I’ve seen the Indy metro area defined in multiple different ways. Some definitions already have the Indy metro well past 2.5 million people.
Great question. Guessing Marian and the donut counties; but it seems to be a moving target
No one I know of believes a mother must give up her life for the life of her baby…..but those of you whose major criterion for voting has to do with how many babies you can kill are disgusting! You should watch an abortion…most are appalled at the cruel loss of life. Certainly, there are lines to be drawn….but most of you would allow an abortion until the minute before birth! and if I’m wrong, tell me when you stop them! A large consensus of American understand the anomalous situations that are cruel and tragic…but recreational abortion is appalling and I hope and pray Indiana never succumbs these cruel situations!
Oh, god. You’re one of those people who really think that “abortion up to moment of birth” is a thing. That’s not a thing. Get a grip on reality, dude.
The only thing dumber than this story is the comments. This is not an Indiana issue. It’s a national and global trend. Third world countries are projecting the same thing.
Comments have the far right “every sperm is sacred” argument and the normal gaggle of IBJ Libs claiming Indiana population is in decline because of Pence. I’m disappointed no one rolled out the favorite Dem trope “all the young people will leave!!”
The article DID take up space and allowed the IBJ employees to deflect away from their Me Too mayor and ignore their fellow Democrats rioting in Chicago, so it had some value.