The US Census Bureau thread

[M II A II R II K]

Census tracks 20 years of sweeping change


Read More: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...s-change_n.htm

The USA is bigger, older, more Hispanic and Asian and less wedded to marriage and traditional families than it was in 1990. It also is less enamored of kids, more embracing of several generations living under one roof, more inclusive of same-sex couples, more cognizant of multiracial identities, more suburban, less rural and leaning more to the South and West.

Results of the 2010 Census have been pouring out all year, an avalanche of statistics detailing the population characteristics of states, counties and cities. But the Census represents more than just a current snapshot.

The end of the first decade of the 21st century marks a turning point in the nation's social, cultural, geographic, racial and ethnic fabric. It's a shift so profound that it reveals an America that seemed unlikely a mere 20 years ago — one that will influence the nation for years to come in everything from who is elected to run the country, states and cities to what type of houses will be built and where.

.....

[M II A II R II K]

Striking Change in Bedford-Stuyvesant as the White Population Soars


Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/ny...pagewanted=all

.....

Overshadowed by Harlem’s racial metamorphosis since 2000, an even more striking evolution has occurred in Bedford-Stuyvesant. Over all, the neighborhood is now barely 60 percent black — down from 75 percent a decade ago. But in the older Bedford section west of Throop Avenue, according to the 2010 census, blacks have recently become a minority of the population for the first time in 50 years. “Both the fall of the crime rate and the improvement of the subway were conditions that made this neighborhood more attractive to people who might not have considered living there in the past,” said John H. Mollenkopf, director of the Center for Urban Research at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York.

- In the past decade, the black population of Bedford dropped to 34,000 from 40,000, or to 49 percent from 69 percent. Meanwhile, the number of whites grew to more than 18,000, up from just over 2,000, or to 26 percent, up from 4 percent. From 2000 to 2010, the white population soared 633 percent — the biggest percentage increase of any major racial or ethnic group in any New York City neighborhood. In Central Harlem, meanwhile, the number of whites rose 400 percent, increasing their share of the population to 10 percent, up from 2 percent.

- “In the 2010 census, the first thing we noticed was how the concentrations in many traditional black and white areas dropped off across so many blocks,” said Steven Romalewski, director of the mapping service of the Center for Urban Research at CUNY’s Graduate Center, which analyzed the census results block by block. In Brooklyn, he said, “you can see how the white population, for example, is shifting eastward into traditionally black areas, while blacks are also moving eastward, especially to Flatlands and Canarsie.”

- “You’re getting new money, new people, you get different types of services and stores, and you get more police protection,” he said. “Homeowners are doing well, but if you’re a renter, those prices have gone up also and that has pushed some people into moving out. Michael Guerra, executive vice president of Prudential Douglas Elliman and its Brooklyn sales director, said the neighborhood was attracting students from the nearby Pratt Institute, as well as “couples and singles who are looking for more value and a segment of pioneers who think there’s a long-term upside.”

.....

The intersection of Greene and Classon Avenues, above, in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, which is becoming increasingly white.

[hudkina]

Apparently people weren't leaving Florida for Georgia, nor Pennsylvania for Arizona as fast as was thought.

It will also be interesting to see where the people ended up not being in New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts. Did the outlying areas of those states lose more people than estimated, or did the New York area, Boston, and Chicagoland not grow as fast as estimated?

[Paule]

Originally Posted by hudkina

Apparently people weren't leaving Florida for Georgia, nor Pennsylvania for Arizona as fast as was thought.

I think it's probable that due to the recession/depression less people have been moving from state to state no matter what state we are talking about.

It will also be interesting to see where the people ended up not being in New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts. Did the outlying areas of those states lose more people than estimated, or did the New York area, Boston, and Chicagoland not grow as fast as estimated?

I'd really like to see these states response rate to the census questionair and where they ranked.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by Paule

I'd really like to see these states response rate to the census questionair and where they ranked.

New York: 69%
Illinois: 76%
Massachusetts: 75%

compared to rates of the top 3 gainers:

Nevada: 71%
Arizona: 69%
Utah: 75%

National Rate: 74%

source: http://2010.census.gov/2010census/take10map/



Doesnt seem like participation rate really affected anything, seems like the "Big Three" slow gainers in the North and East had similar response rates as the top 3 gainers. Its really surprising to me that those states grew so slowly this decade, considering the swifter pace they experienced in 1990-2000 (IL: 8.6%, MA 5.5%, NY 5.5%).

[village person]

This is the first decade that Puerto Rico saw a population loss, and a big one at that, bigger than Michigan's loss in both number and percentage (this is also Michigan's first loss between censuses). Discuss.

[hudkina]

It sucks that the Census occured during the peak of the recession as it really took a toll on Michigan's population. While it recorded a 0.6% loss between 2000 and 2010, that didn't include the population gain that occured in the first five years of the decade. Michigan's population peaked at over 10 million during the decade, so that's a loss of 200,000 in barely five years. It will also probably cause the Census Bureau to underestimate the state's population growth over the next decade as it did throughout the 90's, meaning less money for the state as it continues to recover.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by hudkina

It sucks that the Census occured during the peak of the recession as it really took a toll on Michigan's population. While it recorded a 0.6% loss between 2000 and 2010, that didn't include the population gain that occured in the first five years of the decade. Michigan's population peaked at over 10 million during the decade, so that's a loss of 200,000 in barely five years. It will also probably cause the Census Bureau to underestimate the state's population growth over the next decade as it did throughout the 90's, meaning less money for the state as it continues to recover.

Michigan was losing population even before the recession, the auto industry went downhill and people fled. I'm not at all surprised, things have been pretty bad here for a long time. In the future the population will likely pick up again, but the gains will be marginal. The Midwest is sagging behind everyone else in growth, probably something that won't change by 2050, at least not in the heart of the rust belt.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Onn

The Midwest is sagging behind everyone else in growth, probably something that won't change by 2050, at least not in the heart of the rust belt.

^ I hate how people are using this data and singling out the midwest as the place that's lagging.

Look at the data. The whole north/northeast portion of the country is sagging in growth. So to say that the midwest is sagging behind everyone else is simply wrong.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I hate how people are using this data and singling out the midwest as the place that's lagging.

Look at the data. The whole north/northeast portion of the country is sagging in growth. So to say that the midwest is sagging behind everyone else is simply wrong.

Not saying they aren't, but Michigan is the only state that isn't even growing and IS part of the Midwest. Other states in the Midwest aren't doing well either, but the Midwest is also home to the only state not growing. The situation here is even worse than the Northeast.

[Steely Dan]

^ no, the situation in Michigan is worse than the northeast, the Midwest as a whole grew more than the northeast, even after factoring michigan's loss. In fact, overall the Midwest has been growing faster than the northeast, albeit marginally, since the 70s.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ no, the situation in Michigan is worse than the northeast, the Midwest as a whole grew more than the northeast, even after factoring michigan's loss. In fact, overall the Midwest has been growing faster than the northeast, albeit marginally, since the 70s.

But Michigan is part of the Midwest, were talking as a whole. All the Northeast states are growing, the Midwest has one that is not growing. The Midwest also lost more house seats than the Northeast did. Its reasonable to conclude then that the Northeast population is not suffering as badly as the Midwest's is.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Two thoughts:

1. At the Indian tribe I work for, I worked with the Census Bureau last winter and spring to get an accurate address list, and all I can say is, you can add about 5% to those population numbers to get something approximating the "real" number. We got about a 98% response rate, but both during and after the process, it became clear to me there were a lot of addresses that got missed, so the "real" response rate was actually less. I also know people who told me they never got a census form.

2. As someone said above, the timing of the census during (or shortly after) a recession undoubtedly affected the numbers. In particular, lots of immigrants who were here during the boom years of 2004-2007 had gone home and probably account for a lot of the unexpectedly small numbers.

[mhays]

Anyone remember having the same debates a decade ago on SSP? Fun times.

My first census nerdfest was 1980. It was different then...just an article in Pacific Northwest Magazine that talked about Washington's 21% growth being like the country had "tipped over" in our direction. Five years later it became the annual wait for the World Almanac, until the late 90s.

God I'm a dweeb about this stuff.

[vid]

The only thing reapportionment shows relative to population is the change in the share of the national population each state has. Everywhere could grow but if one region grows faster the other regions will lose, because there are only so many seats to go around and they're split equally based on population.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by vid

The only thing reapportionment shows relative to population is the change in the share of the national population each state has. Everywhere could grow but if one region grows faster the other regions will lose, because there are only so many seats to go around and they're split equally based on population.

That's true, but if one region loses more than the others...what you are supposed to assume about that region? That the population in that region is sagging more than in the other regions.

[LMich]

Not many surprises. You have to get down in the rank of the 30's before any states switched ranks.

What I found surprising is that the Census had been estimating Georgia's population too high and North Carolina's too low, and neither was able to pass Michigan despite the Census having had each of them passing or nearly passing Michigan for this year. I was fully expecting to see both Georgia and NC pass Michigan this Census.

Originally Posted by Onn

Michigan was losing population even before the recession, the auto industry went downhill and people fled.

Actually, it wasn't. Whatever outmigration was occuring was offset by births and immigration. It was only after the double whammy of both the local recession and the national recession that births and immigration couldn't keep up with the increasing outmigration.

BTW, it's unfortunate that Michigan's economy didn't start to pick back up until the spring of 2010, which is when the Census began its count. The slow (but very real) recovery isn't going to show in the Census. It's really kind of amazing Michigan didn't register a larger loss considering how many jobs we loss on net; I mean a loss of six-tenths of a percent is kind of benign given the economic chaos. You'd expect with all of the doom and gloom stories for the state over the past two years that we'd lost hundreds of thousands of people on net since 2000.

Some more random facts I found about our situation:

- New York State is the only other big, industrial state to have lost population over a decade during the last century when they lost a statistically significant 3.7% of their population during the 1970's.

- Of the 33 times a state has lost population over a decade since 2010, Michigan's loss ranks as the fifth lowest percent drop.

- This decade is pretty similar to the 80's when Michigan only add 0.4% to its population.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by LMich

Actually, it wasn't. Whatever outmigration was occuring was offset by births and immigration. It was only after the double whammy of both the local recession and the national recession that births and immigration couldn't keep up with the increasing outmigration.

Actually it was, we wouldn't be losing population if it weren't for the bad auto indusrty. We DID loose population.

[mhays]

Some states switched ranks if you mean over the 10 years. Washington passed Massachusetts and Indiana if I recall.

[LMich]

Oops, you are right. The switches actually start right below Michigan (#8) with New Jersey going from 9th to 11th.

I'm still surprised that there is still a pretty big gap between 10th and everything else, and then an even bigger one between 12th and everything else.