The US Census Bureau thread

[M II A II R II K]

If the total population continues to increase at this rate, it'll hit 400 million before 2050 as projected.

[hudkina]

Here's an interesting tidbit. If we didn't have a cap on the total number of House Seats, and instead used the state with the lowest population as the basis for the total number of seats, then this is how the nation would look:

In 2000, Wyoming with an apportionment population of 495,304 was the smallest state. When you divide the apportionment population of each state by 495,304 and round to the nearest whole number, you get a total of 569 house seats when you add the total for each state.

In 2010, Wyoming (563,626) again had the smallest apportionment population. When you divide the apportionment population of each state by 563,626 and round to the nearest whole number, you get a total of 545 house seats.

Because there would have been a loss of 24 seats, regardless of how fast any states grew many would have lost seats. Here is how the states would have ended up under such a scenario. The first number represents the number of representatives for each in 2010, the second number represents the number of representatives for each in 2000, and the third number represents the difference between 2000 and 2010.

1. California - 66..........69..........-3
2. Texas - 45..........42..........+3
3. New York - 34..........38..........-4
4. Florida - 33..........32..........+1
5. Illinois - 23..........25..........-2
6. Pennsylvania - 23..........25..........-2
7. Ohio - 20..........23..........-3
8. Michigan - 18..........20..........-2
9. New Jersey - 16..........17..........-1
10. Georgia - 17..........17..........0
11. North Carolina - 17..........16..........+1
12. Virginia - 14..........14..........0
13. Massachusetts - 12..........13..........-1
14. Indiana - 12..........12..........0
15. Washington - 12..........12..........0
16. Tennessee - 11..........12..........-1
17. Missouri - 11..........11..........0
18. Wisconsin - 10..........11..........-1
19. Maryland - 10..........11..........-1
20. Arizona - 11..........10..........+1
21. Minnesota - 9..........10..........-1
22. Louisiana - 8..........9..........-1
23. Alabama - 8..........9..........-1
24. Colorado - 9..........9..........0
25. Kentucky - 8..........8..........0
26. South Carolina - 8..........8..........0
27. Oklahoma - 7..........7..........0
28. Oregon - 7..........7..........0
29. Connecticut - 6..........7..........-1
30. Iowa - 5..........6..........-1
31. Mississippi - 5..........6..........-1
32. Kansas - 5..........5..........0
33. Arkansas - 5..........5..........0
34. Utah - 5..........5..........0
35. Nevada - 5..........4..........+1
36. New Mexico - 4..........4..........0
37. West Virginia - 3..........4..........-1
38. Nebraska - 3..........3..........0
39. Idaho - 3..........3..........0
40. Maine - 2..........3..........-1
41. New Hampshire - 2..........3..........-1
42. Hawaii - 2..........2..........0
43. Rhode Island - 2..........2..........0
44. Montana - 2..........2..........0
45. Delaware - 2..........2..........0
46. South Dakota - 1..........2..........-1
47. North Dakota - 1..........1..........0
48. Alaska - 1..........1..........0
49. Vermont - 1..........1..........0
50. Wyoming - 1..........1..........0

[SlidellWx]

Was happy to see that Louisiana grew over the decade. After losing 6% of the population in 2005, was sure the state would see a decline in population with this census.

[urbanactivist]

Just one point of clarification...

"Republican" states and areas may have grown, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Republicans gained in the number of actual voters. The country as a whole is still becoming more liberal. The economy of course has grayed the trend for a bit, but I still think it's apparent. Hopefully, some of the new seats gained by Conservative states will still have a more liberal base.

[wrab]

Originally Posted by urbanactivistTX

Just one point of clarification...

"Republican" states and areas may have grown, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Republicans gained in the number of actual voters. The country as a whole is still becoming more liberal. The economy of course has grayed the trend for a bit, but I still think it's apparent. Hopefully, some of the new seats gained by Conservative states will still have a more liberal base.

Right. New red-state residents aren't necessarily conservatives. They might even be making some of these red states more blue.

[Buckeye Native 001]

You're both arguing about Chase, a guy who repeatedly decalres that if you're not living in or wanting to move to New York City, then your opinion isn't worth shit. Lets try to keep that in mind, at least.

[Buckeye Native 001]

"Second-worst" behind Nevada is still pretty bad.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

"Second-worst" behind Nevada is still pretty bad.

It's bad but it's also not "far worse" than anyone else. Just attempting to put this into context... Although I misinterpreted his comments.

[ungerdog]

It is fun to watch liberals on this forum grasping at straws that everything is ok for Democrats despite contrary evidence displayed in recent census data. Those who produce are moving from heavy tax burden, union controlled, over regulated northern states and heading to states where those problems are not nearly as prevalent.

Northern states are going to be left with nothing but the recipient class due to economically punishing liberal policies. Good luck.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by ungerdog

It is fun to watch liberals on this forum grasping at straws that everything is ok for Democrats despite contrary evidence displayed in recent census data. Those who produce are moving from heavy tax burden, union controlled, over regulated northern states and heading to states where those problems are not nearly as prevalent.

Northern states are going to be left with nothing but the recipient class due to economically punishing liberal policies. Good luck.

Who is grasping at straws? The only state that actually lost population is Michigan and the northeast and midwest are experiencing expected trends. Also even though growth in Illinois was less in 2010 than in 2000 it still did better than it did in 1980 or 1990 (virtually zero growth) and growth in the US as a whole was less in 2010 than 2000 so it shouldn't be a shock that states like Illinois reflect that.

[wrab]

Originally Posted by ungerdog

It is fun to watch liberals on this forum grasping at straws that everything is ok for Democrats despite contrary evidence displayed in recent census data. Those who produce are moving from heavy tax burden, union controlled, over regulated northern states and heading to states where those problems are not nearly as prevalent.

Northern states are going to be left with nothing but the recipient class due to economically punishing liberal policies. Good luck.

What makes you think that these new residents are predominantly Republican?

[edluva]

the sunbelt's growth relies on an increasingly outdated model of suburbanization. it's increasingly outdated because it is increasingly unsustainable. simple economics will bear this out in the coming decades when the sunbelt realizes how difficult it will be to adapt much of what infrastructure has been invested. we are living in a different world, and the sunbelt is growing in the pattern that cities started growing about 50 years ago - the only difference is everything is newer. they are not contributing to the advancement of urban planning and the us will suffer because of it relative to newer asian societies.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by edluva

the sunbelt's growth relies on an increasingly outdated model of suburbanization. it's increasingly outdated because it is increasingly unsustainable. simple economics will bear this out in the coming decades when the sunbelt realizes how difficult it will be to adapt much of what infrastructure has been invested. we are living in a different world, and the sunbelt is growing in the pattern that cities started growing about 50 years ago - the only difference is everything is newer. they are not contributing to the advancement of urban planning and the us will suffer because of it relative to newer asian societies.

I honestly don't know what your getting at, there is so much room to grow here it's not even funny. It's cheaper, it's more practical, nothing's going to change in the future. It dosen't need to. There is no "outdated model", the world hasn't changed much from 50 years ago.

[jboy560]

You're entirely right. The world hasn't changed much. Everybody still buys American made cars, China doesn't matter in the world economy, and interracial marriage is still illegal.

Actually, come to think of it, the world has changed alot. If anybody remembers the oil price shock that we had just a few years ago, it definately showed the failings of the suburban model of development. Exurban areas were hit hardest, and suburban residents were hit harder than those in most inner cities. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but considering that the economy is going to rebound at some point and the dollar is falling fairly rapidly, I think the next time we go through sticker shock it will be even worse for people who have to commute an hour each way by highway with little to no alternative.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by jboy560

You're entirely right. The world hasn't changed much. Everybody still buys American made cars, China doesn't matter in the world economy, and interracial marriage is still illegal.

NONE of those have to do with ubran growth, which is what were obviously referring to.

Actually, come to think of it, the world has changed alot. If anybody remembers the oil price shock that we had just a few years ago, it definately showed the failings of the suburban model of development. Exurban areas were hit hardest, and suburban residents were hit harder than those in most inner cities. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but considering that the economy is going to rebound at some point and the dollar is falling fairly rapidly, I think the next time we go through sticker shock it will be even worse for people who have to commute an hour each way by highway with little to no alternative.

And America has been suburbanizing since 1776, not going to change. Suburbia has fueled the richest and most sucessful nation in the history of the world.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by Onn

And America has been suburbanizing since 1776, not going to change. Suburbia has fueled the richest and most sucessful nation in the history of the world.

[urbanactivist]

Originally Posted by edluva

the sunbelt's growth relies on an increasingly outdated model of suburbanization. it's increasingly outdated because it is increasingly unsustainable. simple economics will bear this out in the coming decades when the sunbelt realizes how difficult it will be to adapt much of what infrastructure has been invested. we are living in a different world, and the sunbelt is growing in the pattern that cities started growing about 50 years ago - the only difference is everything is newer. they are not contributing to the advancement of urban planning and the us will suffer because of it relative to newer asian societies.

We don't have city and county numbers out yet, but here's my take...

The sunbelt cities have sown the seeds of suburbanization long enough, and have already started to "wise up". I think growth will continue to be strongest in the South and West over the next decade because now these same cities are shifting rapidly to infill and better sustainability practices. However, I agree that we can't continue to grow in the suburban model and expect no consequence.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by urbanactivistTX

The sunbelt cities have sown the seeds of suburbanization long enough, and have already started to "wise up". I think growth will continue to be strongest in the South and West over the next decade because now these same cities are shifting rapidly to infill and better sustainability practices. However, I agree that we can't continue to grow in the suburban model and expect no consequence.

What consequence? That's what everyone says, but we have no evidence. It's an unfounded fear!

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Onn

And America has been suburbanizing since 1776, not going to change. Suburbia has fueled the richest and most sucessful nation in the history of the world.

Originally Posted by Onn

It's all true. Early Americans didn't live in tight urban cities, they lived on the farm, they lived far apart. It was an early form of suburbia.

Lol your lack of historical knowledge is amusing. You do know that there were no such thing as "big cities" in 1776? Therefore at some point between now and 1776 the United States must have gone through a period of urbanization which caused massive cities to exist. In 1800 about 5% of Americans lived in cities, that number now exceeds 80%. So no, you couldn't be more wrong.

The concept of the suburb didn't even exist until Frank Lloyd Wright invented it in the early 1900s. It didn't become popular until the 1950's and the post war boom. And no, early American agricultural communities weren't early forms of suburbia. Rural life is extremely different than suburban life. Suburbs are, by definition, based on a reliance on commuting from suburban residential areas to urban centers or regional centers for work, entertainment, and shopping. This is why suburbs are call suburbs they are subURBAN, meaning they rely on an urban area for their existence. You apparently have never seen a rural area or you would realize rural residents are largely self-sufficient with only the occasional need to travel somewhere to get manufactured goods. All the work for rural residents lies on their farms or their business that provides services to farms.

Additionally, most indicators suggest the trend of suburbanization that began 50 years ago is now receding in favor of renewed urban growth. So you are wrong there as well.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

The concept of the suburb didn't even exist until Frank Lloyd Wright invented it in the early 1900s. It didn't become popular until the 1950's and the post war boom. Most indicators suggest the trend of suburbanization that began 50 years ago is now receding in favor of renewed urban growth.

Not literally suburbia, but an earlier form that put emphasis on outward expanion. Drive though small towns in America from the 19th century and you'll see many of the same characteristics that you see in modern subrubs today. They just were smaller.