The US Census Bureau thread

[vid]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

almost 30 million people in 10 years? :O

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

We grew 9.5% between 1996 and 2006, and we'll probably see a growth rate of about 11% for the period between 2001 and 2011 when our census results come out in 2012. Our estimates are usually about a million over the census count.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Onn

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. Its reasonable to conclude then that the Northeast is doing better than the Midwest.

No, it's not reasonable to conclude that. The northeast grew by 3.2%, the Midwest grew by 3.9%. Therefor it's only reasonble to conclude that the Midwest is growing faster than the northeast, albeit by a very slim margin. If you want to make other conclusions, then you're simply willfully ignoring the facts.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

No, it's not reasonable to conclude that. The northeast grew by 3.2%, the Midwest grew by 3.9%. Therefor it's only reasonble to conclude that the Midwest is growing faster than the northeast, albeit by a very slim margin. If you want to make other conclusions, then you're simply willfully ignoring the facts.

The Midwest lost more house seats than the Northeast did, reasonable to assume it's suffering more.

[Urbanguy]

mhays, oops I meant yearly population estimates. Of course they are only estimates but they were pretty far off because there's no way that it just jumped from 1,295,000 (July 2009) to 1,360,000 (April 2010) over the past year.

[seaskyfan]

Originally Posted by Onn

The Midwest lost more house seats than the Northeast did, reasonable to assume it's suffering more.

Still no. House seats are related to population but population is a better indicator.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by seaskyfan

Still no. House seats are related to population but population is a better indicator.

The Midwest population is sagging more than the Northeast's is, it's losing more house seats, that's 100% true. The Midwest is also home to the only state not growing, that's also true. It's reasonable to assume then the Midwest's population is sagging further than the Northeast's is. The Midwest population is suffering more than the Northeast's population is. I didn't say anything about growth rates.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Onn

The Midwest lost more house seats than the Northeast did, reasonable to assume it's suffering more.

No, you must not be familliar with how the bureau calculates reapportionment. New York gained population and lost 2 seats, whereas michigan lost population and yet only lost 1 seat. So do you honestly think new York is suffering more than Michigan?

[Onn]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

No, you must not be familliar with how the bureau calculates reapportionment. New York gained population and lost 2 seats, whereas michigan lost population and yet only lost 1 seat. So do you honestly think new York is suffering more than Michigan?

You could say that, yes. But we’re not talking New York, were talking about the Midwest. But if you were to take it in that context..Michigan lost both population AND a house seat, it was negative across the board. You can't possibly turn a negative into a positive. New York did at least gain some population. Michigan got hit twice.

[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.

[seaskyfan]

Originally Posted by Onn

The Midwest population is sagging more than the Northeast's is, it's losing more house seats, that's 100% true. The Midwest is also home to the only state not growing, that's also true. It's reasonable to assume then the Midwest's population is sagging further than the Northeast's is. The Midwest population is suffering more than the Northeast's population is. I didn't say anything about growth rates.

Midwest gain: 3.9%
Northeast gain: 3.2%

Your conclusion is absurd.

[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.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by seaskyfan

Midwest gain: 3.9%
Northeast gain: 3.2%

Your conclusion is absurd.

House Seats

Midwest - 6
Northeast - 5

Midwest also has a state that is losing population. Not one bit absurd. Just because the Midwest is gaining more poupation doesn't mean that population isn't under more stress.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Onn

House Seats

Midwest - 6
Northeast - 5

Midwest also has a state that is losing population. Not one bit absurd. Just because one area is gaining more poupation doesn't mean that population isn't under more stress/

The Midwest has more people, and therefore more house seats, than the northeast, that's why it lost an additional seat, it had more to lose. The truth is that both the northeast and midwest are losing big time to the other two regions. However, in terms of population growth, both percentage and raw numbers, the Midwest is growing faster than the northeast. Those are the facts, regardless of whether you choose to accept them or not.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

The Midwest has more people, and therefore more house seats, than the northeast, that's why it lost an additional seat, it had more to lose. The truth is that both the northeast and midwest are losing big time to the other two regions. However, in terms of population growth, both percentage and raw numbers, the Midwest is growing faster than the northeast. Those are the facts, regardless of whether you choose to accept them or not.

House seats are facts too, its math! That's true! Popultion growth (which in Michigan is negative) and raw numbers (which in Michigan is negative) don't tell the whole story.

[Steely Dan]

^ why are you so obsessed with just michigan? Michigan is but one small corner of the Midwest, and while it is suffering far more than any other state right now, it's not large enough relative to the rest of the Midwest to drag the overall numbers for the Midwest down enough to make the population growth rate for the region lower than the northeast.

Anyway, it's clear to me that you don't want to accept the facts, so I will be moving on.

[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.

[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.

[M II A II R II K]

If the total population continues to increase at this rate, it'll hit 400 million before 2050 as projected.

[hudkina]

Here's an interesting tidbit. If we didn't have a cap on the total number of House Seats, and instead used the state with the lowest population as the basis for the total number of seats, then this is how the nation would look:

In 2000, Wyoming with an apportionment population of 495,304 was the smallest state. When you divide the apportionment population of each state by 495,304 and round to the nearest whole number, you get a total of 569 house seats when you add the total for each state.

In 2010, Wyoming (563,626) again had the smallest apportionment population. When you divide the apportionment population of each state by 563,626 and round to the nearest whole number, you get a total of 545 house seats.

Because there would have been a loss of 24 seats, regardless of how fast any states grew many would have lost seats. Here is how the states would have ended up under such a scenario. The first number represents the number of representatives for each in 2010, the second number represents the number of representatives for each in 2000, and the third number represents the difference between 2000 and 2010.

1. California - 66..........69..........-3
2. Texas - 45..........42..........+3
3. New York - 34..........38..........-4
4. Florida - 33..........32..........+1
5. Illinois - 23..........25..........-2
6. Pennsylvania - 23..........25..........-2
7. Ohio - 20..........23..........-3
8. Michigan - 18..........20..........-2
9. New Jersey - 16..........17..........-1
10. Georgia - 17..........17..........0
11. North Carolina - 17..........16..........+1
12. Virginia - 14..........14..........0
13. Massachusetts - 12..........13..........-1
14. Indiana - 12..........12..........0
15. Washington - 12..........12..........0
16. Tennessee - 11..........12..........-1
17. Missouri - 11..........11..........0
18. Wisconsin - 10..........11..........-1
19. Maryland - 10..........11..........-1
20. Arizona - 11..........10..........+1
21. Minnesota - 9..........10..........-1
22. Louisiana - 8..........9..........-1
23. Alabama - 8..........9..........-1
24. Colorado - 9..........9..........0
25. Kentucky - 8..........8..........0
26. South Carolina - 8..........8..........0
27. Oklahoma - 7..........7..........0
28. Oregon - 7..........7..........0
29. Connecticut - 6..........7..........-1
30. Iowa - 5..........6..........-1
31. Mississippi - 5..........6..........-1
32. Kansas - 5..........5..........0
33. Arkansas - 5..........5..........0
34. Utah - 5..........5..........0
35. Nevada - 5..........4..........+1
36. New Mexico - 4..........4..........0
37. West Virginia - 3..........4..........-1
38. Nebraska - 3..........3..........0
39. Idaho - 3..........3..........0
40. Maine - 2..........3..........-1
41. New Hampshire - 2..........3..........-1
42. Hawaii - 2..........2..........0
43. Rhode Island - 2..........2..........0
44. Montana - 2..........2..........0
45. Delaware - 2..........2..........0
46. South Dakota - 1..........2..........-1
47. North Dakota - 1..........1..........0
48. Alaska - 1..........1..........0
49. Vermont - 1..........1..........0
50. Wyoming - 1..........1..........0