The US Census Bureau thread - Page 170

Steely Dan · #**3381** Posted **Jan 21, 2022, 7:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

And even more surprising to me than chicago's 63% share of cook county's growth last decade was the city's 32% share of the entire MSA's growth (51K out 157K)

Now of course, that's speaks much more to a pretty damn stagnant suburban Chicagoland than it does to the city having some kind amazing growth or anything like that.

just to put a finer point on how much the script flipped for chicagoland in terms of city vs. suburban growth, here are the population growth figures from the past 7 decades.

the "suburbs" category here is county-consistent for all decades and i eliminated dekalb, grundy, newton, and jasper counties from the MSA because even though they now meet the CB's commuter threshold for MSA inclusion, their developmental links to greater chicagoland are extremely tenuous to non-existent, and none of them really grow directly from the outward pressure of the great sprawl bubble. in fact, 3 of the 4 of them actually lost population last decade.

1960:

city: -70,558 (−1.9%)
suburbs: +1,309,725 (+63.8%)

1970:

city: -183,447 (−5.2%)
suburbs: +1,027,436 (+30.6%)

1980:

city: -361,885 (−10.7%)
suburbs: +512,024 (+11.7%)

1990:

city: -221,346 (−7.4%)
suburbs: +347,898 (+7.1%)

2000:

city: +112,290 (+4.0%)
suburbs: +781,617 (+14.9%)

2010:

city: -200,418 (−6.9%)
suburbs: +531,375 (+8.8%)

2020:

city: +50,790 (+1.9%)
suburbs: +109,851 (+1.7%)

as the data shows, the great seemingly unstoppable chicagoland sprawl machine was severely crippled by the great recession last decade.

after gangbusters outward growth in the 50's, 60s, and 70s, then a bit of a lull in the 80s, then picking up massive steam in the 90s and into the 00s, we finally saw a radical slowdown in growth in suburban chicago last decade, while the city posted only its second population gain out of the previous 7 decades.

yes, the city saw over twice as much growth back in the 90s on the back of MASSIVE mexican in-migration compared to last decade, but it was way more than offset by even more massive growth out in the burbs.

iheartthed · #**3382** Posted **Jan 21, 2022, 7:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

just to put a finer point on how much the script flipped for chicagoland in terms of city vs. suburban growth, here are the population growth figures from the past 7 decades.

the "suburbs" category here is county-consistent for all decades and i eliminated dekalb, grundy, newton, and jasper counties from the MSA because even though they now meet the CB's commuter threshold for MSA inclusion, their developmental links to greater chicagoland are extremely tenuous to non-existent, and none of them really grow directly from the outward pressure of the great sprawl bubble. in fact, 3 of the 4 of them actually lost population last decade.

1960:

city: -70,558
suburbs: +1,309,725

1970:

city: -183,447
suburbs: +1,027,436

1980:

city: -361,885
suburbs: +512,024

1990:

city: -221,346
suburbs: +347,898

2000:

city: +112,290
suburbs: +781,617

2010:

city: -200,418
suburbs: +531,375

2020:

city: +50,790
suburbs: +109,851

The 6 decade trend of Chicago burbs outperforming the city is why I thought Chicago would see another population contraction in 2020. Because Illinois's overall growth was negative it seemed to follow that city of Chicago would bear the brunt of it. Instead, it looks like Chicago is the biggest source of population growth (% wise) for Illinois since the 1920s.

Steely Dan · #**3383** Posted **Jan 21, 2022, 7:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Because Illinois's overall growth was negative it seemed to follow that city of Chicago would bear the brunt of it.

instead, it was downstate IL that was the big loser.

chicagoland, both city and burbs, was positive, if only modestly so.

but it was ugly down on the farm.......

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

so for the past handful of years, the local media in IL (based on mostly bogus census estimates) have droned on and on and on about "The Great Illinois Exodus".

and while it is true that the state was one of only 3 that posted negative growth for the past decade, the great exodus is really just a downstate thing.

Illinois 2010: 12,830,632

Illinois 2020: 12,812,508

growth: -18,124 (−0.1%)

9 Chicago MSA counties in IL 2010: 8,586,609

9 Chicago MSA counties in IL 2020: 8,730,688

growth: +144,079 (+1.7%)

the rest of IL 2010: 4,244,023

the rest of IL 2020: 4,081,820

growth: -162,203 (−3.8%)

chicagoland's modest growth was the only thing that kept IL barely treading water.

another popular narrative in the local media pertaining to the "The Great Illinois Exodus" is that everyone and their brother in Chicagoland is jumping the border over to NW Indiana because taxes.

but in reality, the 5 counties of NW Indiana (Lake, Porter, LaPorte, Newton & Japser Counties) only gained a combined total of ~11,800 people over the past decade, hardly some earth-shattering, dynamic-changing, mass migration within a CSA of nearly 10M people.

dave8721 · #**3384** Posted **Feb 3, 2022, 7:36 PM**

Cool graphic showing how the population of each state has changed over time going back to 1850 with respect to Immigrant, born elsewhere in the US and born in that state. States like CA started as largely immigrant, then had a huge influx from the rest of the US and now is made up largely of native born Californians and Immigrants with few moving there from the rest of the US. States like Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho showing high % of residents being transplants from other states.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/com...born_by_state/

badrunner · #**3385** Posted **Feb 3, 2022, 7:50 PM**

Cool graphic. One thing that really stands out is how many of the western frontier states had such a high foreign born % in the 1800s, higher than the traditional ports of entry on the east coast (though obviously not in raw numbers).

craigs · #**3386** Posted **Feb 4, 2022, 12:02 AM**

If I'm not mistaken, California is one of the only states in which the population is increasingly born in-state.

ChiSoxRox · #**3387** Posted **Feb 4, 2022, 4:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigs

If I'm not mistaken, California is one of the only states in which the population is increasingly born in-state.

The Great Lake states as well, presumably due to how negative domestic migration is.

iheartthed · #**3388** Posted **Feb 4, 2022, 2:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

The Great Lake states as well, presumably due to how negative domestic migration is.

Domestic migration and relatively low level of foreign immigration.

eschaton · #**3389** Posted **Feb 4, 2022, 3:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by badrunner

Cool graphic. One thing that really stands out is how many of the western frontier states had such a high foreign born % in the 1800s, higher than the traditional ports of entry on the east coast (though obviously not in raw numbers).

IIRC, Montana was something like 30% Chinese at one point in the 19th century.

The Western U.S. would have looked a lot different demographically if the U.S. had let Chinese women immigrate as much as men had during that era. Once the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed, the large existing Chinese immigrant population mostly died out with no descendants.

Yuri · #**3390** Posted **Feb 15, 2022, 12:36 PM**

2021 numbers for vital statistics in the US are out:

------------ Births ----- Deaths

2000 --- 4,058,814 --- 2,403,351

2007 --- 4,316,234 --- 2,423,712

2019 --- 3,747,540 --- 2,854,858

2020 --- 3,613,647 --- 3,389,100

2021 --- 3,600,000 --- 3,428,549

Excess deathsby Covid is about 1 million in 2020-2021. 2022 is not looking promising and the US is heading for at least 3.2 million or more, way above 2019.

It's crazy to think that as late as 2007, the US was registering a 1.9 million natural growth. In 2021, it fell to 180k. Getting very close to negative terrain.

iheartthed · #**3391** Posted **Feb 15, 2022, 2:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri

2021 numbers for vital statistics in the US are out:

------------ Births ----- Deaths

2000 --- 4,058,814 --- 2,403,351

2007 --- 4,316,234 --- 2,423,712

2019 --- 3,747,540 --- 2,854,858

2020 --- 3,613,647 --- 3,389,100

2021 --- 3,600,000 --- 3,428,549

Excess deathsby Covid is about 1 million in 2020-2021. 2022 is not looking promising and the US is heading for at least 3.2 million or more, way above 2019.

It's crazy to think that as late as 2007, the US was registering a 1.9 million natural growth. In 2021, it fell to 180k. Getting very close to negative terrain.

When baselining against the number of deaths in 2019, the excess deaths in 2020 and 2021 appears to be 90% COVID related. Once the pandemic cools off, that should go back down.

Yuri · #**3392** Posted **Feb 15, 2022, 3:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

When baselining agains the number of deaths in 2019, the excess deaths in 2020 and 2021 appears to be 90% COVID related. Once the pandemic cools off, that should go back down.

Indeed, but I believe 2022 is compromised already.

And back to normal means the late 2010’s, with births collapsing and deaths surging. I guess we have a good chance to see negative natural growth in the US in this decade.

Trae · #**3393** Posted **Feb 15, 2022, 4:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

When baselining against the number of deaths in 2019, the excess deaths in 2020 and 2021 appears to be 90% COVID related. Once the pandemic cools off, that should go back down.

Why should it go down when the Baby Boomer generation, second largest to the Millenials, is dying off at the same time? This is only going to accelerate.

iheartthed · #**3394** Posted **Feb 15, 2022, 5:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trae

Why should it go down when the Baby Boomer generation, second largest to the Millenials, is dying off at the same time? This is only going to accelerate.

There will be fewer people dying of old age over the next 10 years (or more) than there would have if the pandemic had not happened. The pandemic quickly killed off a significant number of the Boomers that would've gradually died over the next decade.

mhays · #**3395** Posted **Feb 15, 2022, 5:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri

2021 numbers for vital statistics in the US are out:

------------ Births ----- Deaths

2000 --- 4,058,814 --- 2,403,351

2007 --- 4,316,234 --- 2,423,712

2019 --- 3,747,540 --- 2,854,858

2020 --- 3,613,647 --- 3,389,100

2021 --- 3,600,000 --- 3,428,549

Excess deathsby Covid is about 1 million in 2020-2021. 2022 is not looking promising and the US is heading for at least 3.2 million or more, way above 2019.

It's crazy to think that as late as 2007, the US was registering a 1.9 million natural growth. In 2021, it fell to 180k. Getting very close to negative terrain.

What's the source?

Yuri · #**3396** Posted **Feb 15, 2022, 6:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

What's the source?

Wikipedia's article Demographics of the United States > Vital Statistics. Their source is the CDC.

DCReid · #**3397** Posted **Feb 20, 2022, 8:24 PM**

The Bisnow website article, https://www.bisnow.com/dallas-ft-wor...h-texas-111923

makes the following claim:

"The 13-county region that makes up North Texas is home to 7.5 million people. According to the North Texas Commission, one person moves to the region every 3.3 minutes. By 2050, the number of people living in North Texas is expected to more than double to 16.8 million."

How the heck did they get this estimate, which seems wildly optimistic, if not unrealistic? I've been looking for any website that have 2021 Metro estimates and projections but have not found any. I also know that projections based on past history almost never pan out. For example, wiki is showing DFW metro grew in the 30% range from 1980 to 2000 but has grown in the 20% range since then.

mhays · #**3398** Posted **Feb 20, 2022, 9:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri

Wikipedia's article Demographics of the United States > Vital Statistics. Their source is the CDC.

I see births for 2021, but not deaths.

Your number was rounded off, so maybe they deleted it as guesswork.

Yuri · #**3399** Posted **Feb 21, 2022, 12:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

I see births for 2021, but not deaths.

Your number was rounded off, so maybe they deleted it as guesswork.

It's the other way: deaths are complete, births not yet. They released figures for births Jan-Sep, which is slightly below the same period of 2020. That's why I rounded it and put on Italic.

They update those demographics articles very quickly as soon as the stat offices release their numbers. Within a month or so we'd have the final figures for births.

Crawford · #**3400** Posted **Feb 21, 2022, 2:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCReid

"The 13-county region that makes up North Texas is home to 7.5 million people. According to the North Texas Commission, one person moves to the region every 3.3 minutes. By 2050, the number of people living in North Texas is expected to more than double to 16.8 million."

Can you imagine Dallas with 17 million? The sprawl would be epic. There would probably be a million or so "Dallas" residents in Oklahoma. Dallas would technically be bigger than Paris or London.

I'm inclined to think "nah, can't happen; no way people are paying for McMansions 60 miles from anything" but Americans just love their sprawl.