The US Census Bureau thread

[BG918]

Originally Posted by Architect2010

Yes this is so true. Here's a population chart of Oklahoma's population from 2000-2010. It portrays exactly what you have said; this Great Plain states are growing at a healthy clip. The most recent year suggests Oklahoma is about to start adding some hefty numbers to it's population. I suspect within Oklahoma, the overwhelming majority of the growth will be within the two urban areas, Oklahoma City and Tulsa.

OKLAHOMA
Total Pop POPULATION Numeric change % change
April 1, 2010 ... 3,751,351 ... 64,301 ... 1.74%
July 1, 2009 ... 3,687,050 ... 43,025 ... 1.18%
July 1, 2008 ... 3,644,025 ... 31,839 ... 0.88%
July 1, 2007 ... 3,612,186 ... 37,852 ... 1.06%
July 1, 2006 ... 3,574,334 ... 41,565 ... 1.18%
July 1, 2005 ... 3,532,769 ... 18,320 ... 0.52%
July 1, 2004 ... 3,514,449 ... 15,762 ... 0.45%
July 1, 2003 ... 3,498,687 ... 13,933 ... 0.40%
July 1, 2002 ... 3,484,754 ... 20,025 ... 0.58%
July 1, 2001 ... 3,464,729 ... 10,786 ... 0.31%
July 1, 2000 ... 3,453,943...

Oklahoma has seen modest growth in its two large metros. I would suspect the rural areas, especially the Plains counties in the west and Panhandle, all lost population except for Lawton which has been growing rapidly due to BRAC and Fort Sill army base.

While Plains states are showing positive population growth, I would bet most of it is in the larger cities and that rural farm towns are continuing to empty.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by BG918

Oklahoma has seen modest growth in its two large metros. I would suspect the rural areas, especially the Plains counties in the west and Panhandle, all lost population except for Lawton which has been growing rapidly due to BRAC and Fort Sill army base.

While Plains states are showing positive population growth, I would bet most of it is in the larger cities and that rural farm towns are continuing to empty.

We don't have 2009-2010 comparison numbers. The difference you show might be partially "correction" between two counting methods, not an actual difference. Though Oklahoma apparently is doing well due to oil prices.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by MNMike

Minnesota didn't do too bad, with a growth rate of 7.8%. That was enough so that we didn't lose a seat in congress.

Missouri was 7.0%, just enough to lose one.

[Steely Dan]

here are the winners and losers:

texas: +4
florida: +2
arizona: +1
georgia: +1
nevada: +1
south carolina: +1
utah: +1
washington: +1


new york: -2
ohio: -2
illinois: -1
iowa: -1
louisiana: -1
massachusetts: -1
michigan: -1
missouri: -1
new jersey: -1
pennsylvania: -1



source: http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/

[Flamesrule]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

here are the winners and losers:

texas: +4
florida: +2
arizona: +1
georgia: +1
nevada: +1
south carolina: +1
utah: +1
washington: +1


new york: -2
ohio: -2
illinois: -1
iowa: -1
louisiana: -1
massachusetts: -1
michigan: -1
missouri: -1
new jersey: -1
pennsylvania: -1

source: http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/

Eh, I expected PA population to drop.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Flamesrule

Eh, I expected PA population to drop.

But it didn't and you are surprised?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Flamesrule

Eh, I expected PA population to drop.

nope, PA's pop didn't drop, but it's 3.4% growth was not enough to allow it to keep up with the faster growing sunbelt states.

[M II A II R II K]

Yea that's what I wax thinking, those growing states are becoming more politically diverse.

[10023]

That's right, Steely.

Other than the ever present redistricting shenanigans, the net effect on the House should theoretically be zero. People moving around the country doesn't impact the total number of Republican and Democratic voters, and if, say, Upstate New York loses people but metro Atlanta gains people, it's not an advantage to the GOP.

Where it matters is in the Electoral College. But as I said, that's only true until the Northeast/Midwest migration to the Sunbelt reaches critical mass, at which point traditionally Republican states become moderate or Democratic, and the GOP is worse off than it was in the 1980s.

[shane453]

The 2000-2010 Census numbers were interesting, but I wanted to go back in and break it down to the last year of growth to see how recent economic changes have affected growth rates. Here are the states (and DC) ranked by Growth Rate and Numeric Growth for the period from July 1, 2009 estimates to April 1, 2010 Census counts. I would imagine this gives a lot of insight into what has happened as a result of the recession? Or, does this just reflect inaccuracies of the Census estimates being corrected?

BY % GROWTH

1 HI 5.03%
2 ND 3.98%
3 WY 3.56%
4 NM 2.46%
5 NV 2.17%
6 WV 1.83%
7 OK 1.74%
8 AK 1.68%
9 NE 1.65%
10 NC 1.65%
11 CT 1.59%
12 AL 1.51%
13 VA 1.50%
14 MT 1.48%
15 TX 1.47%
16 DE 1.45%
17 FL 1.42%
18 ID 1.41%
19 SC 1.41%
20 MD 1.30%
21 IA 1.28%
22 KS 1.22%
23 NJ 0.97%
24 IN 0.94%
25 LA 0.92%
26 AR 0.92%
27 WA 0.91%
28 TN 0.79%
29 CA 0.79%
30 PA 0.77%
31 ME 0.76%
32 MN 0.72%
33 VT 0.64%
34 KY 0.59%
35 WI 0.57%
36 MS 0.52%
37 DC 0.34%
38 SD 0.22%
39 OR 0.14%
40 CO 0.09%
41 MO 0.02%
42 OH -0.05%
43 RI -0.06%
44 NH -0.61%
45 IL -0.62%
46 MA -0.70%
47 UT -0.74%
48 NY -0.84%
49 MI -0.86%
50 GA -1.44%
51 AZ -3.09%

BY NUMERIC GROWTH 09-10

1 TX 363,259
2 CA 292,292
3 FL 263,341
4 NC 154,599
5 VA 118,434
6 PA 97,612
7 NJ 84,155
8 MD 74,074
9 AL 71,028
10 HI 65,123
11 OK 64,301
12 SC 64,122
13 IN 60,689
14 WA 60,345
15 NV 57,466
16 CT 55,809
17 TN 49,851
18 NM 49,508
19 LA 41,296
20 IA 38,499
21 MN 37,711
22 KS 34,371
23 WV 33,217
24 WI 32,212
25 NE 29,722
26 AR 26,468
27 ND 25,747
28 KY 25,254
29 ID 21,781
30 WY 19,356
31 MS 15,301
32 MT 14,426
33 DE 12,812
34 AK 11,758
35 ME 10,060
36 OR 5,417
37 CO 4,448
38 VT 3,981
39 DC 2,066
40 SD 1,797
41 MO 1,347
42 RI -642
43 OH -6,141
44 NH -8,105
45 UT -20,687
46 MA -45,958
47 IL -79,777
48 MI -86,087
49 GA -141,558
50 NY -163,351
51 AZ -203,761

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by shane453

The 2000-2010 Census numbers were interesting, but I wanted to go back in and break it down to the last year of growth to see how recent economic changes have affected growth rates.

No, this list is false.

You are comparing two different ways to measure population.

The 2010 Census isn't a continuation of the annual estimates. It's an entirely different type of measurement.

In other words, if the 2010 Census were conducted in 2009 (or any other year), the numbers would be totally different than the estimates for that year.

[hudkina]

Even at the national level it won't be that hard for the Democrats to retain their strongholds and win a few battleground states.

For example, the Northeast including D.C., Maryland and Delaware has 112 electoral votes. The Upper Midwest (Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Illinois) add 62 more votes and the West Coast (California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii) add another 78. That's 252 votes that will likely go in favor of Obama, though there's always the possibilities of a few switches (Iowa, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, etc.)

If Obama can keep Florida then he has more than enough and in fact could lose New Hampshire and Iowa and still win. If he keeps the 252 votes in the likely states and also keeps Ohio then he has exactly enough. If he loses both Ohio and Florida he can take Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico and win. And that doesn't even take into consideration Virginia, which has increasingly become more liberal. He can add Virginia and any one of the Mountain West states and still win.

[SpongeG]

almost 30 million people in 10 years? :O

thats almost the population of Canada damn we are slow up here

[Matthew]

The reason North Carolina is more competitive in elections is due to the presence of several good-sized cities, including five of the nation's 100 largest cities in population. Cities colleges and research (California, Massachusetts and North Carolina are the nation's top research states) attract a different type of transplant. Not the older conservative looking to escape the big city and/or big taxes, but the younger liberal transplant. The state's noteworthy research parks are spread-out in suburban Charlotte (food research), downtown Winston-Salem (regenerative medicine) and suburban Durham (well-know Research Triangle Park).

[hudkina]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No, this list is false.

You are comparing two different ways to measure population.

The 2010 Census isn't a continuation of the annual estimates. It's an entirely different type of measurement.

In other words, if the 2010 Census were conducted in 2009 (or any other year), the numbers would be totally different than the estimates for that year.

But it is interesting to see just how off the estimates were. The 2009 estimate for Arizona was 6,595,778 yet the official count found only 6,392,017. In 2007 the state had an estimated population of 6,362,241, and despite all indications that the state had seen its population growth slow to a crawl during the recession, the Census Bureau continued to estimate massive population gains over the following two years. Assuming that the estimates for 2007 were remotely accurate, it seems that Arizona has been relatively stagnant during the recession.

It's interesting because the Census Bureau was relatively accurate with (if not underestimating) Nevada. Between 2007 and 2009 they estimated growth of 75,333, or under 38,000 per year. However, after the official count, they found that the 2010 results were 57,466 above the 2009 estimates. Assuming the estimates for 2007 were relatively accurate, Nevada performed slightly better through the recession than the Census Bureau estimated.

Another state with inflated estimates was Georgia. The 2009 estimate had the population at 9,829,211 but the official count found 9,687,653. It seems as if the estimates were looking for a population of roughly 10 million for 2010, but found far fewer.

[hudkina]

If you take the estimated annual numeric change between 2007 and 2009 and add it to the 2009 population estimate, you get a number somewhat close to what what a probable estimate would be for 2010. e.g. Between 2007 and 2009 Alabama was estimated to have added 70,804, or 35,402 per year. When you add that number to the 2009 estimate, you get 4,744,110, which is probably close to what an estimate would have been for 2010. But when you compare that number to the actual results, you find that Alabama would have been undercounted by upwards of 35,000 people.

In that sense, Florida was by far the most numerically underestimated state followed by Pennsylvania. On the flip side, Arizona and Georgia were the most numerically overestimated states. Mississippi and Minnesota had the most accurate estimates.

Here's a list:

Underestimated States
1. Florida - +133,301
2. Pennsylvania - +56,494
3. Hawaii - +55,950
4. New Jersey - +48,307
5. Maryland - +41,456
6. Connecticut - +40,982
7. Virginia - +37,014
8. Alabama - +35,626
9. New Mexico - +29,038
10. West Virginia - +28,928
11. Oklahoma - +26,869
12. Iowa - +23,931
13. Indiana - +22,189
14. North Dakota - +21,426
15. Nevada - +19,800
16. Nebraska - +16,369
17. Kansas - +12,791
18. Maine - +9,564
19. Wyoming - +8,928
20. Wisconsin - +5,611
21. Montana - +5,544
22. Alaska - +3,670
23. Vermont - +3,331
24. Arkansas - +2,840
25. Delaware - +2,699
26. Rhode Island - +258
27. Minnesota - +207
28. Mississippi - +165

Overestimated States
29. Idaho - -1,497
30. Kentucky - -3,664
31. North Carolina - -3,806
32. South Carolina - -4,383
33. District of Columbia - -4,558
34. South Dakota - -5,877
35. New Hampshire - -11,721
36. Tennessee - -11,845
37. Louisiana - -16,681
38. Ohio - -17,056
39. Missouri - -37,531
40. Washington - -39,263
41. Oregon - -40,933
42. Michigan - -45,527
43. California - -75,479
44. Utah - -81,075
45. Colorado - -86,797
46. Massachusetts - -93,114
47. Texas - -109,042
48. Illinois - -145,273
49. New York - -222,689
50. Georgia - -289,283
51. Arizona - -320,530

The Top and Bottom 10 by percentage:

1. Hawaii - +4.3%
2. North Dakota - +3.3%
3. Wyoming - +1.6%
4. West Virginia - +1.6%
5. New Mexico - +1.4%
6. Connecticut - +1.2%
7. Nebraska - +0.9%
8. Iowa - +0.8%
9. Alabama - +0.8%
10. Nevada - +0.7%

1. Arizona - -4.8%
2. Georgia - -2.9%
3. Utah - -2.8%
4. Colorado - -1.7%
5. Massachusetts - -1.4%
6. New York - -1.1%
7. Illinois - -1.1%
8. Oregon - -1.1%
9. New Hampshire - -0.9%
10. District of Columbia - -0.8%

[TonyAnderson]

Originally Posted by hudkina

But it is interesting to see just how off the estimates were. The 2009 estimate for Arizona was 6,595,778 yet the official count found only 6,392,017. In 2007 the state had an estimated population of 6,362,241, and despite all indications that the state had seen its population growth slow to a crawl during the recession, the Census Bureau continued to estimate massive population gains over the following two years. Assuming that the estimates for 2007 were remotely accurate, it seems that Arizona has been relatively stagnant during the recession.

It's interesting because the Census Bureau was relatively accurate with (if not underestimating) Nevada. Between 2007 and 2009 they estimated growth of 75,333, or under 38,000 per year. However, after the official count, they found that the 2010 results were 57,466 above the 2009 estimates. Assuming the estimates for 2007 were relatively accurate, Nevada performed slightly better through the recession than the Census Bureau estimated.

Another state with inflated estimates was Georgia. The 2009 estimate had the population at 9,829,211 but the official count found 9,687,653. It seems as if the estimates were looking for a population of roughly 10 million for 2010, but found far fewer.

I'm kind of impressed with how accurate the estimates are considering how they're done. Going from estimating for ten years straight to counting each person individually each ten years seems like you'd have some really eschewed numbers. I think they were off by 20,000 for Utah (of a 500,000 10 year increase). Not bad.

[Chase Unperson]

Here is the NYT's breakdown and analysis of the change in house seats.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/us....html?_r=1&hpw

What are the states in the south and west doing that's making them more successful and getting people to move there. How are they able to provide better job opportunities (which obviously is the main reason someone would move).

[vid]

Originally Posted by Chase Unperson

What are the states in the south and west doing that's making them more successful and getting people to move there. How are they able to provide better job opportunities (which obviously is the main reason someone would move).

Retirees don't work, but serving them employs a lot of people.

That's not the only reason but it's definitely a contributing factor. A lot of growth in retail and construction here is related to the ageing population.

[novawolverine]

Originally Posted by Chase Unperson

Here is the NYT's breakdown and analysis of the change in house seats.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/us....html?_r=1&hpw

What are the states in the south and west doing that's making them more successful and getting people to move there. How are they able to provide better job opportunities (which obviously is the main reason someone would move).

Cost of living is lower and the land is cheaper, generally speaking. "Better" weather also contributes. Many locales in the South and West have developed more recently and that "newness" is desirable to a lot of people.

To become more competitive, some states in the South and West have had to undercut the Northeast and Midwest in certain industries so that costs, like labor, and taxes are lower along with less regulations. There's other corporate welfare as well. Many southern states have auto manufacturing plants these days. The trade-offs, like less money for gov't services, is worth it for many people.