The US Census Bureau thread

[novawolverine]

Originally Posted by Onn

That's because the government has been growing leaps and bounds since 2000, why else would that growth be taking place in DC?

Gov't does have something to do with it, but the gov't wasn't shrinking between 1950 and 2000, so there's obviously more to it than that. Between 1950 and 2000, the metro area and gov't were both growing while the city was shrinking, so your view is a bit too simplistic.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by hudkina

Another thing I find interesting is that they have Michigan recovering (adding nearly 815,000 people between 2010 and 2020), but then somehow the state falls off the cliff again come 2030.

They must be taking into account the fact that the US auto industry collapses every 20 years or so. That's gotta be an accepted demographic statistic by now right?

[hudkina]

Well I would hope that recently elected Republican Governor Rick Snyder would be able to do something about that by 2030... Besides we'll all have to get rid of our old cars and get new flying cars then, which should allow the Big 3 to go gangbusters.

BTW, while I disagree with a lot of what Onn said, he does have a little bit of a point. U.S. policies do favor the suburban trend that has allowed the sunbelt to explode in population, and there is a reason for that trend, and no it's not due to anything General Motors did...

Humans didn't evolve to live in large social groups, but rather small family groups. In that sense cities aren't necessarily conducive with human nature. In fact large urban centers are a relatively new concept to our species, and it's only been in the last century that the human species has become an urban species.

In that sense, while cities are certainly the center of most of the world's major economies, and being so, have drawn in millions of new residents year after year, the reality is that humans are naturally better suited to a more agrarian society. In the U.S., government policies made it that much easier for the suburbs to develop to sort of meet both concepts halfway. They offer the benefits of urban centers, but with the social structure of a more agrarian society. Even in Europe, where government policies heavily favor urban living, a large portion of the population lives in outlying suburbs and small rural communities.

[mhays]

Much of that family-group social structure was due to needs that don't exist now. Small groups worked because a few experienced men and a few experienced women could produce everything they neeed. Small groups were necessary because hunting and gathering produced very limited quantities of food in a given area, and it was counterproductive to have more people in that area.

In places where hunting/gathering were more productive, people could live in larger communities. In places where necessary activities required more people, or were more specialized, again larger groups tended to live together.

[hudkina]

There are plenty of things that we've evolved that are no longer necessary, but are still very much a part of us. Just because we have no use for our tailbone, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The same is true for the hardwiring in our brains. We may not necessarily need to form small family groups to survive, but that trait is still hardwired into our brain.

[mhays]

I really doubt that.

Personality traits can be "hard wired" in the sense that certain conditions can create chemical responses, and certain traits can help us live long enough and procreate. The desire for companionship is like that.

But even big communities can provide companionship. I doubt or bodies have a reaction to small family groups that's not replicatable in modern cities, for example by having a family and a group of friends, or by simply retaining the extended family.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by hudkina

There are plenty of things that we've evolved that are no longer necessary, but are still very much a part of us. Just because we have no use for our tailbone, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The same is true for the hardwiring in our brains. We may not necessarily need to form small family groups to survive, but that trait is still hardwired into our brain.

You should read some Desmond Morris.

And no form of modern living corresponds with what is hardwired in our brains, least of all suburban living...

[plinko]

uggghhh...and the legal bitching is soon to begin...

source

California says census missed 1.5 million residents
If true, the discrepancy could cost the state billions of dollars in federal money and perhaps an additional seat in Congress. A court battle may be possible.

By Seema Mehta, Los Angeles Times

December 23, 2010, 8:39 p.m.

California officials estimate that the U.S. Census Bureau failed to count 1.5 million of the state's residents, a discrepancy that if true could cost the state billions of dollars in federal aid over the next decade and perhaps an increase in its representation in Congress.

On Tuesday, the Census Bureau released national and state population figures that declared California to have 37.3 million residents, 10% more than in 2000. That growth — based on mailed-in surveys and door-to-door interviews by census takers — roughly mirrored the nation's, but meant that for the first time since California became a state in 1850 it did not grow enough to add another member to its congressional delegation.

But according to the state Department of Finance, the state's population was 38.8 million on July 1. That figure is drawn from birth and death statistics, school-enrollment data, driver's license address changes, tax returns and Medicare enrollment, a set of data points that provides a "more refined" picture of the population, according to H.D. Palmer, a finance department spokesman.

This is likely true across the board nationally, but it'll be really interesting to see if any states take up legal challenges given how many of them are in desperate need of dollars from any source (particularly the federal government).

[hudkina]

On the contrary, suburbs offer a fairly good balance between the economic needs of our modern culture (i.e. cities), and the small group social behaviors hardwired into our brains. That's not to say humans aren't adapting to urban living, but it's such a new concept that we're still not fully adapted.

[Muskavon]

Originally Posted by 10023

In terms of shifting the balance of power politically, you've got to remember that while these shifts mean that Republican states are gaining population and political clout, they're also becoming less Republican. The growth is coming from Northern transplants, immigrants, and minorities that lean Democratic.

So this trend only provides a tailwind for the GOP until the demographics reach the magical tipping point where the "newcomers" become a plurality, at which point these states will flip entirely. Look at Virginia and North Carolina in the last election... all that growth in NoVA and Charlotte looks like it helps the Repubs, but longer term, it doesn't really.

This assumes none of these new population people actually grow up in their new environment and adopt the customs and values of the place their peers require them to. A God non-fearing wonderful socialist liberal can relocate to North Carolina if he wants. But he may have Bush kids. His risk. Not unlike expecting your kids to adopt all your customs when you come from overseas. They will get assimiliated. Maybe not your kids. But your grandkids will. And then the old man will get involved in politics when his non-NYC property taxes are about to get raised, or his property is gonna get zoned for something he doesn't like...suddenly the old man goes conservative too. Shouting at the fact he can't handle fractions of the taxes he sold his house in NYC to leave for NC for. His plan was to be "rich" off that difference as a retired muffler repair man. Because, after all, a retired muffler repair man deserves to be rich. That only happens if he sells off his northern assets and protects his southern ones.

[hudkina]

I don't think people necessarily become politically assimilated... While not always true, I would say most people tend to have political views that are similar to their parents. Also, the more urban a state becomes, the more liberal it tends to become, so as the southern states become more and more urbanized, they'll become more and more liberal. There's a reason Virginia, North Carolina and Florida went to Obama while states like Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina we're solidly behind McCain. There's a reason why Colorado went to Obama while Wyoming went to McCain.

In fact, if you look at the 23 most urbanized states (where generally at least 75% of the people live in urbanized areas), 3 of those states went for McCain, while the remaining 20 went for Obama. Utah, Arizona, and Texas all voted for McCain. Utah is dominated by an extremely conservative religious group, so despite the highly urbanized nature of the population, it's no surprise it went for the Republican. Arizona too isn't a surprise considering it was the home state of McCain. Surprisingly, Arizona had the weakest support for McCain among the three, and if the Republican nominee had hailed from somewhere else, it's possible that Obama could have carried Arizona. That leaves Texas as the only other highly urbanized state that voted for the Republican.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by novawolverine

Gov't does have something to do with it, but the gov't wasn't shrinking between 1950 and 2000, so there's obviously more to it than that. Between 1950 and 2000, the metro area and gov't were both growing while the city was shrinking, so your view is a bit too simplistic.

I gave you an article with an analyst's take on the matter.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

They must be taking into account the fact that the US auto industry collapses every 20 years or so. That's gotta be an accepted demographic statistic by now right?

Well considering there is a massive glut of old people that are going to die in that time, it's probably a pretty good estimate. They are projecting the same kind of numbers for many states around the country.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by Muskavon

This assumes none of these new population people actually grow up in their new environment and adopt the customs and values of the place their peers require them to. A God non-fearing wonderful socialist liberal can relocate to North Carolina if he wants. But he may have Bush kids. His risk. Not unlike expecting your kids to adopt all your customs when you come from overseas. They will get assimiliated. Maybe not your kids. But your grandkids will. And then the old man will get involved in politics when his non-NYC property taxes are about to get raised, or his property is gonna get zoned for something he doesn't like...suddenly the old man goes conservative too. Shouting at the fact he can't handle fractions of the taxes he sold his house in NYC to leave for NC for. His plan was to be "rich" off that difference as a retired muffler repair man. Because, after all, a retired muffler repair man deserves to be rich. That only happens if he sells off his northern assets and protects his southern ones.

Hispanics will lean right, not just due to the values of the region but that fact that many of them are Catholic. Although Catholic's have traditionally voted Democratic that is changing due to their conservative views. Coincidently, Hispanics are also the fastest growing minority. Many believe minorities will inevitably turn red states blue, I think that it's going to be more of a mixed bag. Historically one political ideology has not had complete control over American politics. Whatever the outcome, there is always going to be a large segment of the population that votes for the people who get the job done, whether they are Democratic or Republican or some other party. Many argue that independents are the fastest growing political demographic. I think the fear of a sharp Republican downfall are overblown and taken out of context.

[Expat]

Naturally, this thread has turned into pure politics. God-fearing, tax-fearing, etc. and so on. It always boils down to the same go-nowhere arguments. Can't deny that this issue is naturally tied to politics, but eventually the argument degrades into the same old dumbed-down BS. Have fun with it. And let us know if there is any new & interesting info regarding the census.

[hudkina]

Come back in a few months and see...

[Matthew]

As I said in an earlier post, not everyone moving to North Carolina is moving there to retire and escape high taxes. North Carolina is third on this list of research states; is home to several large corporations that are household names; is home to several financial companies in Charlotte, Winston-Salem and Raleigh; has five of the nation's 100 largest cities in population and is home to several well-known universities including two of the nation's top 25 universities (Duke in Durham and Wake Forest in Winston-Salem). North Carolina attracts well-educated young people looking to start their careers in a place that is new and growing. It is different when you have growing cities and a population that is becoming more urban compared to coastal condos and retirement communities. North Carolina has six cities with over 200,000 people in population and three noteworthy research parks in Charlotte, Winston-Salem and Durham, including the nation's largest. I think this explains why North Carolina voted Democrat in the 2008 presidential election when many of its other southern neighbors voted more Republican. While the coast and mountains are growing and attracting people looking to retire, North Carolina's strong growth is in the central section of the state, where the large cities, universities and jobs are.

[M II A II R II K]

Five unusual Census 2010 facts


http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/20...facts/Michigan

Which state has more people per square mile than India? Which state saw its smallest population growth in at least a century? The data released Tuesday gives Americans a first look at what Census 2010 is saying about the United States. For example, the US population grew more slowly this past decade – 9.7 percent – than in any decade since the 1930s. Back during the Great Depression, six states lost population. In the first 10 years of the 2000s, only one state was a loser. Do you know which one?

[novawolverine]

Originally Posted by Onn

I gave you an article with an analyst's take on the matter.

I read the article and it doesn't support your view. The federal gov't has been growing for decades, not just since 2000, as has the DC area, while the city proper was shrinking rapidly. Only recently did the city start adding people. The federal gov't is larger now than it was when DC had a population of 800k people. Your logic that when the federal gov't grows, so does DC proper, is flawed. DC should be setting an all-time high by the day if your logic were correct.

Cities that suffered from white flight, riots, crack epidemics and poor governance hit a bottom and start to grow again. It's as simple as that. Gov't has grown, but people working in the gov't or some related industry see the city proper as a more desirable place to live than before. Most of the jobs being created are in the 'burbs anyway.

[mhays]

DC's growth is also a lot of diversification, even while the military, etc., have added people. Also the lobbyist economy has presumably exploded.