Mid-2011 Population Estimates to be released on Wednesday

[Tender Branson]

State Population Estimates: July 1, 2011 — The Census Bureau is releasing the first set of state population estimates since the official 2010 Census reapportionment counts were released in December 2010. Internet tables will show July 1, 2011, population estimates and components of change for the nation, states and Puerto Rico. Scheduled for release on December 21.

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/tip_sheets/tp11-25.html

[Tender Branson]

The California Dept. of Finance has already released their new Mid-2011 figures:

Mid-2011: 37.578.616 (+260.135, +0.7%)
Mid-2010: 37.318.481
Census:     37.253.956

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-2/documents/E-2_Press_Release_Jul2011.pdf

Oregon:

Mid-2011: 3.857.625 (+20.325, +0.5%)
Mid-2010: 3.837.300
Census:     3.831.074

http://pdx.edu/prc/population-estimates-0

Washington:

Apr-2011: 6.767.900 (+43.360, +0.6%)
Census:     6.724.540

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/april1/press.pdf

[Tender Branson]

I think Alaska will be the fastest-growing state this year (ca. 2.2%), followed by Utah (1.8%), Texas (1.7%), Colorado (1.5%) and North Dakota (1.5%).

On the other hand Michigan, Maine, Rhode Island & New Hampshire could lose population this year.

[Brittain33]

Why New Hampshire?

[greenforest32]

I wonder how this table (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_Census#State_rankings) will change in the 2020 Census.

[Tender Branson]

Why New Hampshire?

It had already very slow growth during 2009-2010. Maybe Vermont is in the red as well.

BTW, the numbers should be out in a few hours.

[Ban my account ffs!]

It'll be interesting to see what the data says.

Looking at labor force numbers.. which aren't necessarily a sign of population growth/shrinkage.. but do show the general trend

States that fared well in the recession and are continuing to grow:

Alaska
Texas
North Dakota
Minnesota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Tennessee
Mississippi
Massachusetts
Kentucky
Oregon

States who saw large contractions in labor force numbers and haven't caught back up:
Michigan (continues to bleed people)
Rhode Island
Utah (for whatever reason, Utah is bleeding working aged people)
Nevada
Georgia (but the labor force is growing again at a good clip)
Delaware
Indiana
New York
West Virginia
Wyoming

States that saw fast growth pre 2008 but have now declined or stopped growing completely:
Nevada
Washington
New Mexico
Montana
Idaho
Florida
Colorado
ARIZONA
California

The states not mentioned generally have seen a stop in growth in the labor force... but that is more likely due to internal demographics than movement from state to state.  New England, for example, has fertility rates far below the rest of the nation at 1.7 children per woman compared to just under 2 in other very "white" states.  Because of this, the baby boom generation is particularly large there, so there will be declines in the labor force even as the population continues to slowly grow as the region attracts new people.

Compare that with the oddity of Utah.. which has the youngest population of any state and the highest fertility rate at like 2.4 or something.  The labor force has been steadily declining since 2008.  My guess is that many of these people leaving are Mormons who are going on mission trips or otherwise temporarily moving away to find work, but will eventually move back.

[Tender Branson]

When is the Census Bureau usually releasing their stuff ?

2.30pm ? Like the Labor Statistics ?

Or later ?

[Tender Branson]

It has been released:

http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2011/index.html

July 1, 2011: 311.591.917
July 1, 2010: 309.330.219

Growth: + 2.261.698 people (+0.7%)

Fastest growing states:

DC (+2.2%)
Texas (+1.7%)
Utah (+1.5%)
Colorado (+1.4%)
North Dakota (+1.4%)
Washington (+1.3%)

Slowest growing states:

Rhode Island (-0.1%)
Michigan (no change)

WV, OH, ME, VT, NH and CT all with 0.1% growth

[Tender Branson]

Biggest numerical gainers:

TX: +421K
CA: +354K
FL: +219K
GA: +103K
NC: +96K
WA: +87K
VA: +73K
NY: +70K
AZ: +69K
CO: +69K

[Tender Branson]

4.008.000 Births
2.450.000 Deaths

1.558.000 Natural Increase
+704.000 Immigration Balance

2.262.000 Total Growth

[Tender Branson]

Biggest Net Migration (International+Domestic) Winners and Losers:

TX +190K
FL +177K
CA +80K
NC +52K
WA +49K
GA +39K
CO +34K
VA +30K
AZ +28K
TN +24K

RI -3K
MS -3K
CT -4K
KS -4K
MO -7K
NJ -14K
NY -26K
OH -26K
MI -28K
IL -39K

[Tender Branson]

Biggest Net DOMESTIC Migration Winners and Losers:

TX: +115K
FL: +108K
NC: +33K
WA: +32K
CO: +25K
SC: +17K
TN: +17K
GA: +16K
OR: +12K
VA: +10K

MA: -8K
IN: -9K
MO: -12K
CT: -14K
OH: -35K
MI: -40K
NJ: -45K
CA: -51K
IL: -67K
NY: -90K

[Tender Branson]

Biggest Net INTERNATIONAL Migration Winners:

CA: +131K
TX: +74K
FL: +68K
NY: +65K
NJ: +31K
IL: +27K
GA: +23K
AZ: +21K
MA: +20K
VA: +19K

[Tender Branson]

[BigSkyBob]

 How about the real question: projected over a decade, which states gain and lose Congressional seats after the 2020 Census?

[dpmapper]

rough guess:

potential gain:
TX +2
FL +1
GA +1
VA +1
NC +1
AZ +1
CA +1
CO +1

lose:
RI -1
MI -1
OH -1
PA -1
IL -1
WV -1
MN -1
AL -1
NE -1

[Padfoot]

I wonder if Montana will get its second district back if it passes Rhode Island.

Also, it looks like Nevada's growth has come to a screeching halt.  I wonder if it will recover at all once the economy is stabilized.

[muon2]

I used the July 2011 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 15 month period between the Census and the estimate. I then applied the annual growth rate to the 2010 reapportionment population to get the 2020 projection. This accounts for the extra overseas population used in reapportionment but not for redistricting. Ten years is a long stretch for a simple model like this, but here are the projected changes.

CA +1
CO +1
FL +1
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
VA +1
WV -1

The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are CO-8, AL-7, VA-12, CA-54, and FL-28 (#435).
The next five in line are WV-3, OR-6, NY-27, AZ-10, LA-7.

[bgwah]

Not sure I believe the Census' WA numbers, as nice as they are. The state's estimates are almost always closer.

[Tender Branson]

I used the July 2011 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 15 month period between the Census and the estimate. I then applied the annual growth rate to the 2010 reapportionment population to get the 2020 projection. This accounts for the extra overseas population used in reapportionment but not for redistricting. Ten years is a long stretch for a simple model like this, but here are the projected changes.

CA +1
CO +1
FL +1
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
VA +1
WV -1

The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are CO-8, AL-7, VA-12, CA-54, and FL-28 (#435).
The next five in line are WV-3, OR-6, NY-27, AZ-10, LA-7.

But much like the 2008-2010 recession which had a downward trend in natural increase (births minus deaths) and decreasing immigration, the 2010s could see an uptick later on when the economy gets growing at a fast clip again. Natural increase could go up from 1.5 to 1.8 Mio. again and net immigration from 0.7 Mio. to 1 Mio. a year. That makes projecting 2020 numbers really hard. The difference could be 3-5 Mio. people by 2020 - without potential over- or undercounts.

[Tender Branson]

Not sure I believe the Census' WA numbers, as nice as they are. The state's estimates are almost always closer.

Why is there such a big difference anyway ?

The Census Bureau growth estimate for WA is double what the state agency estimates.

While the natural growth must be the same in both estimates, it has to be a difference in migration estimates. On what are they basing the migration estimates ?

It was also a big problem with the CA numbers, the CA DoF found the CA population about 1.5 Mio. higher on Census Day 2010 than the Census Bureau.

The question only is: Were the CA DoF numbers correct and the Census takers massively undercounted 1.5 Mio. Californians - or - where the DoF numbers wrong and the Census was taken correctly ?

[bgwah]

I think in WA, driver licenses are a major statistic the state utilizes in their estimates that the Census does not.

The state estimated the population in the 2010 Census almost exactly correct, and was also much closer for the city of Seattle. The Census' 2009-2010 estimates ended up being higher than the actual Census results. I don't know about California.

[Tender Branson]

I wonder how this table (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_Census#State_rankings) will change in the 2020 Census.

Here is the projected 2020 Census Population, based on current trends (last year's growth/loss x 8.75, added to the Mid-2011 population):

SORTED BY 2020 POPULATION:



SORTED BY NUMERICAL GROWTH/LOSS:



SORTED BY PERCENTAGE GROWTH/LOSS:

[bgwah]

Washington barely held it's title as 2nd biggest Western state in 2010. Hopefully we really will keep in 2020, too.