The US Census Bureau thread

[ColDayMan]

Originally Posted by volguus zildrohar

Why was Ohio's response rate so low? I'm not too surprised at Cleveland's figures but I am at Cincinnati's. What gives?

Remember, the early 2000's was NOT a good time for Cincinnati. Riots, declining industry, companies threatening to leave the city, MAJOR white flight, horrendous governor Bob Taft (ugh), and little "gentrification." Around 2005-ish is when shit REALLY started to turn around but this Census is for the last ten years, not five. Cincinnati is an endlessly better city than it was back in 2000. I mean, endlessly.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

I wouldn't put to much into that. Hispanics tend to be much more in the middle than left or right and will often vote either way. For example Bush always did very well getting the Hispanic votes. And even though it was over a decade ago since I lived in Cali I do kind of remember many of the Hispanics I knew being quite conservative, as are many in Texas.

In addition to that, Arizona and Nevada are much darker shades of red now than they were ten years ago.

Hispanics also don't appear to vote in nearly the same quantity as all the pissed-off white retirees we have in Sun City and Leisure World...

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by ColDayMan

Remember, the early 2000's was NOT a good time for Cincinnati. Riots, declining industry, companies threatening to leave the city, MAJOR white flight, horrendous governor Bob Taft (ugh), and little "gentrification." Around 2005-ish is when shit REALLY started to turn around but this Census is for the last ten years, not five. Cincinnati is an endlessly better city than it was back in 2000. I mean, endlessly.

^Wasn't there that bad flood, too? What year was that?

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

In addition to that, Arizona and Nevada are much darker shades of red now than they were ten years ago.

Hispanics also don't appear to vote in nearly the same quantity as all the pissed-off retirees we have in Sun City and Leisure World...

Uh... Nevada is moderately more blue than the nation as a whole, and has been trending bluer for more than three decades.

Reid winning in the most Republican year since 1994? Yes, that presages a red state.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...elp-the-g-o-p/

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by pip

^that was a one time gain out of 50 years of decline - that's not that impressive.

Losing 7% after a 4% gain is a lot better than losing 7% after a loss. It means that the change in population over the past two decades is just a little over 3%-- compared to 12% for Detroit, 20% for St. Louis and 22% for Cleveland.

And, just as a reminder, this is all in the context of a growing metropolitan area.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Uh... Nevada is moderately more blue than the nation as a whole, and has been trending bluer for more than three decades.

Reid winning in the most Republican year since 1994? Yes, that presages a red state.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...elp-the-g-o-p/

If we're going to cherry-pick passages from Nate Silver's blog posts:

Still, this advantage is fairly marginal for Democrats. Although they can be pleased with having elected Senator Reid in 2010, his son Rory lost the gubernatorial election by 12 percentage points. And U.S. Rep Dana Titus narrowly lost her re-election bid to Republican Joe Heck in Nevada’s 3rd congressional district.

[Buckeye Native 001]

And I don't have the time, and while this hypothesis could be completely off base, does anyone know how much metros (CSA? MSA?) in the midwest increased or decreased in population from 2000-2010? While the inner cities might have lost population, I'd be surprised if their respective metros saw significant population loss.

[LMich]

When I saw the Cleveland number, this morning, I was still kind of blown away, if even I shouldn't have been. It's making me very nervous for Michigan, which lost population at the state level. I was hoping that maybe Detroit would see a population loss between 5% and 10%, but it's looking very likely that it will be between 10% and 15%, and it'd not at all be out of the realm to see a loss between 15% and 20% given the trend in very similar cities.

I was excited to see Philly actually stabilize. It seems to be the only major city, thus far, that thought it had stabilized that actually did. It seems that there are some trends we're seeing, here. Most established/matured cities, in general though with a few exceptions, have either seen very modest growth or accelerated drop-offs. It seems the declines on the East Coast, thus far, have been reversed or slowed (i.e. Philly, Baltimore, everything in Connecticut). Cities in the Great Lakes that had been bleeding and known to have been have not only not staunched the bleeding, but we're seeing a very worrisome new flight from the cities after the losses had slowed during the 90's.

BTW, I don't think anyone could say they weren't surprised by Cleveland's loss. The Census hadn't been kind with its estimates (I think it was estimated to have fallen just under 10%), but the count showed nearly twice that. An over 5% loss is pretty statistically significant. You start getting into the high single digits, and then pass all the way to the high teens and something is seriously wrong no matter how one tries to paint it. That's simply not sustainable levels of loss. These are not declines in population we've seen in the Rustbelt since the 70's.

BTW, response rates do make things harder. Detroit had a 32% intial participation rate (lower than Cleveland's), which kind of worries me about how the number will turn out when released. Ironically, Livonia and Warren - nearby or even adjacent suburbs along with some other nearby suburbs - had some of the highest intial participation rates for cities over 100,000 in the nation, and Michigan as a whole had something like the fifth highest response rate.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

And I don't have the time, and while this hypothesis could be completely off base, does anyone know how much metros (CSA? MSA?) in the midwest increased or decreased in population from 2000-2010? While the inner cities might have lost population, I'd be surprised if their respective metros saw significant population loss.

For the current definitions of metropolitan areas (MSA, not CSA) where the entirety of the constituent counties have been released (and which are known to be over 1 million):

St. Louis increased. 2,754,717 in 2010 (from 2,698,806).
Pittsburgh suffered a loss. 2,356,285 in 2010 (from 2,431,087).
Cleveland suffered a loss. 2,077,240 in 2010 (from 2,148,143).
Kansas City increased. 2,035,334 in 2010 (from 1,836,038).
Columbus increased. 1,836,536 in 2010 (from 1,612,694).
Indianapolis increased. 1,765,241 in 2010 (from 1,525,104).

Chicago still needs Wisconsin before MSA numbers can be calculated.
Cincinnati and Louisville need Kentucky to be released.

If I were to hazard a guess at the metropolitan area figures based on the counties released so far, all three have gained at a moderate pace.

Minneapolis and Milwaukee have probably gained (every census estimate says so, and the official numbers will as well barring some catastrophic irregularity). Detroit has most definitely lost.


Only three midwestern metros have lost population: Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Detroit (not released yet).

The only other major (1 million plus) metropolitan area that lost population this decade that has been released so far is New Orleans.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

If we're going to cherry-pick passages from Nate Silver's blog posts:

Your original quote:

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Arizona and Nevada are much darker shades of red now than they were ten years ago

Implicit in your claim is that Nevada was a reliably red state ten years ago. It wasn't. It was moderately Republican. You claim that Nevada is now deeply Republican.
This is, per Nate Silver's graph, demonstrably false. In fact, Nevada has been trending away from the Republican Party due partly to Hispanic growth.

Arizona on the other hand is about where it was ten years ago.

You're right that I overreached in claiming that Nevada is moderately bluer than the nation at large... Perhaps I should have used Nate Silver's word: Nevada leans slightly towards the Democratic party.

Originally Posted by Nate Silver

The state has increased the share of the vote it gave to the Democratic presidential candidate in each of the past seven elections, and by 2008 had become slightly more Democratic-leaning than the country as a whole.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I like you and I usually agree with your posts. They are typically very insightful.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by LMich

Michigan as a whole had something like the fifth highest response rate.

I had heard great things about Michigan's turnout. Perhaps people realized that they were on the cusp of losing more than one seat?

Isn't it awful that Ohio and New York grew and lost two seats each, but Michigan LOST and only lost one?

[LMich]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Isn't it awful that Ohio and New York grew and lost two seats each, but Michigan LOST and only lost one?

Huh? How is that "awful"? Ohio and New York are larger states, thus, if they lose or don't grow fast enough they loss more than a smaller state. What's your alternative? To keep increasing the size of Congress?

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by LMich

Huh? How is that "awful"?

Losing representation is awful because it creates a political nightmare wherein the political interests of Representatives outweigh a good-government type mentality. It is particularly awful in this case because Michigan is also a large state in the vein of Ohio and Pennsylvania. Your logic should apply to it as well. If your growth doesn't keep up with the rest of the nation, you should lose. New York's and Ohio's growth kept up better than Michigan's.

Originally Posted by LMich

What's your alternative? To keep increasing the size of Congress?

Yes, actually.

I'm of the opinion that the House of Representatives should increase every census such that no state loses representation.

This would be very easy to accomplish. Just continue using the algorithm that is currently used to apportion seats until all states have at least their current amount of representation. Some states will gain due to faster growth, but no state would ever lose. Public law would have to be changed, of course, but that is only a political problem.

It is thought by some that a smaller ratio between representative and population can lead to a more efficient government.

On a related note: I support D.C. statehood through a constitutional amendment and Puerto Rican statehood in general. I also support a constitutional amendment which would give congress the authority to allow voting representation (in the House only) to United States territories that they deem sufficiently populated.

Take, for instance, Guam. Guam has around 180,000 people, but has no say in the government of the United States other than a nonvoting member of the House. Giving them a single voting representative would not dilute the power of the states, nor would it give them proportionally more representation in our government (because they would lack representation in the Senate).

[Buckeye Native 001]

For what its worth, I was overreaching on my claim that Nevada is decidedly red. As a whole, I just don't see the southwest becoming any more progressive, particularly with the type of people we tend to see moving here (Midwestern suburbanites and pissed-off Californians who hate everything about the cities and regions from which they came)

[LMich]

I know the arguments for a larger Congress, but as far as I can tell, the change would be more cosmetic and feel-good than positively changing how Congress does business. It seems to me that the underlying theme behind most arguments (even the objective ones) is that it'd make states that lose seats feel better. I'm not ideologically against growing the congress; I'm rather indifferent to it. I certainly wouldn't get so emotional as to call how we apportion seats "awful." It's not even close to rising to the level of a travesty.

Buckeye, I'm sure you know this, but while it can swing at the state level, Nevada is pretty solidly blue, now, at the national level, and becoming more. It's not Arizona, and never will be, thank god. It's probably one of the few states in the country where Democrats can continue to build future support. The population of state is so concentrated in the Las Vegas Valley (and has actually become even more based in metropolitan Vegas since the last Census) that Dems opportunities to compete have only increased, and suburban Vegas is much more blue than say suburban Phoenix because of all of the union jobs.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

For what its worth, I was overreaching on my claim that Nevada is decidedly red. As a whole, I just don't see the southwest becoming any more progressive, particularly with the type of people we tend to see moving here (Midwestern suburbanites and pissed-off Californians who hate everything about the cities and regions from which they came)

I agree that they aren't progressive or liberal in any sense of the word other than free-market liberalism.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by LMich

I know the arguments for a larger Congress, but as far as I can tell, the change would be more cosmetic and feel-good than positively changing how Congress does business. It seems to me that the underlying theme behind most arguments (even the objective ones) is that it'd make states that lose seats feel better. I'm not ideologically against growing the congress; I'm rather indifferent to it. I certainly wouldn't get so emotional as to call how we apportion seats "awful." It's not even close to rising to the level of a travesty.

It does have alot to do with appearance, but it also has alot to do with fairness and with constituent outreach. It is easier for Representatives to connect with their constituency if that constituency is smaller. It is also contradictory that the Supreme Court has interpreted a constitutional one-person one-vote principle, but will only apply that principle intra-state (and not inter-state).

On the appearance issue: appearance actually means alot. Would many low information people thing that Michigan, Ohio, and the mid-west in general were in an economic death-knell if they didn't lose representation? Possibly not. That appearance of being an economically challenged area could affect the growth patterns of the state, which in turn can change the economy itself.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by LMich

I was excited to see Philly actually stabilize. It seems to be the only major city, thus far, that thought it had stabilized that actually did. It seems that there are some trends we're seeing, here. Most established/matured cities, in general though with a few exceptions, have either seen very modest growth or accelerated drop-offs. It seems the declines on the East Coast, thus far, have been reversed or slowed (i.e. Philly, Baltimore, everything in Connecticut).

Baltimore lost 4.6%, a rate certainly slower than that of the '70s (13.1%) and '90s (11.5%) but still not insignificant... though I do suspect you're right and it will stabilize or even gain this decade as Washington continues to grow and the two cities become even more integrated.

I wonder to what extent New York buoyed the region (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut). Looking forward to parsing those numbers when they come out.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

For the current definitions of metropolitan areas (MSA, not CSA) where the entirety of the constituent counties have been released (and which are known to be over 1 million):

St. Louis increased. 2,754,717 in 2010 (from 2,698,806).
Pittsburgh suffered a loss. 2,356,285 in 2010 (from 2,431,087).
Cleveland suffered a loss. 2,077,240 in 2010 (from 2,148,143).
Kansas City increased. 2,035,334 in 2010 (from 1,836,038).
Columbus increased. 1,836,536 in 2010 (from 1,612,694).
Indianapolis increased. 1,765,241 in 2010 (from 1,525,104).

Chicago still needs Wisconsin before MSA numbers can be calculated.
Cincinnati and Louisville need Kentucky to be released.

If I were to hazard a guess at the metropolitan area figures based on the counties released so far, all three have gained at a moderate pace.

Thanks for the tallies.

It looks like Chicagoland minus Kenosha County in Wisconsin is up to 9,189,519 from 8,904,195 in 2000. Regardless of what happens with Kenosha (it's projected to gain, but even if it doesn't...) the Chicago MSA still experienced growth of about 3% or nearly 300,000 people.

[LMich]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Baltimore lost 4.6%, a rate certainly slower than that of the '70s (13.1%) and '90s (11.5%) but still not insignificant... though I do suspect you're right and it will stabilize or even gain this decade as Washington continues to grow and the two cities become even more integrated

Given how the trend has been going for cities like Baltimore (cities posting any type of loss actually seeing accelerated losses from the 90's), while certainly not insignificant, I consider it a success. My threshold is rather low and arbitrary, but when you're seeing older, established cities posting tiny gains or huge (+10%) population losses, Baltimore seems to have made it out better than it should have. I mean, I'm fully expecting to see much higher losses in Milwaukee (another city also convinced it's turned around its population loss), when those numbers are released, today, and definitely Detroit whenever they decided to release Michigan.

I'm just looking at all of these places with decades of population loss that were absolutely convinced they'd slowed down, staunched, or even reversed population losses (St. Louis, Chicago, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh), and it's just been absolutely brutal. Philly and DC seem to be the only big cities whose feelings were bourne out in fact, thus far.

BTW, a story on Youngstown from yesterday:

2010 census results

By David Skolnick / Vinday.com

March 9, 2011

Youngstown’s population declined by 18.4 percent between 2000 and 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau reported Wednesday.

...

The decline leaves the city’s population at 66,982. Its population in 2000 was 82,026. That’s a loss of 15,044 people.

City officials had said before the numbers were released Wednesday that it was almost impossible for Youngstown in the latest census to lose more than the 14.9 percent decline in population it experienced between 1990 and 2000.

But it did.

“It definitely seems extreme,” said Bill D’Avignon, director of the city’s community development agency. “It’s more extreme than we had anticipated.”

...

Besides Cuyahoga County, which lost 8.8 percent of its population, Mahoning and Trumbull counties saw the second- and third-highest declines in percentage of population among the state’s 20 most populated counties.

Overall, 37,770 people, 6.4 percent, have left Mahoning, Trumbull and Columbiana counties from 2000 to last year, according to the census.

There are now 556,976 people in the Mahoning Valley compared to 594,746 in 2000.

...

It also seems that, demographically, the city didn't change as much as one would think with only a slight increase in the percentage of the city that is black (43.8% to 45.2%) and a relatively slight decrease in the percentage of the city that is white (50.9% to 47%) meaning that you're seeing a rather even decrease by both of the city's largest racial groups.

[JivecitySTL]

This may sound weird, but even though St. Louis lost 29,000 over the past 10 years, it actually feels like more people live in the city. More neighborhoods are more vibrant than they have been in decades, and there seem to be much fewer vacancies. Household size has very obviously decreased, though, because families with school-aged kids are becoming increasingly scarce in a lot of up-and-coming neighborhoods. I imagine this same scenario applies to other "declining" cities as well.