The US Census Bureau thread

[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.

[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.

[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%

[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.

[Urbanguy]

The ACS yearly estimates were pretty far off for Hawaii which I figured was the case especially after moving back there twice over the past 10 years & noticing it first hand. I've noticed a lot more African Americans, Hispanics/Latinos (especially on Maui & The Big Island of Hawaii) & a WHOLE lot more Micronesians living & moving there over the past decade which has definitely made a significant impact growth-wise. It looks like the state's growth was probably undercounted by at least 5,000-6,000 per year which is a lot for such a small state population-wise. However, I am surprised that the states population increased enough to pass Maine & New Hampshire this time around moving it up to the 40th most populous state.

[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.

[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%).

[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.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Urbanguy

The ACS yearly estimates were pretty far off for Hawaii which I figured was the case especially after moving back there twice over the past 10 years & noticing it first hand. I've noticed a lot more African Americans, Hispanics/Latinos (especially on Maui & The Big Island of Hawaii) & a WHOLE lot more Micronesians living & moving there over the past decade which has definitely made a significant impact growth-wise. It looks like the state's growth was probably undercounted by at least 5,000-6,000 per year which is a lot for such a small state population-wise. However, I am surprised that the states population increased enough to pass Maine & New Hampshire this time around moving it up to the 40th most populous state.

Small point, but the ACS is not the annual estimate. It's a survey to gather characteristics, not a count.

[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.