The US Census Bureau thread

[ChiSoxRox]

Yet the Midwest continues its very slow growth rate, with only the Dakotas hitting the 1% growth mark. Michigan is still losing people, but Texas is on track for 30 million by 2020. Discounting D.C., the fastest growing state by percentage is Texas! Also, at current rates Florida passes New York by 2014, and Montana hit the million mark last month.

Too bad city data doesn't come out until April; I'm nervous to see if Chicago is still losing people.

[Rail Claimore]

Originally Posted by Dralcoffin

Yet the Midwest continues its very slow growth rate, with only the Dakotas hitting the 1% growth mark. Michigan is still losing people, but Texas is on track for 30 million by 2020. Discounting D.C., the fastest growing state by percentage is Texas!

It's unusual for a large state to be at or near the top when it comes to percentage growth. Texas is very much like California was in the 1980's. The latter state went from 23 to 29 million during that decade and gained over 6 million people. I have a feeling Texas will do the same this decade, so we could see growth to 31 or 32 million this decade.

[bunt_q]

The perception is that Texas has jobs. True or not, that's all that matters these days.

It's a bloody miracle, actually, that our unemployment rate has managed to drop at all, with 1.7% growth. That means we've actually gained a solid couple of percent employment. No idea how that's possible...

The good news is (or at least, my great hope is), sooner or later, adding 1.5-2.0% per year, we're going to have to start building some housing again. Foreclosures or not, there's a limit eventually to how many people you can cram into the existing housing stock.

[BevoLJ]

What amazes me with all the growth in Texas, is the states unemployment has dropped .1 of a point in that same period. In fact I still know people having a hard time finding qualified employees for jobs, because so much of the top talent out of the big area schools like UT and A&M nowadays are doing their own start-ups. Someone was just telling me how Samsung, whose new $9 billion plant in Austin went fully online last month, has been doing a lot more of their own programs to almost manufacture what is becoming harder and harder to find talent to fill those jobs as well as the chips. lol. My friend was telling me how because it was getting harder to find qualified people for their other plant here, while building the new one they hired all these people, nationally and globally, while building the plant and sent them to get trained and then did their own training, and all were ready for when they went online last month.

[min-chi-cbus]

Originally Posted by Dralcoffin

Yet the Midwest continues its very slow growth rate, with only the Dakotas hitting the 1% growth mark. Michigan is still losing people, but Texas is on track for 30 million by 2020. Discounting D.C., the fastest growing state by percentage is Texas! Also, at current rates Florida passes New York by 2014, and Montana hit the million mark last month.

Too bad city data doesn't come out until April; I'm nervous to see if Chicago is still losing people.

I'm happy with MN's 0.8% growth, but also wish it were more like 1.0% so it could be at/slightly above the U.S. average. I prefer moderate growth though, so between 0.7% and 1.3% is a good, healthy clip for an area to grow, IMO. Washington DOES seem more and more like THE place to be this decade, and I wouldn't be surprised to see hyper growth, but not quite as fast as GA, TX or FL.

[Urbanguy]

Please keep in mind that the earlier percent & population changes were from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011. The following estimates below are from July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011.

State/DC/PR==7/1/11 Pop==(change from 7/1/10)== [%]
1 California: 37,691,912 ( 353,714 ) [ 0.9 ]
2 Texas: 25,674,681 ( 421,215 ) [ 1.7 ]
3 New York: 19,465,197 ( 69,991 ) [ 0.4 ]
4 Florida: 19,057,542 ( 218,929 ) [ 1.2 ]
5 Illinois: 12,869,257 ( 27,277 ) [ 0.2 ]
6 Pennsylvania: 12,742,886 ( 25,164 ) [ 0.2 ]
7 Ohio: 11,544,951 ( 6,983 ) [ 0.1 ]
8 Michigan: 9,876,187 ( -956 ) [ - ]
9 Georgia: 9,815,210 ( 103,053 ) [ 1.1 ]
10 North Carolina: 9,656,401 ( 96,167 ) [ 1.0 ]
11 New Jersey: 8,821,155 ( 21,562 ) [ 0.2 ]
12 Virginia: 8,096,604 ( 72,651 ) [ 0.9 ]
13 Washington: 6,830,038 ( 87,088 ) [ 1.3 ]
14 Massachusetts: 6,587,536 ( 32,070 ) [ 0.5 ]
15 Indiana: 6,516,922 ( 26,300 ) [ 0.4 ]
16 Arizona: 6,482,505 ( 69,347 ) [ 1.1 ]
17 Tennessee: 6,403,353 ( 45,917 ) [ 0.7 ]
18 Missouri: 6,010,688 ( 14,973 ) [ 0.2 ]
19 Maryland: 5,828,289 ( 42,608 ) [ 0.7 ]
20 Wisconsin: 5,711,767 ( 20,108 ) [ 0.4 ]
21 Minnesota: 5,344,861 ( 34,203 ) [ 0.6 ]
22 Colorado: 5,116,796 ( 69,104 ) [ 1.4 ]
23 Alabama: 4,802,740 ( 17,339 ) [ 0.4 ]
24 South Carolina: 4,679,230 ( 42,124 ) [ 0.9 ]
25 Louisiana: 4,574,836 ( 29,493 ) [ 0.6 ]
26 Kentucky: 4,369,356 ( 22,133 ) [ 0.5 ]
27 Oregon: 3,871,859 ( 33,527 ) [ 0.9 ]
28 Oklahoma: 3,791,508 ( 31,324 ) [ 0.8 ]
29 Connecticut: 3,580,709 ( 5,211 ) [ 0.1 ]
30 Iowa: 3,062,309 ( 12,107 ) [ 0.4 ]
31 Mississippi: 2,978,512 ( 8,440 ) [ 0.3 ]
32 Arkansas: 2,937,979 ( 16,391 ) [ 0.6 ]
33 Kansas: 2,871,238 ( 12,095 ) [ 0.4 ]
34 Utah: 2,817,222 ( 41,743 ) [ 1.5 ]
35 Nevada: 2,723,322 ( 19,039 ) [ 0.7 ]
36 New Mexico: 2,082,224 ( 16,311 ) [ 0.8 ]
37 West Virginia: 1,855,364 ( 996 ) [ 0.1 ]
38 Nebraska: 1,842,641 ( 12,500 ) [ 0.7 ]
39 Idaho: 1,584,985 ( 13,883 ) [ 0.9 ]
40 Hawaii: 1,374,810 ( 11,451 ) [ 0.8 ]
41 Maine: 1,328,188 ( 809 ) [ 0.1 ]
42 New Hampshire: 1,318,194 ( 1,387 ) [ 0.1 ]
43 Rhode Island: 1,051,302 ( -1,226 ) [ -0.1 ]
44 Montana: 998,199 ( 7,241 ) [ 0.7 ]
45 Delaware: 907,135 ( 7,343 ) [ 0.8 ]
46 South Dakota: 824,082 ( 7,484 ) [ 0.9 ]
47 Alaska: 722,718 ( 8,572 ) [ 1.2 ]
48 North Dakota: 683,932 ( 9,303 ) [ 1.4 ]
49 Vermont: 626,431 ( 522 ) [ 0.1 ]
50 District of Columbia: 617,996 ( 13,084 ) [ 2.2 ]
51 Wyoming: 568,158 ( 3,604 ) [ 0.6 ]
United States 311,591,917 ( 2,261,698 ) [ 0.7 ]
Puerto Rico 3,706,690 ( -15,288 ) [ -0.4 ]

*Places like Utah & Alaska have actually lost people domestically (albeit a small amount) but their natural increase rate (births-deaths) is so high that it's not even noticeable. North Dakota is an interesting case too -- i'd imagine that it has a lot to do with the booming oil industry & the trickle-down effect from that?

[mhays]

I didn't realize those were 15 months in the first list. Actually pretty slow national growth....don't we normally grow by 3,000,000? Is this the "economic downturn" effect, sort of a light version of the depression baby bust?

[LMich]

I'm glad that Michigan's population decline is finally reversing itself. It'll most likely post a very modest growth, next year, the first since 2004.



As the data shows, the 12-month period shows an even statistically smaller decrease (slightly less than a thousand people). It's pretty clear, though, that Georgia will pass it up by next estimate, though. We were actually surprised it hadn't by the 2010 Census.

BTW, the media is reporting this, nationally, as the slowest annual growth since the 1940's.

[JDRCRASH]

Would be nice if the whole Midwest rebounded.

[M II A II R II K]

Economy Contributes to Slowest Population Growth Rate Since ’40s


December 21, 2011

By SABRINA TAVERNISE

Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/us...940s.html?_r=1

The population of the United States grew this year at its slowest rate since the 1940s, the Census Bureau reported on Wednesday, as the gloomy economy continued to depress births and immigration fell to its lowest level since 1991. The first measure of the American population in the new decade offered fresh evidence that the economic trouble that has plagued the country for the past several years continues to make its effects felt. The population grew by 2.8 million people from April 2010 to July 2011, according to the bureau’s new estimates. The annual increase, about 0.7 percent when calculated for the year that ended in July 2011, was the smallest since 1945, when the population fell by 0.3 percent in the last year of World War II.

- The sluggish pace puts the country “in a place we haven’t been in a very long time,” said William H. Frey, senior demographer at the Brookings Institution. “We don’t have that vibrancy that fuels the economy and people’s sense of mobility,” he said. “People are a bit aimless right now.” Underlying the modest growth was an immigration level that was the lowest in 20 years. The net increase of immigrants to the United States for the year that ended in July was an estimated 703,000, the smallest since 1991, Mr. Frey said, when the immigrant wave that dates to the 1970s began to pick up pace. It peaked in 2001, when the net increase of immigrants was 1.2 million, and was still above 1 million in 2006. But it slowed substantially when the housing market collapsed, and the jobs associated with its boom that were popular among immigrants disappeared.

- “Net immigration from Mexico is close to zero, and we haven’t seen that in at least 40 years,” said Jeffrey S. Passel, senior demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center. “We are in a very different kind of immigration situation.” Mr. Passel said that the bulk of the reduction in recent years had been among illegal immigrants, adding that apprehensions at the border are just 20 percent of what they were a decade ago. (The Census Bureau does not ask foreign-born residents their status, but Mr. Passel believes the count includes most people here illegally. ) A lagging birth rate also contributed. Births in the United States declined precipitously during the recession and its aftermath, down by 7.3 percent from 2007 to 2010, according to Kenneth M. Johnson, the senior demographer at the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire.

.....

[pesto]

Sounds reasonable that the housing boom attracted plenty of illegals and that they would decrease now. But they believe the census count includes most people here illegally? Maybe I'm a dummy, but if there are 8 people in my house, 6 of them illegal, I'm pretty sure I report "2".

Otherwise, looks like Florida is about to pass NY. Maybe 2 years or so?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by pesto

Sounds reasonable that the housing boom attracted plenty of illegals and that they would decrease now. But they believe the census count includes most people here illegally? Maybe I'm a dummy, but if there are 8 people in my house, 6 of them illegal, I'm pretty sure I report "2".

I wouldn't. As long as it doesn't ask anything about those people - and it doesn't - why wouldn't you just check the correct box? I'd guess the only people who hide are folks who believe (or suspect) that the government has some grand secret database of information on everybody and where they are. If anybody knows better, though, it would be illegals who are already surviving under the radar. If the government knew there were only 2 legal people in your house already, do you really think they'd need to wait for you to check the "6" box to come and haul in the other 4? If you're that paranoid, you're better off reporting 6... the secret police are going to notice all those extra unreported bodies coming in and out.

Easy for me to see how the economy is affecting growth. We've delayed kids by two years now... it just doesn't seem like a good idea. I need to be mobile and live cheap right now. This little recession, actually, probably means we'll end up with 2 kids instead of the 4 we always wanted. I don't want to be raising teenagers in my 50s, and frankly, I don't have enough time to sit on the kid-making sidelines until the economy picks up. Oh well!

[M II A II R II K]

Washington Heights Sees White-Collar Boom


Dec 19, 2011

By Charu Sudan Kasturi

Page 1: http://www.citylimits.org/news/artic...te-collar-boom

.....

At a time when reports on the economy rarely bring good news, Washington Heights and Inwood are emerging hubs of economic opportunities and growth. Big companies that ignored the neighborhoods as potential markets in the past are now targeting them for development. Corporate offices are jostling for real estate office footholds with entrepreneurs and professionals from across the city. And the local population is slowly moving from bodegas and mom-and-pop shops to managerial and business jobs that were rare here but are now increasing in the neighborhoods.

- The combination of lower rents, an aspiring labor force and a relatively untapped market—at a time companies and individual professions are looking for any economic advantage available—is acting as a catalyst for the change. But a crunch for office space and repeated "why Washington Heights" questions are also a part of the bargain. And despite the changes, the unemployment rate remains high.

- "We saw a need to build a space for bright, strategic entrepreneurs and here we are, doing great," said Lenny Lazarino, vice president of Edison Properties. The company, Lazarino said, researched the neighborhood, interviewed dozens of residents, business owners and entrepreneurs and even looked for potential competitors. "We did not find anything similar in nature to what we planned for the Inwood Center, which was to be a multi-faceted facility offering a place to store, park, work or operate a retail store under one roof."

.....

[M II A II R II K]

Five Things the Census Revealed About America in 2011


December 20, 2011

Read More: http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/20...raphics.aspx#1

A cascade of statistics from the 2010 Census and other Census Bureau sources released during 2011 show a nation in flux—growing and moving more slowly as it ages, infused by racial and ethnic minorities and immigrants in its younger ranks, and struggling economically across a decade bookended by two recessions. The nation’s largest metropolitan areas, and especially their suburbs, stood on the front lines of America’s evolving demographic transformation. Following is a slideshow of the five most important findings to emerge from our State of Metropolitan America analyses over the past year. Additional insight from co-author William H. Frey is available in a related video and at time.com.

.....

The 2000s marked the slowest decade of population growth in the United States in 70 years, slightly under the rate from the 1980s. The country grew by 9.7 percent, adding 27.3 million people from 2000 to 2010. The pullback from rapid 13.2 percent growth in the 1990s reflects slower U.S. economic growth across the decade, reduced immigration, and the aging of baby boomers out of their prime child-bearing years.






America recorded another historic demographic lull in the 2000s, as the share of U.S. residents moving dropped to a postwar low of 11.9 percent in 2008, and then again to 11.6 percent in 2011. During the baby boom of the 1950s, by contrast, nearly one-fifth of Americans changed residences each year. The long-term trends toward higher homeownership and the aging of the baby boomers and the short-term dynamics of deep recession, depressed housing prices, and stringent credit policies produced a record level of rootedness among American households.






Non-whites, especially Hispanics and Asians, accounted for the overwhelming majority (92 percent) of U.S. population growth in the 2000s. In the nation’s 100 largest metro areas, whites now account for 57 percent of population, down from 71 percent in 1990. Immigration drove some of this increasing racial and ethnic diversity, with the foreign-born numbering 40 million nationwide by 2010, nearly 13 percent of U.S. population. The youngest Americans herald our coming transition to a “majority minority” nation; 50 percent of infants under age one are now non-white.






The oldest members of the baby boom generation, born between 1946 and 1964, entered seniorhood at the end of the 2000s as the youngest members crossed fully into middle age. As a result, America’s 45-and-over population grew more than 18 times as fast as its under-45 population in the 2000s, and more than half the nation’s voting-age population is at least 45 years old. Boomer aging, and delays in marriage and childbearing among younger groups, account for the fact that only 20 percent of U.S. households today are married couples with children under 18, down from twice that share in 1970.






The 2000s marked the first census decade on record in which real median household income declined. The typical household earned $50,046 in 2010, down 8.9 percent from 2000. And the share of people living in poverty hit 15.3 percent, the highest level since 1993. The negative trends surely reflect the deep recession affecting the country in the late 2000s, but also the limited progress experienced by average households and the poor during the years in which the overall economy grew.

[SD_Phil]

^That last graph is startling. Income (not even adjusted for inflation) is less now than it was more than 20 years ago? That's...outrageous.

Am I reading it right?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by SD_Phil

^That last graph is startling. Income (not even adjusted for inflation) is less now than it was more than 20 years ago? That's...outrageous.

Am I reading it right?

Yeah, that's pretty striking. I wonder what the numbers would look like adjusted for inflation?

[SD_Phil]

"Real Income" appears to be already adjusted for inflation. Still, the numbers are outrageous.

[fflint]

The real decline in household income is alarming. Hopefully this won't be another lost decade.

[M II A II R II K]

US apartment vacancies hit 10-year low


January 5, 2012

Read More: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...TATE/120109964

U.S. apartment vacancies dropped to a 10-year low in the fourth quarter, allowing for rent increases that are likely to continue this year, Reis Inc. said. The vacancy rate fell to 5.2%, the lowest since the end of 2001, the New York-based property research firm said in a report Thursday. It was 5.6% in the previous three months and 6.6% a year earlier. The average monthly effective rent, or what tenants paid after landlord giveaways, climbed 2.3% from a year earlier to $1,009, Reis reported.

Rising foreclosures and stricter mortgage-lending standards have helped make rental housing the best-performing segment of commercial real estate for the past two years. The vacancy rate has fallen for seven straight quarters from a three-decade high of 8% at the end of 2009, according to Reis.

“With the strong occupancy we had this year, we were really able to push rents,” said Lori Mason Curran, director of real estate investment strategy for the property arm of Seattle-based Vulcan Inc., which owns more than 500 units in the city that are more than 97% leased. Hiring by local employers including Amazon.com Inc. and Microsoft Corp. drove tenant demand, enabling Vulcan to increase leasing fees 6% to 8% in 2011, Ms. Mason Curran said. Seattle's average effective rent rose 2.7% in the fourth quarter from a year earlier, according to Reis.

.....

[M II A II R II K]

For Many Latinos, Racial Identity Is More Culture Than Color


January 13, 2012

By MIREYA NAVARRO

Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/us...ines&emc=tha23

Every decade, the Census Bureau spends billions of dollars and deploys hundreds of thousands of workers to get an accurate portrait of the American population. Among the questions on the census form is one about race, with 15 choices, including “some other race.” More than 18 million Latinos checked this “other” box in the 2010 census, up from 14.9 million in 2000. It was an indicator of the sharp disconnect between how Latinos view themselves and how the government wants to count them. Many Latinos argue that the country’s race categories — indeed, the government’s very conception of identity — do not fit them.

The main reason for the split is that the census categorizes people by race, which typically refers to a set of common physical traits. But Latinos, as a group in this country, tend to identify themselves more by their ethnicity, meaning a shared set of cultural traits, like language or customs. So when they encounter the census, they see one question that asks them whether they identify themselves as having Hispanic ethnic origins and many answer it as their main identifier. But then there is another question, asking them about their race, because, as the census guide notes, “people of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin may be of any race,” and more than a third of Latinos check “other.”

This argument over identity has gained momentum with the growth of the Latino population, which in 2010 stood at more than 50 million. Census Bureau officials have acknowledged that the questionnaire has a problem, and say they are wrestling with how to get more Latinos to pick a race. In 2010, they tested different wording in questions and last year they held focus groups, with a report on the research scheduled to be released by this summer. Some experts say officials are right to go back to the drawing table. “Whenever you have people who can’t find themselves in the question, it’s a bad question,” said Mary C. Waters, a sociology professor at Harvard who specializes in the challenges of measuring race and ethnicity.

.....

“Believe me, I am not a confused person. I know who I am, but I don't necessarily fit the categories well," said Erica Lubliner, a medical school graduate of Mexican and Jewish heritage.