Atlas Forum

General Politics => Political Geography & Demographics => Topic started by: krazen1211 on December 20, 2012, 10:34:54 am



Title: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: krazen1211 on December 20, 2012, 10:34:54 am
Edit: This thread has been assembled from the separate discussions on official census estimates released this decade. muon2

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb12-250.html


The 10 Fastest-Growing States from July 1, 2011, to July 1, 2012
        Percent Change
1.   North Dakota   2.17
2.   District of Columbia   2.15
3.   Texas   1.67
4.   Wyoming   1.60
5.   Utah   1.45
6.   Nevada   1.43
7.   Colorado   1.39
8.   Arizona   1.33
9.   Florida   1.23
10.   South Dakota   1.19


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on December 20, 2012, 10:35:25 am
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb12-250.html


The 10 Fastest-Growing States from July 1, 2011, to July 1, 2012
        Percent Change
1.   North Dakota   2.17
2.   District of Columbia   2.15
Hilarious reversal, innit.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: krazen1211 on December 20, 2012, 10:38:59 am
Based on jimtrex's post I don't see how Arizona gains a seat. Colorado might.

At a guess:

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


Alabama and Oregon appear to be competing for that last seat.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Skill and Chance on December 20, 2012, 05:05:42 pm
So, thinking about this in partisan terms:

RI: -1D

CA: +1D (new majority Hispanic seat)

CO: +1D

FL: Probably +1D (a court would require an additional Hispanic district under FDF)

IL: Probably -1R (although a court would draw -1D due to Chicago population loss)

MI: -1D (although in court at least 2 seats would flip from R+ to D+)

MN: -1R or -1Peterson

NY: Fair Fight or -1R

NC: +1R (will need to make McIntyre's seat permanently D for it to work, though)

OH: -1R

PA: Are they crazy enough to try -1D?  Probably a Fair Fight otherwise

TX: +2R +1D (or +3R if VRA doesn't apply to redistricting after next year)

VA: +1D

WV: -1R (don't think Rahall is still in WV-03 in 2020)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: krazen1211 on December 20, 2012, 06:37:15 pm
So, thinking about this in partisan terms:

RI: -1D

CA: +1D (new majority Hispanic seat)

CO: +1D

FL: Probably +1D (a court would require an additional Hispanic district under FDF)

IL: Probably -1R (although a court would draw -1D due to Chicago population loss)

MI: -1D (although in court at least 2 seats would flip from R+ to D+)

MN: -1R or -1Peterson

NY: Fair Fight or -1R

NC: +1R (will need to make McIntyre's seat permanently D for it to work, though)

OH: -1R

PA: Are they crazy enough to try -1D?  Probably a Fair Fight otherwise

TX: +2R +1D (or +3R if VRA doesn't apply to redistricting after next year)

VA: +1D

WV: -1R (don't think Rahall is still in WV-03 in 2020)


Colorado I think ends up 6D 2R if they are drawing a partisan map. Otherwise Coffman gets a safe seat in Douglas County.

Florida has no place to put a new Hispanic seat. They just put one in Orlando after putting one last decade in Miami, and the Miami districts already extend into other counties.  It's more likely to be R leaning in the Gulf Coast and they'll split off the Keys; however Garcia might get a packed seat if he survives the decade.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 20, 2012, 06:41:04 pm
If the apportionment were based on 2012 estimates, with continuous redistribution such as is done in Australia, North Carolina would have gained its 14th seat and Minnesota would have lost its 8th.

Projecting the 2010 (Census)-2012(July 2012 estimate) forward:

2013: No change.
2014: Texas (37+), Michigan (13-)
2015: Virginia (12+) Pennsylvania (17-)
2016: Texas (38+) Rhode Island (1-)
2017: Florida (28+) Illinois (17-)
2018: Colorado (8+) Ohio (15-)
2019: No change.
2020: California (54+). Texas (39+), New York (26-), West Virginia (2-)

Projections assume annual compounding, and project to July 1, except in 2020 which is to April 1.   Overseas population is ignored.   In 2020, the last seats between California, Texas, and New York are very close with only 2 of 3 winning out.  So New York might keep a seat, at the expense of California or Texas not gaining.

The era of favorable rounding seems to be ending.   Imagine you had 5 states that were entitled to n.4 seats, where n is some integer (eg.  7.4, 3.4, 10.4, 9.4, 13.4).   Collectively, they would be entitled to 2 more seats than the closest number of seats.   So even though they aren't entitled to it based on their individual entitlement, two of them would gain the extra seat.  This process favors larger states since their deficit is spread over more representatives.  If California is short 50,000 people that is less than 1,000 per representative.  If Montana is short 50,000 people, that is 50,000 per district.

On the other hand, if you had 5 states that were entitled to n.6 seats where n is some integer (eg 7.6, 3.6, 10.6, 9.6, 13.6).  Collectively they would be entitled to 2 less seats than the closest number of seats.   When this happens, larger states are disfavored, since their surplus can be spread over more districts.

The fractions are probably close to normally distributed over [0,1).  But 50 states is a fairly small sample, and in the last two censuses, there has a somewhat large number of states with fractions just below 1/2 and relatively few just above 1/2.  In 2010, California, Florida, Minnesota, Texas, and Washington benefited.

If we continue the projection forward:

2021: No change.
2022: No change.
2023: Texas (40+), Alabama (6-)
2024: No change.
2025: Arizona (10+), Michigan (12-)
2026: Texas (41+), Florida (29+), Illinois (16-), Pennsylvania (16-)
2027: California (55+), Georgia (15+), Wisconsin (7-), Ohio (14-)
2028: No change.
2029: Texas (42+), California (54-)
2030: Utah (5+), Indiana (8-)

In 2027, California would get a favorable rounding, but would lose it as Texas surged past.  Under the current apportionment scheme, states can gain population share, but lose representation share.

If Rhode Island continues to lose population, it will have less population than Montana by 2020, and Montana is not going to be gaining a representative, so Rhode Island is almost certain to lose.  West Virginia should be very close to losing its 3rd seat.  Nebraska is growing only slightly than the country as a whole, and has just passed West Virginia in population, so it is safe at 3 for a while   On the other hand, Idaho has slowed a lot.   Previously it appeared that all 3 states would be around the 2.5 level in 2020, but Nebraska and Idaho now appear to be ready to keep their representation.

Alabama appears to be the next small state to lose a representative, and it could be this decade, if states like Arizona, Florida, and Nevada recover some of their past growth.

Oregon remains just short of a 6th representative, and by 2020 could have districts with 830,000 persons.

At the current rate, North Dakota gains its 2nd representative back in 2051.  Does Bismarck go in the east or west?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 20, 2012, 08:44:54 pm
Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2012 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 2 and a quarter year 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

None of these have changed since the 2011 estimates were released last year. There is some shuffling in the bubble seats. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are VA-12, CO-8, AL-7, TX-39, and CA-54 (#435).
The next five in line are NY-27, WV-3, OR-6, MN-8, AZ-10.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 20, 2012, 10:05:34 pm
Fractional apportionment for 2010, and projected for 2020.  It can't be assumed that fractions round, since they are not rounded independently, and fixed size of House, even if projection was correct.

Change is accurate (subject to projection error).   Thus, Alabama is almost certain to lose 7th by 2030, even it saves it this time.   Number of seats, takes into account rank order of quotients, so is really a guess for states near 0.500 fractions.   Margin is the change needed, to cause the loss of a seat (or another seat), while increase is the projected population increase.   So if Alabama were to only gain 173K (only 18K less than projected 191K) it would in even more danger.  But if it bumped its growth up a bit, it would be safe for now.

California's projected gain of 3.630 million only has margin of 2K for 54th seat (3.627 million would not be enough).


State               2010    2020  Change   N  +-  Margin Increase  8-Ball.
Alabama            6.737   6.506  -0.231   7   =     -18     191   Getting real close.
Alaska             1.117   1.169   0.052   1   =     271      99
Arizona            8.999   9.332   0.333   9   =     110     748   Still a possibility.
Arkansas           4.129   4.033  -0.096   4   =     351     151
California        52.369  53.356   0.987  54  +1      -2    3630   50/50.
Colorado           7.087   7.550   0.462   8  +1     -54     743   Not sure on 8th.
Connecticut        5.049   4.785  -0.263   5   =    -229      73
Delaware           1.358   1.381   0.023   1   =      94      88
Florida           26.435  27.673   1.238  28  +1    -190    2399   Somewhat safe for one.
Georgia           13.627  14.055   0.429  14   =     311    1076  
Hawaii             1.976   2.031   0.055   2   =     363     148
Idaho              2.260   2.270   0.010   2   =     176     129   3 not getting closer.
Illinois          18.043  17.012  -1.031  17  -1     338     200   Sure loss.
Indiana            9.128   8.791  -0.337   9   =    -241     241
Iowa               4.312   4.167  -0.145   4   =     247     123
Kansas             4.042   3.949  -0.092   4   =    -355     149
Kentucky           6.120   5.926  -0.194   6   =    -339     185
Louisiana          6.392   6.344  -0.048   6   =     107     313   Stops the bleeding.
Maine              1.933   1.809  -0.124   2   =    -251       4   Safe until 2050.
Maryland           8.131   8.215   0.084   8   =     201     510
Massachusetts      9.217   9.145  -0.073   9   =     253     449
Michigan          13.902  12.906  -0.996  13  -1    -338      -1   Sure loss.
Minnesota          7.472   7.386  -0.087   7  -1      72     343   Long shot to keep 8.
Mississippi        4.201   4.007  -0.194   4   =     371      79
Missouri           8.433   8.025  -0.408   8   =     347     148
Montana            1.478   1.472  -0.006   1   =      20      72   Will Bakken help?
Nebraska           2.615   2.606  -0.010   3   =     -88     133   Safe for now.
Nevada             3.829   3.908   0.079   4   =    -323     269   Not even a solid 4.
New Hampshire      1.917   1.813  -0.104   2   =    -255      19   Safe until 2050.
New Jersey        12.369  11.912  -0.457  12   =    -340     328
New Mexico         2.937   2.887  -0.050   3   =    -307     120   Losing ground.
New York          27.244  26.427  -0.817  26  -1       1     869   50/50 on loss of seat.
North Carolina    13.413  13.759   0.346  14  +1    -227    1001   14 is in the bag.
North Dakota       1.070   1.159   0.090   1   =     279     129
Ohio              16.224  15.108  -1.116  15  -1     268      34   One is certain.
Oklahoma           5.297   5.298   0.001   5   =     144     290
Oregon             5.408   5.431   0.023   5   =      42     313   Needs to heat it up.
Pennsylvania      17.862  16.942  -0.920  17  -1    -373     274   In the bag ;)
Rhode Island       1.562   1.449  -0.112   1  -1      38     -10   Pretty much a lock.
South Carolina     6.521   6.647   0.126   7   =    -126     453
South Dakota       1.249   1.280   0.031   1   =     178      89
Tennessee          8.935   8.954   0.019   9   =    -366     504
Texas             35.350  38.459   3.110  39  +3     -50    4322   3rd is not in the bag.
Utah               3.917   4.198   0.281   4   =     224     430   Faster than neighbors.
Vermont            1.012   0.959  -0.053   1   =     454       1
Virginia          11.258  11.568   0.310  12  +1     -76     855   Somewhat safe.
Washington         9.466   9.834   0.368  10   =    -276     801
West Virginia      2.652   2.483  -0.169   2  -1       8      11   Could still save 3rd.
Wisconsin          8.010   7.669  -0.340   8   =    -146     177   OK until 2030
Wyoming            0.937   0.954   0.017   1   =     458      59


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Skill and Chance on December 20, 2012, 10:40:38 pm
Overall, this looks like it could be kinder to D's than the last several reapportionments, assuming that CO and VA keep voting left of the nation through 2020.  And most of the Rust Belt states will have no choice but to eliminate R's.  If any of OH, MI or VA are sent to court they will be D goldmines (PA less so because R's control the court).


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: krazen1211 on December 21, 2012, 08:30:44 am
Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2012 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 2 and a quarter year 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

None of these have changed since the 2011 estimates were released last year. There is some shuffling in the bubble seats. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are VA-12, CO-8, AL-7, TX-39, and CA-54 (#435).
The next five in line are NY-27, WV-3, OR-6, MN-8, AZ-10.

Yes, I did an identical calculation more or less.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Linus Van Pelt on December 21, 2012, 09:03:27 pm
+8/-8 would be the lowest total change in the whole 435-seat era. Interstate migration is low by historical standards.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 21, 2012, 11:28:21 pm
+8/-8 would be the lowest total change in the whole 435-seat era. Interstate migration is low by historical standards.
Relative (and net) migration.  In 1950, if 10% of Minnesota retirees realize that ice fishing is not that much fun and move to Arizona to play shuffleboard, it is a significant increase for Arizona.  And since there were no people in Arizona at that time, none moved to Minnesota.

But now, a similar number of Minnesotans would hardly be noticed, some of the former retirees are dying or moving back to live near their children, and some Arizonan's voluntarily move to Minnesota.

And overall growth rate is declining.  For a state with 10 representatives to lose one, it has to grow 10% slower than the country.  If the country increases 20%, the state could have a healthy 10% increase and still lose representation.  If the country increases 10%, the state would have to have no growth, or could grow at 5% for 20 years.

But with the country growing at 8% rate, 5% growth results in the state losing a district every 30 years.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Linus Van Pelt on December 22, 2012, 12:02:10 am
+8/-8 would be the lowest total change in the whole 435-seat era. Interstate migration is low by historical standards.
Relative (and net) migration.  In 1950, if 10% of Minnesota retirees realize that ice fishing is not that much fun and move to Arizona to play shuffleboard, it is a significant increase for Arizona.  And since there were no people in Arizona at that time, none moved to Minnesota.

But now, a similar number of Minnesotans would hardly be noticed, some of the former retirees are dying or moving back to live near their children, and some Arizonan's voluntarily move to Minnesota.

And overall growth rate is declining.  For a state with 10 representatives to lose one, it has to grow 10% slower than the country.  If the country increases 20%, the state could have a healthy 10% increase and still lose representation.  If the country increases 10%, the state would have to have no growth, or could grow at 5% for 20 years.

But with the country growing at 8% rate, 5% growth results in the state losing a district every 30 years.

Yes, but in fact also the gross interstate migration rate has been undergoing a major decline. It was over 0.03 in 1990 and is now close to 0.015, and this has been a secular decline over the 20-year period, not just due to the recent recession. That decline in rate is enough to more than offset population growth, so even the gross number of interstate migrants is smaller now than in 1990.

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/wp/wp697.pdf


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Horus on December 22, 2012, 03:07:13 am
Anyone know where I could find county by county loss/gain margins from '10 - '12?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Sbane on December 22, 2012, 03:35:41 am
Anyone know where I could find county by county loss/gain margins from '10 - '12?

I remember the census released data for change from 2010-2011. Is this going to be released at a later date?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on December 22, 2012, 05:38:44 am
But now, a similar number of Minnesotans would hardly be noticed, some of the former retirees are dying or moving back to live near their children, and some Arizonan's voluntarily move to Minnesota.
The correct term is self-deporting. :D


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: politicallefty on December 22, 2012, 06:00:56 am
Overall, this looks like it could be kinder to D's than the last several reapportionments, assuming that CO and VA keep voting left of the nation through 2020.  And most of the Rust Belt states will have no choice but to eliminate R's.  If any of OH, MI or VA are sent to court they will be D goldmines (PA less so because R's control the court).

That was one of my first thoughts as well. It's been quite some time since Democrats have had anything remotely nearing a friendly apportionment. I didn't think Colorado and Virginia were both on track to gain an additional seat this decade, as it now looks quite possible. Hopefully, California can hold on to some good sustainable growth and finally get its 54th seat. Interestingly, the CA Department of Finance underestimated population growth, which is the opposite compared to the pre-Census estimates.

While I wouldn't be sad to see West Virginia drop down to two seats, I was hoping Montana would have some nice growth to get its second seat back. Any reasonable redistricting would create divide the state East/West, which would give Democrats a huge opportunity in the Western district.

Btw, jimrtex, you didn't leave a comment on Pennsylvania, which is another certainty to lose a seat in 2020. ;)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 22, 2012, 08:05:19 am
Anyone know where I could find county by county loss/gain margins from '10 - '12?

I remember the census released data for change from 2010-2011. Is this going to be released at a later date?

County estimates for 2012, including change data, are scheduled for June 2013.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 22, 2012, 12:01:55 pm
Btw, jimrtex, you didn't leave a comment on Pennsylvania, which is another certainty to lose a seat in 2020. ;)
Fixed.   Surprisingly, the forum software uses smilies for teletype mode.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 22, 2012, 12:08:32 pm
Anyone know where I could find county by county loss/gain margins from '10 - '12?

I remember the census released data for change from 2010-2011. Is this going to be released at a later date?
The schedule release for 2012 estimate is in March 2013.  For cities, towns, and minor civil divisions (Northeast and Midwest except Iowa) in May 2013.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Linus Van Pelt on May 11, 2013, 08:26:33 pm
Yes, but in fact also the gross interstate migration rate has been undergoing a major decline. It was over 0.03 in 1990 and is now close to 0.015, and this has been a secular decline over the 20-year period, not just due to the recent recession. That decline in rate is enough to more than offset population growth, so even the gross number of interstate migrants is smaller now than in 1990.

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/wp/wp697.pdf

Bump re the above to note an interesting new paper here (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2013/201327/201327pap.pdf) by some Federal Reserve economists exploring possible reasons why the rate of migration has been declining since the 1980's. They find that the shift is not explained just by demographic changes, and explore some possible other explanations, including: that the range of industries and occupations has become more similar across metropolitan areas; that the rise of dual-career couples has made moves more difficult since both partners are unlikely to be looking for new jobs at the same time; and that the structure of work has changed in ways that disincentivize job changes. The last of these is their favored hypothesis.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Benj on May 11, 2013, 10:10:33 pm
Yes, but in fact also the gross interstate migration rate has been undergoing a major decline. It was over 0.03 in 1990 and is now close to 0.015, and this has been a secular decline over the 20-year period, not just due to the recent recession. That decline in rate is enough to more than offset population growth, so even the gross number of interstate migrants is smaller now than in 1990.

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/wp/wp697.pdf

Bump re the above to note an interesting new paper here (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2013/201327/201327pap.pdf) by some Federal Reserve economists exploring possible reasons why the rate of migration has been declining since the 1980's. They find that the shift is not explained just by demographic changes, and explore some possible other explanations, including: that the range of industries and occupations has become more similar across metropolitan areas; that the rise of dual-career couples has made moves more difficult since both partners are unlikely to be looking for new jobs at the same time; and that the structure of work has changed in ways that disincentivize job changes. The last of these is their favored hypothesis.

The last sounds the least likely to me. I'm lacking any data in front of me, but there's definitely been a shift in the labor market over the past 30-40 years (somewhat longer scale, but still) from people entering the labor force at one company and working for that company for their entire lives to people changing jobs every five years or so.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on May 11, 2013, 11:39:42 pm
Bump re the above to note an interesting new paper here (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2013/201327/201327pap.pdf) by some Federal Reserve economists exploring possible reasons why the rate of migration has been declining since the 1980's. They find that the shift is not explained just by demographic changes, and explore some possible other explanations, including: that the range of industries and occupations has become more similar across metropolitan areas; that the rise of dual-career couples has made moves more difficult since both partners are unlikely to be looking for new jobs at the same time; and that the structure of work has changed in ways that disincentivize job changes. The last of these is their favored hypothesis.

The last sounds the least likely to me. I'm lacking any data in front of me, but there's definitely been a shift in the labor market over the past 30-40 years (somewhat longer scale, but still) from people entering the labor force at one company and working for that company for their entire lives to people changing jobs every five years or so.
Job changes includes more than company switching, and they were particularly focused on the last decade or so.

Their argument is that jobs at both the high end and low end have become more consistently common across metropolitan areas, and middle-skill jobs have decreased.

You don't move 2000 miles to switch from an east-facing cubicle to a west-facing cubicle for $100 per month.  You do it for an upgrade in salary, and that is possible to do within a major metropolitan area.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: greenforest32 on July 25, 2013, 06:01:04 am
I was just looking over this again and the raw numbers from 2010-2012 are interesting too.

States ranked by numerical population change from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012:

State
Texas
California
Florida
Georgia
North Carolina
New York
Virginia
Washington
Arizona
Colorado
Maryland
Tennessee
Massachusetts
South Carolina
Utah
Minnesota
New Jersey
Louisiana
Oregon
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Nevada
Indiana
Illinois
Alabama
Kentucky
Wisconsin
Arkansas
Missouri
Kansas
Hawaii
District of Columbia
Nebraska
Idaho
Iowa
North Dakota
New Mexico
Alaska
South Dakota
Delaware
Mississippi
Connecticut
Montana
Wyoming
Ohio
New Hampshire
West Virginia
Maine
Vermont
Michigan
Rhode Island
50 state + DC
2010 Pop-CEN
25,145,561
37,253,956
18,801,310
9,687,653
9,535,483
19,378,102
8,001,024
6,724,540
6,392,017
5,029,196
5,773,552
6,346,105
6,547,629
4,625,364
2,763,885
5,303,925
8,791,894
4,533,372
3,831,074
3,751,351
12,702,379
2,700,551
6,483,802
12,830,632
4,779,736
4,339,367
5,686,986
2,915,918
5,988,927
2,853,118
1,360,301
601,723
1,826,341
1,567,582
3,046,355
672,591
2,059,179
710,231
814,180
897,934
2,967,297
3,574,097
989,415
563,626
11,536,504
1,316,470
1,852,994
1,328,361
625,741
9,883,640
1,052,567
308,745,538
2012 Pop-EST
26,059,203
38,041,430
19,317,568
9,919,945
9,752,073
19,570,261
8,185,867
6,897,012
6,553,255
5,187,582
5,884,563
6,456,243
6,646,144
4,723,723
2,855,287
5,379,139
8,864,590
4,601,893
3,899,353
3,814,820
12,763,536
2,758,931
6,537,334
12,875,255
4,822,023
4,380,415
5,726,398
2,949,131
6,021,988
2,885,905
1,392,313
632,323
1,855,525
1,595,728
3,074,186
699,628
2,085,538
731,449
833,354
917,092
2,984,926
3,590,347
1,005,141
576,412
11,544,225
1,320,718
1,855,413
1,329,192
626,011
9,883,360
1,050,292
313,914,040
Change #
913,642
787,474
516,258
232,292
216,590
192,159
184,843
172,472
161,238
158,386
111,011
110,138
98,515
98,359
91,402
75,214
72,696
68,521
68,279
63,469
61,157
58,380
53,532
44,623
42,287
41,048
39,412
33,213
33,061
32,787
32,012
30,600
29,184
28,146
27,831
27,037
26,359
21,218
19,174
19,158
17,629
16,250
15,726
12,786
7,721
4,248
2,419
831
270
-280
-2,275
5,168,502
Change %
3.63%
2.11%
2.75%
2.40%
2.27%
0.99%
2.31%
2.56%
2.52%
3.15%
1.92%
1.74%
1.50%
2.13%
3.31%
1.42%
0.83%
1.51%
1.78%
1.69%
0.48%
2.16%
0.83%
0.35%
0.88%
0.95%
0.69%
1.14%
0.55%
1.15%
2.35%
5.09%
1.60%
1.80%
0.91%
4.02%
1.28%
2.99%
2.36%
2.13%
0.59%
0.45%
1.59%
2.27%
0.07%
0.32%
0.13%
0.06%
0.04%
0.00%
-0.22%
1.67%

Also the percentage population change from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012 ranking:

State
 District of Columbia
 North Dakota
 Texas
 Utah
 Colorado
 Alaska
 Florida
 Washington
 Arizona
 Georgia
 South Dakota
 Hawaii
 Virginia
 North Carolina
 Wyoming
 Nevada
 Delaware
 South Carolina
 California
 Maryland
 Idaho
 Oregon
 Tennessee
 Oklahoma
 50 state + DC
 Nebraska
 Montana
 Louisiana
 Massachusetts
 Minnesota
 New Mexico
 Kansas
 Arkansas
 New York
 Kentucky
 Iowa
 Alabama
 New Jersey
 Indiana
 Wisconsin
 Mississippi
 Missouri
 Pennsylvania
 Connecticut
 Illinois
 New Hampshire
 West Virginia
 Ohio
 Maine
 Vermont
 Michigan
 Rhode Island
Change %
5.09%
4.02%
3.63%
3.31%
3.15%
2.99%
2.75%
2.56%
2.52%
2.40%
2.36%
2.35%
2.31%
2.27%
2.27%
2.16%
2.13%
2.13%
2.11%
1.92%
1.80%
1.78%
1.74%
1.69%
1.67%
1.60%
1.59%
1.51%
1.50%
1.42%
1.28%
1.15%
1.14%
0.99%
0.95%
0.91%
0.88%
0.83%
0.83%
0.69%
0.59%
0.55%
0.48%
0.45%
0.35%
0.32%
0.13%
0.07%
0.06%
0.04%
0.00%
-0.22%

(^ The table feature is confusing. I couldn't get it to work right like jimrtex's one above so I used separate columns.)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on November 18, 2013, 08:18:51 am
New state population estimates will be released in ca. 1 month !

My prediction:

316.159.818


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Griff on November 18, 2013, 06:57:33 pm
316,211,453


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on November 19, 2013, 09:49:21 am
New state population estimates will be released in ca. 1 month !

My prediction:

316.159.818
315,712,013

NC+1, MN-1 remains only apportionment change, until 2014 when Texas gains from Michigan.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on November 19, 2013, 10:40:29 am
TX will have the largest numerical growth once again: ca. 400-450K I guess.

It's hard to say which state will have the highest % growth though: ND again ? Or DC ? Or WY ? Or UT ?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: KingSweden on November 23, 2013, 12:30:21 pm
I'd say ND, then DC, then TX, then UT, then WA, then FL. No scientific reasons, just guesses :P

I also wonder if Michigan's population decline has stopped, though I suspect Rhode Island's has not. I expect most New England states to have more or less minimal growth.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: True Federalist on November 23, 2013, 01:55:23 pm
I predict that the population on July 1, 2014 will be 35,274 if one doesn't count the zombies. ;) Would zombies count as three-fifths of a person for apportionment purposes?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: ElectionsGuy on November 23, 2013, 11:02:45 pm
315,594,607


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: PR on November 24, 2013, 03:31:44 am
316,667,233


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Mr. Morden on November 24, 2013, 04:39:12 am
314,159,265

More or less.

Though I fear that may be an irrational answer.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on November 24, 2013, 06:34:35 am
314,159,265

More or less.

Though I fear that may be an irrational answer.


The official Mid-2012 population was already 313,914,040

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

You might change your prediction, because the US typically grows by 0.7% each year now.

;)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Vern on November 25, 2013, 09:10:25 am
319,030,466


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on November 28, 2013, 10:43:33 am
319,030,466

1.6% growth has not happened in the US since the 1970s ...


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: kcguy on November 28, 2013, 12:27:58 pm
314,159,265

More or less.

Though I fear that may be an irrational answer.


It's ironic that I got your joke on a day I'm going to be eating pie.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: True Federalist on November 29, 2013, 12:08:00 am
314,159,265

More or less.

Though I fear that may be an irrational answer.


It's ironic that I got your joke on a day I'm going to be eating pie.


I had cornbread (http://people.brandeis.edu/~mob/puns.htm) today.  It was good, but the pie was transcendental.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: hopper on November 29, 2013, 07:30:47 pm
I'd say ND, then DC, then TX, then UT, then WA, then FL. No scientific reasons, just guesses :P

I also wonder if Michigan's population decline has stopped, though I suspect Rhode Island's has not. I expect most New England states to have more or less minimal growth.
Michigan has lost 300 people 2011-2012 so yeah Michigan's population has bottomed out.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: hopper on November 29, 2013, 07:39:32 pm
I'd say ND, then DC, then TX, then UT, then WA, then FL. No scientific reasons, just guesses :P

I also wonder if Michigan's population decline has stopped, though I suspect Rhode Island's has not. I expect most New England states to have more or less minimal growth.
Well Massachusetts has ranked 13th in population growth so far in 2011-2012 otherwise yes the rest of New England has grown minimally. I think Rhode Island's population decline has stopped though.

Other 2011-2012 Census findings:

Georgia has passed Michigan for 7th populous state.

Arizona has passed Indiana in Population growth to move up to the 14th most populous state.

Nebraska has passed West Virginia for 37th most populous state.

Might happen this decade:

Utah will pass Kansas in population growth

North Carolina might pass Michigan for 8th most populous state

Oklahoma might pass Oregon in population growth as the 26h most populous state.





Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: hopper on November 29, 2013, 08:01:53 pm
New state population estimates will be released in ca. 1 month !

My prediction:

316.159.818
315,712,013

NC+1, MN-1 remains only apportionment change, until 2014 when Texas gains from Michigan.
Minnesota has already lost a US House Seat in this decade?  I thought Minnesota might stave off a lost US House Seat in this decade since it ranks 16th in population growth so far in 2011-2012. I know before the 2010 Census came out people thought Minnesota was gonna lose a House Seat to Colorado but it didn't happen. Now it looks likes it has happened. Maybe Colorado could have gained a seat from Missouri and Minnesota would have kept 8 House Seats would have been the scenario that I thought could have played out. Missouri's population growth has been miserable in 2011-2012.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: JerryArkansas on November 29, 2013, 08:06:17 pm
New state population estimates will be released in ca. 1 month !

My prediction:

316.159.818
315,712,013

NC+1, MN-1 remains only apportionment change, until 2014 when Texas gains from Michigan.
Minnesota has already lost a US House Seat in this decade?  I thought Minnesota might stave off a lost US House Seat in this decade since it ranks 16th in population growth so far in 2011-2012. I know before the 2010 Census came out people thought Minnesota was gonna lose a House Seat to Colorado but it didn't happen. Now it looks likes it has happened. Maybe Colorado could have gained a seat from Missouri and Minnesota would have kept 8 House Seats would have been the scenario that I thought could have played out. Missouri's population growth has been miserable in 2011-2012.
I don't see MO losing a district until at least 2040.  MN has already lost it's district to NC, we will see if it can gain it back.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on November 30, 2013, 11:28:49 am
New state population estimates will be released in ca. 1 month !

My prediction:

316.159.818
315,712,013

NC+1, MN-1 remains only apportionment change, until 2014 when Texas gains from Michigan.
Minnesota has already lost a US House Seat in this decade?  I thought Minnesota might stave off a lost US House Seat in this decade since it ranks 16th in population growth so far in 2011-2012. I know before the 2010 Census came out people thought Minnesota was gonna lose a House Seat to Colorado but it didn't happen. Now it looks likes it has happened. Maybe Colorado could have gained a seat from Missouri and Minnesota would have kept 8 House Seats would have been the scenario that I thought could have played out. Missouri's population growth has been miserable in 2011-2012.
If there was independent rounding, Minnesota would have had 7 representatives in 2010, since it had less than 7.5/435 of the total population.  But the same was true for FL, CA, WA, and TX.  These 4 states along with MN were apportioned an extra seat to make the total 435.

Based on the ranking:
429 GA
430 SC
431 FL
432 CA
433 WA
434 MN
435 TX
=====
436 NC
437 MO
438 NY
439 NJ
440 MT
441 LA

To keep its 8th seat, MN has to avoid being passed by two states, or alternatively pass some states ahead of it.

If you think of it as a finish of a long distance race, MN is in a pack with some fast finishers, and it just barely kept ahead of NC and TX.  If the race was another 100 yards TX and NC would have caught MN.   Also from 2010 to 2012, MN was 28th fastest, which is just mediocre.

Because of this cluster of fast gainers just above the threshold, and mostly slow gainers below, there have been few changes so far.   TX easily went past MN into 435, and then NC gained its 14th seat and the expense of MN.

By the time the slow growing states drop down to the level of MN, faster growing states have caught up.

2014: TX gains 37th (essentially it has lapped MN), MI loses 14th.
2015: VA gains 12th, PA loses 18th.
2016: TX gains 38th, RI loses 2nd.
2017: FL gains 28th, IL loses 18th.
2018: CO gains 8th, OH loses 16th.
2020: TX gains 39th, CA gains 54th, WV loses 3rd, NY loses 27th.

By 2020, MN will not yet have caught WV and NY, and OR will have surpassed it.

Based on projecting April 2010 census to July 2012 estimate forward to April 2020, Minnesota will have grown 6.5%.  But the country as a whole will have increased 7.6%.  Minnesota has to keep pace with the country as a whole to keep its 8th seat.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: politicallefty on December 01, 2013, 08:43:25 am
What are the current odds of California getting a 54th seat at the next Census? I know that based on its shear population, it can easily be on the cusp of losing a seat, gaining a seat, or staying steady with minimal population shifts. Obviously, I think California getting its financial situation in order can only benefit good population growth. I'm just curious to know what the trends are leading towards (beyond the vague Northeast and Midwest towards the South and West).

I'm also wondering about Oregon and it's potential sixth seat. Based on what I've seen, it seems rather surprising that CO-08 will happen before OR-06.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Skill and Chance on December 01, 2013, 10:04:07 pm
New state population estimates will be released in ca. 1 month !

My prediction:

316.159.818
315,712,013

NC+1, MN-1 remains only apportionment change, until 2014 when Texas gains from Michigan.
Minnesota has already lost a US House Seat in this decade?  I thought Minnesota might stave off a lost US House Seat in this decade since it ranks 16th in population growth so far in 2011-2012. I know before the 2010 Census came out people thought Minnesota was gonna lose a House Seat to Colorado but it didn't happen. Now it looks likes it has happened. Maybe Colorado could have gained a seat from Missouri and Minnesota would have kept 8 House Seats would have been the scenario that I thought could have played out. Missouri's population growth has been miserable in 2011-2012.
If there was independent rounding, Minnesota would have had 7 representatives in 2010, since it had less than 7.5/435 of the total population.  But the same was true for FL, CA, WA, and TX.  These 4 states along with MN were apportioned an extra seat to make the total 435.

Based on the ranking:
429 GA
430 SC
431 FL
432 CA
433 WA
434 MN
435 TX
=====
436 NC
437 MO
438 NY
439 NJ
440 MT
441 LA

To keep its 8th seat, MN has to avoid being passed by two states, or alternatively pass some states ahead of it.

If you think of it as a finish of a long distance race, MN is in a pack with some fast finishers, and it just barely kept ahead of NC and TX.  If the race was another 100 yards TX and NC would have caught MN.   Also from 2010 to 2012, MN was 28th fastest, which is just mediocre.

Because of this cluster of fast gainers just above the threshold, and mostly slow gainers below, there have been few changes so far.   TX easily went past MN into 435, and then NC gained its 14th seat and the expense of MN.

By the time the slow growing states drop down to the level of MN, faster growing states have caught up.

2014: TX gains 37th (essentially it has lapped MN), MI loses 14th.
2015: VA gains 12th, PA loses 18th.
2016: TX gains 38th, RI loses 2nd.
2017: FL gains 28th, IL loses 18th.
2018: CO gains 8th, OH loses 16th.
2020: TX gains 39th, CA gains 54th, WV loses 3rd, NY loses 27th.

By 2020, MN will not yet have caught WV and NY, and OR will have surpassed it.

Based on projecting April 2010 census to July 2012 estimate forward to April 2020, Minnesota will have grown 6.5%.  But the country as a whole will have increased 7.6%.  Minnesota has to keep pace with the country as a whole to keep its 8th seat.

It's interesting that so many seats will come down to the wire.  How much have projections changed since the 2010 census?  I'm surprised to see that AZ-10 isn't even on the short list?  Is AL-07 still in danger?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 02, 2013, 04:26:25 am
What are the current odds of California getting a 54th seat at the next Census? I know that based on its shear population, it can easily be on the cusp of losing a seat, gaining a seat, or staying steady with minimal population shifts. Obviously, I think California getting its financial situation in order can only benefit good population growth. I'm just curious to know what the trends are leading towards (beyond the vague Northeast and Midwest towards the South and West).

I'm also wondering about Oregon and it's potential sixth seat. Based on what I've seen, it seems rather surprising that CO-08 will happen before OR-06.
Over the long haul, what is important is the difference between the rate of growth of a State and the country as a whole.  Based on the 2012 estimates, Colorado is growing at a rate of 14.8% per decade, Oregon at 8.2%, and the USA at 7.6%.

The differential for Colorado is 7.2% vs Oregon at 0.6%.  Colorado is making progress at 12 times the rate of Oregon.  To gain a seat, you can estimate that a state will have to have a cumulative increase of 1/(N-0.5) to gain an Nth seat.  So for Colorado 1/7.5 = 13.3%.  So the 7.2% is about half of what it needs.

Colorado barely secured the 7th seat in 2000 (it was much closer to 6.5), it solidified its 7th seat in 2010, and by the end of the decade will be right around 7.5.

Oregon needs 1/(6-0.5) = 18.2%, but at only 0.6% faster, it takes many decades to gain a seat.  A fractional apportionment would have them go from 5.408 to 5.431 from 2010 to 2020.  Its close to 5.5 - but making much progress.

California needs 1/(54-0.5) = 1.9%, which is about what it is doing.  It got a very lucky rounding in 2000, and a somewhat lucky rounding in 2010.  It is right about increasing a whole seat, but if it doesn't get a lucky rounding, it won't actually gain.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 02, 2013, 11:39:07 am
It's interesting that so many seats will come down to the wire.  How much have projections changed since the 2010 census?  I'm surprised to see that AZ-10 isn't even on the short list?  Is AL-07 still in danger?
429. CA (53) 781 1.9%
430. CO (8) 54 0.9%
431. FL (28) 190 0.9%
432. VA (12) 76 0.9%
433. AL (7) 18 0.4%
434. TX (39) 50 0.2%
435. CA (54) 2 0.0%
-------------------------
436. NY (26) 1 0.0%
437. WV (3) 8 0.4%
438. OR (6) 42 1.0%
439. MN (8) 72 1.3%
440. AZ (10) 110 1.5%
441. MT (2) 20 1.8%
442. CA (55) 750 1.8%

If everything else were unchanged:

For AL to lose its 7th representative, it would have to gain 18 thousand fewer persons (0.4%) less than its projected gain of 4.0%.   For AZ to gain its 10th representative it would need 110 thousand more persons (1.5%) - increase its growth rate from 11.7% to 13.2%.

Since CA has about 1/8 of the USA population, it should appear about every 8th position on the list, so with 13 positions from CA 53 to CA 55, it is actually a bit sparse around the final seats.

The losses for IL (18), MI (14), OH (16), PA (18), and RI (2) are more certain (a margin of at least 2%), as are the first two gains for TX (37,38) and NC (14).

In a sense, AL is keeping its 7th seat because no one is stepping forward to take it; and NY, WV, and MN might keep their districts, or OR and AZ claim one with not a big jump.

Whenever the census bureau releases estimates, it updates older estimates.  So when it releases the 2013 estimate it will also make changes to the 2012 and older estimates.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Skill and Chance on December 02, 2013, 12:37:19 pm
Can most of the pre-2020 changes be considered sure things?  If growth fell off so that the decade ended with projected 2019 populations instead of projected 2020 populations, we would still have the new FL, VA and CO seats and the first 2 new TX seats?  In your mind are any of these in doubt?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 02, 2013, 08:11:37 pm
Can most of the pre-2020 changes be considered sure things?  If growth fell off so that the decade ended with projected 2019 populations instead of projected 2020 populations, we would still have the new FL, VA and CO seats and the first 2 new TX seats?  In your mind are any of these in doubt?
The ones within 2% which I showed above are probably all in range of switching from being in the top 435 to being below.  Interstate migration and overall growth have dropped so much that even a 2% change is huge.  Alabama is projected to gain 4.0% population.  It it would gain only 3.6% it could lose the 7th representative.  That's a plausible slowdown.  But it is unlikely to to drop 2% to 2.0% or increase 2.0% to 6.0%.

Pennsylvania is projected to increase 276,000 in the decade.  But it would need to gain another 373,000 to save its 18th seat.  That isn't going to happen.

If fertility rates increase, that is pretty much an across the board in all states, with some older states not getting quite the benefit since they have a smaller share of woman of child-bearing age.  In Pennsylvania and West Virginia, an increase in the fertility rate, won't have as much effect on the birth rate or growth rate.

California and New York are extremely close (1 part in 20000) - so that is a coin flip even if the projections were perfect.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 06, 2013, 09:56:23 am
There's a release date now:

Dec. 30

http://www.calendarwiz.com/calendars/popup.php?op=view&id=70683196&crd=cens1sample&


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Flake on December 08, 2013, 03:51:50 am
315,816,421


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 28, 2013, 02:21:10 am
The numbers are out on Monday.

A fact: Georgia will top 10 million for the first time.

A 50-50 chance: Florida will overtake New York already this year.

A possibility: North Carolina will overtake Michigan (certainly next year, if not this year).


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 28, 2013, 02:43:07 am
My predictions for the Top 10 in terms of 01.07.2013 population:

01 - CA (38.39)
02 - TX (26.48)
03 - NY (19.65)
04 - FL (19.55)
05 - IL (12.90)
06 - PA (12.78]
07 - OH (11.55)
08 - GA (10.03)
09 - MI (9.90)
10 - NC (9.86)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Griff on December 28, 2013, 06:33:51 am
The numbers are out on Monday.
A fact: Georgia will top 10 million for the first time.

(
Img
)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: ElectionsGuy on December 29, 2013, 05:25:11 pm
My guesses:

California: 38.3 million
Texas: 26.4 million
New York: 19.55 million
Florida: 19.5
Illinois: 12.9 million
Pennsylvania: 12.85 million
Ohio: 11.575 million
Georgia: 10.05 million
Michigan: 9.9 million
North Carolina: 9.875 million
New Jersey: 8.9 million
Virginia: 8.25 million
Washington: 6.95 million

Also, for racial demographics, in New Mexico, Latinos will become a majority of the state (currently 47%), and a plurality in California (currently at 38%, and whites are at 39%). They will probably become a plurality in Texas in a few years as well. And lastly, Nevada will become majority non-white in a few years.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Flake on December 29, 2013, 06:48:13 pm
My predictions:

1. California: 38,375,000
2. Texas: 26,697,000
3. Florida: 19,612,000
4. New York: 19,610,000
5. Illinois: 12,844,000
6. Pennsylvania: 12,841,000
7. Ohio: 11,524,000
8. Georgia: 10,110,000
9. North Carolina: 9,857,000
10. Michigan: 9,856,000


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 30, 2013, 10:05:11 am
The numbers are out:

01 - CA (38.333)
02 - TX (26.448)
03 - NY (19.651)
04 - FL (19.553)
05 - IL (12.882)
06 - PA (12.774]
07 - OH (11.571)
08 - GA (9.992) !!!
09 - MI (9.896)
10 - NC (9.848)

GA has less than 10 Mio. ?

WTF ?

http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2013/tables/NST-EST2013-01.xls


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 30, 2013, 10:06:29 am
USA: 316.128.839


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 30, 2013, 10:11:19 am
Biggest numerical gains:

TX (387.000)
CA (333.000)
FL (232.000)
NC (100.000)
CO (79.000)
GA (77.000)
WA (76.000)
AZ (76.000)
NY (75.000)
VA (74.000)

Losses:

ME (-199)
WV (-2400)

USA (2.255.000)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 30, 2013, 10:16:10 am
Biggest % gains/losses (2012 -> 2013):

ND (+3.14)
DC (+2.06)
UT (+1.61)
CO (+1.52)
TX (+1.49)
NV (+1.30)
SD (+1.30)
FL (+1.20)
AZ (+1.15)
WA (+1.10)
SC (+1.09)

ME (-0.01)
WV (-0.13)

USA (0.72)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 30, 2013, 10:20:20 am
I nailed 5 of 10 states in my prediction and wasn't really that much off with my national prediction either ... :)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: ElectionsGuy on December 30, 2013, 10:23:19 am
The numbers are out

:D

Biggest numerical gains:

TX (387.000)
CA (333.000)
FL (232.000)
NC (100.000)
CO (79.000)
GA (77.000)
WA (76.000)
AZ (76.000)
NY (75.000)
VA (74.000)

Losses:

ME (-199)
WV (-2400)

USA (2.255.000)

Ouch on West Virginia, looking more and more to be 4 electoral votes. Anyways, some facts.

Florida is still behind New York, with its 19.55 million compared to NY's 19.65 million. :(

Georgia almost at 10 million, sad it didn't get past the milestone.

Looks like the trend we've been seeing all along, with the South and West growing fast and the Midwest and Northeast growing slow.



Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Vern on December 30, 2013, 10:31:36 am
What was the percentage growth for NC and GA?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Skill and Chance on December 30, 2013, 10:35:40 am
Does this suggest any changes in predicted apportionment for 2021?  It certainly looks like CO-08 became more likely and holding WV-03 became less likely.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 30, 2013, 10:44:57 am
(
Img
)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 30, 2013, 11:11:17 am
Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2013 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 3 and a quarter year 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.

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

The only change since my projections last year (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=166668.msg3562852#msg3562852) is that CA and NY both hold even. They continue to be the most likely to change, and there is some shifting in the other bubble seats. Perhaps the most surprising is to see MT now appear on the bubble for a second seat. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are FL-28, VA-12, AL-7, TX-39, and NY-27 (#435).
The next five in line are CA-54, MT-2, WV-3, OR-6, MN-8.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: krazen1211 on December 30, 2013, 11:22:27 am
As of right now NC has taken a 14th seat from Minnesota per this link (http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/census/tools/apportionment/)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 30, 2013, 11:29:01 am
As of right now NC has taken a 14th seat from Minnesota per this link (http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/census/tools/apportionment/output.html)

The link gives some sort of error message for me. You may need to go back to the calculator (http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/census/tools/apportionment/) and enter new numbers. I think the result you cite comes from assuming that the apportionment is done with the 2013 estimate, though it is generally more useful to project forward to 2020 when the next reapportionment will take place.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: krazen1211 on December 30, 2013, 11:32:12 am
As of right now NC has taken a 14th seat from Minnesota per this link (http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/census/tools/apportionment/output.html)

The link gives some sort of error message for me.


Hmm. Try this one. It's just an apportionment calculator.

Link (http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/census/tools/apportionment/)


I did check the apportionment both based on a hypothetical 2013 reapportionment (which results in the NC 14th seat) and exponentially multiplying out 2020 numbers, which gives you what you posted.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 30, 2013, 12:26:07 pm
A couple more charts for easier viewing:

Sorted by numerical change

(
Img
)

Sorted by % change

(
Img
)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: True Federalist on December 30, 2013, 12:38:26 pm
Based on these estimates, if we were to reapportion today based on them the bubble seats would be:

#431 WA-10
#432 MI-14
#433 PA-18
#434 CA-53
#435 NC-14

#436 TX-37
#437 MN-8
#438 VA-12
#439 MT-2
#440 OR-6


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 30, 2013, 12:40:35 pm
Cumulative % change (Census 2010 -> Mid 2013):

7.6% ND
7.4% DC
5.2% TX
5.0% UT
4.8% CO
4.0% FL
3.8% SD
3.7% WA
3.7% AZ
3.5% AK
3.4% WY

Losses:

ME & RI (ME was stagnant - lost only 59 people in 3 years, RI lost 0.1%)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 30, 2013, 12:46:46 pm
Cumulative numerical change (Census 2010 -> Mid 2013):

1.303.000 TX
1.079.000 CA
   752.000 FL
   313.000 NC
   305.000 GA
   273.000 NY
   259.000 VA
   247.000 WA
   239.000 CO
   235.000 AZ

7.383.000 USA


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 30, 2013, 12:48:40 pm
A couple more charts for easier viewing:

Sorted by numerical change

(
Img
)


Over 17% over the growth in the US is in TX.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: True Federalist on December 30, 2013, 12:50:47 pm
Also for those of you who advocate the cube root apportionment method.  The 2013 estimates gives a House of 680 seats, up 5 from the 2010 census.  Changes in the House from 2010 would be California gains a 83rd seat, Florida gains a 42nd seat, Georgia gains a 22nd seat, Idaho gains a 4th seat, Michigan loses its 22ns seat, Mississippi loses its 7th seat, Oregon gains its 9th seat, and Texas gains its 56th and 57th seats.

  Alabama      10
  Alaska      2
  Arizona      14
  Arkansas   6
  California   83
  Colorado      11
  Connecticut      8
  Delaware      2
  Florida         42
  Georgia         22
  Hawaii         3
  Idaho         4
  Illinois         28
  Indiana         14
  Iowa         7
  Kansas         6
  Kentucky      10
  Louisiana      10
  Maine         3
  Maryland      13
  Massachusetts   14
  Michigan         21
  Minnesota      12
  Mississippi      6
  Missouri         13
  Montana         2
  Nebraska      4
  Nevada         6
  New Hampshire   3
  New Jersey      19
  New Mexico      5
  New York      42
  North Carolina   21
  North Dakota      2
  Ohio         25
  Oklahoma      8
  Oregon         9
  Pennsylvania      28
  Rhode Island      2
  South Carolina   10
  South Dakota      2
  Tennessee      14
  Texas         57
  Utah         6
  Vermont         1
  Virginia         18
  Washington      15
  West Virginia      4
  Wisconsin      12
  Wyoming      1


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 30, 2013, 12:52:08 pm
A couple more charts for easier viewing:

Sorted by numerical change

(pic)


Over 17% over the growth in the US is in TX.

Yeah, the fact that TX has a relatively high birth rate (1.5% in 2012) and a low birth rate (0.7%) is helping.

TX grew by 1.5%, of which 0.8% came from a birth surplus and 0.7% from a migration surplus.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: ElectionsGuy on December 30, 2013, 12:52:28 pm
2012 to 2013 growth population:

()

Over average growth: 279
Under average growth: 248
On par growth: 11


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 30, 2013, 12:56:24 pm
Question:

What about Puerto Rico ?

Migration to the mainland ?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Skill and Chance on December 30, 2013, 12:57:27 pm
2012 to 2013 growth population:

()

MA really sticks out.  Also MN and NM.  Why would NM be lagging?

Over average growth: 279
Under average growth: 248
On par growth: 11


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 30, 2013, 12:58:51 pm
2012 to 2013 growth population:

()

MA really sticks out.  Also MN and NM.  Why would NM be lagging?

Over average growth: 279
Under average growth: 248
On par growth: 11

Better border enforcement (=> Mexicans staying in Mexico) ?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: ElectionsGuy on December 30, 2013, 01:05:07 pm
2012 to 2013 growth population:

()

MA really sticks out.  Also MN and NM.  Why would NM be lagging?

Over average growth: 279
Under average growth: 248
On par growth: 11

Unfortunately you can't see how much specifically they grew because I was didn't feel like doing shades, but Minnesota only grew slightly larger than the national average, and overall the Twin Cities are doing good and is growing much faster in comparison to Wisconsin or Iowa. Massachusetts seems to be the one area in New England that is actually growing, its a hot spot for liberals and Boston seems to be keeping people's interest. New Mexico actually had very little growth (the fourth lowest in the nation!). I'm guessing Latinos are still building up, but people are moving out of the state. But I have no idea on that one.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 30, 2013, 01:09:17 pm
Updated topic title.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Gass3268 on December 30, 2013, 01:10:17 pm
Does anyone know if any states switched spots in population rankings?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 30, 2013, 01:13:45 pm
Does anyone know if any states switched spots in population rankings?

UT passed KS over the last year and NE passed WV.

That's all.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: ElectionsGuy on December 30, 2013, 01:15:14 pm
Does anyone know if any states switched spots in population rankings?

UT passed KS over the last year and NE passed WV.

That's all.

Beat me to it.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Gass3268 on December 30, 2013, 01:20:58 pm
Does anyone know if any states switched spots in population rankings?

UT passed KS over the last year and NE passed WV.

That's all.

Ah interesting, thanks! Looks like next year might have a bit more movement in the rankings.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 30, 2013, 01:23:04 pm
Just checked the NM situation:

NM had a birth rate of 1.3% in 2012 and a death rate of 0.8% - a surplus of 0.5%

But the overall population growth was just 0.1%, which indicates a massive out-migration.

The Census Bureau decided to release the "components of change" separately this time, in February ... :P


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: krazen1211 on December 30, 2013, 01:28:12 pm

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

Sean Trende has:

2020:CO+1 seat, FL+1, MT+1 (!!), NC+1, TX+2, VA+1, IL-1, MI-1, NY-1, OH-1, PA-1, RI-1 (!!), WV-1


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: True Federalist on December 30, 2013, 01:40:47 pm
Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2013 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 3 and a quarter year 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.

CO +1
FL +1
IL -1
MI -1
MN -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 FL-28, VA-12, AL-7, TX-39, and NY-27 (#435).
The next five in line are CA-54, MT-2, WV-3, OR-6, MN-8.

Using a different growth model that weighted the growth from each estimate, giving a greater weight to the estimated growth rate from 2012 to 2013 than 2011 to 2012, etc.  I come up with similar values that yield the same seat changes, but a different order of the ten bubble seats.

431 FL-28
432 VA-12
433 AL-7
434 NY-27
435 TX-39

436 CA-54
437 MT-2
438 MN-8
439 OR-6
440 WV-3

BTW, krazen, why the surprise at Rhode Island losing a seat?  Given these estimates, I fail to see how Rhode Island avoids losing a seat under any reasonable model of population change.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: krazen1211 on December 30, 2013, 02:03:42 pm
I merely cut and pasted his message. (https://twitter.com/SeanTrende)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: True Federalist on December 30, 2013, 02:16:02 pm
I merely cut and pasted his message. (https://twitter.com/SeanTrende)

In that case, since I don't have or want to be a twit, even tho I don't expect Sean to read this: Sean, why the surprise at Rhode Island losing a seat?  Given these estimates, I fail to see how Rhode Island avoids losing a seat under any reasonable model of population change.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: old timey villain on December 30, 2013, 02:30:40 pm
pretty disappointed in Georgia. I was sure we would pass 10 million this year. A 77K increase is actually pretty dismal for our state as well. Even during the recession we were adding more than that yearly. What's even weirder is that the economy is really improving in Georgia. The unemployment rate is falling and the cranes are back all over Atlanta.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 30, 2013, 02:36:39 pm
If Austria were a US state, where would it be in the ranking ?

12th in terms of overall population (8.502 Mio.)

11th in terms of numerical change (62.000)

Slightly above the US average in % terms (0.73%)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 30, 2013, 03:21:36 pm

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

Sean Trende has:

2020:CO+1 seat, FL+1, MT+1 (!!), NC+1, TX+2, VA+1, IL-1, MI-1, NY-1, OH-1, PA-1, RI-1 (!!), WV-1

His Twitter feed doesn't give any sense of the model he's using. I pulled up his RCP article (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/12/30/population_data_show_more_movement_south_and_west.html) to get a better idea. He uses a linear projection instead of a compounding formula which puts large high-growth states like TX at a disadvantage and partially explains why he only gets TX+2. The list quoted above is not his initial analysis, but is based on adding the growth in 2012 plus twice the growth in 2013 so it is very sensitive to fluctuations in the 2013 numbers just released. His basic linear projection gives: CO+1, FL+1, NC+1, TX+3, VA+1, IL-1, MI-1, MN-1, OH-1, PA-1, RI-1, WV-1, and is the same as the list I get.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Nhoj on December 30, 2013, 03:53:55 pm
Question:

What about Puerto Rico ?

Migration to the mainland ?
Yes plus it also has a low TFR.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Snowguy716 on December 30, 2013, 06:53:40 pm
I'm surprised Minnesota grew faster than the national average.  This hasn't happened often recently at all.  Hopefully it keeps up.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: DINGO Joe on December 30, 2013, 07:37:08 pm
When do county estimates come out?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Nhoj on December 30, 2013, 07:45:55 pm
When do county estimates come out?
March I believe.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: danny on December 30, 2013, 10:46:20 pm
If Austria were a US state, where would it be in the ranking ?

12th in terms of overall population (8.502 Mio.)

11th in terms of numerical change (62.000)

Slightly above the US average in % terms (0.73%)

I'll do the same for Israel:

13th in terms of overall population (8.132 Mio.)

4th in terms of numerical change (147,000)

3rd in terms of percent change (1.8%)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 31, 2013, 02:59:56 am
If Austria were a US state, where would it be in the ranking ?

12th in terms of overall population (8.502 Mio.)

11th in terms of numerical change (62.000)

Slightly above the US average in % terms (0.73%)

I'll do the same for Israel:

13th in terms of overall population (8.132 Mio.)

4th in terms of numerical change (147,000)

3rd in terms of percent change (1.8%)

Israel is similar to Utah, having the same high birth rate and low death rate. Plus a good share of immigration as well.

Here, births and deaths are about equal - with all of the growth coming from foreigners moving in.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 31, 2013, 06:51:53 am
Here's my comprehensive chart, based on the Census Bureau file (http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2013/index.html) yesterday (click right for big version):

(
Img
)

I added the 4 "change" columns to the CB file and formatted it slightly.

In previous years, the CB always added the "change" columns themselves.

This year, they were extremely lazy ... ;)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: ElectionsGuy on January 04, 2014, 10:01:41 am
A sad fact might be that Los Angeles County, California might hit 10 million in population before Georgia. As of now (2012 estimate) its at 9.96 million.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on January 04, 2014, 10:51:42 am
A sad fact might be that Los Angeles County, California might hit 10 million in population before Georgia. As of now (2012 estimate) its at 9.96 million.

According to the CA DoF estimates for Mid-2013 it already did:

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-2/documents/E2_press_release_Jul2013.pdf

The Dof estimates use a different method though.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on January 05, 2014, 10:19:33 am
States that have grown faster/slower in the past year than on average in the past 3.25 years since the Census:

()

green => faster
red => slower

...

For example:

CO grew 73.600 on average in the past 3.25 years, but by 78.900 in the past year.

TX grew 401.000 on average, but only 387.000 last year.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: hopper on January 18, 2014, 01:55:24 am
Nice to see Michigan gaining population again.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Linus Van Pelt on January 30, 2014, 07:25:37 pm
Components of population change by state have been released here. (http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Gass3268 on January 30, 2014, 07:33:53 pm
Components of population change by state have been released here. (http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk)

Link doesn't work for me


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Linus Van Pelt on January 30, 2014, 07:41:54 pm
Components of population change by state have been released here. (http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk)

Link doesn't work for me

Sorry, linking to the FactFinder is tricky. What if you go here (http://www.census.gov/popest/data/national/totals/2013/index.html) and then click on the third link, called "Estimates of the Components of Resident Population Change for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013"?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 02, 2014, 03:34:46 am
http://www.calendarwiz.com/calendars/calendar.php?crd=cens1sample&&jsenabled=1&winh=947&winw=1466&inifr=false

The most likely estimates for the TOP-10:

  1 - CA - 38.67 Mio.
  2 - TX - 26.84 Mio.
  3 - FL - 19.79 Mio.
  4 - NY -19.73 Mio.
  5 - IL - 12.90 Mio.
  6 - PA - 12.78 Mio.
  7 - OH - 11.59 Mio.
  8 - GA - 10.07 Mio.
  9 - NC - 9.95 Mio.
10 - MI - 9.91 Mio.

USA: 318.35 Mio. (+2.22 Mio., +0.7%)

FL overtakes NY. NC overtakes MI.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 03, 2014, 04:12:08 am
Any predictions for which states will have the biggest increase in % terms ?

Probably ND and DC will have the highest growth rates again, like last year.

I think CO might actually overtake UT for 3rd.

Or maybe NV is back in the top-3 again.

Last year, only ME, WV and PR lost population.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 22, 2014, 07:02:56 am
Some states, such as WA, OR, CA, WI, FL and GA (Atlanta Metro) release their own annual estimates - independently to the Census Bureau numbers (which means they often differ from those).

There are indications that the population growth in WA, OR and GA has picked up in the past year between July 1, 2013 and July 1, 2014.

CA's growth rate is steady at around 0.9% and FL has picked up 250.000 people, which means it has overtaken NY for sure in the new estimates out tomorrow.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 22, 2014, 11:13:12 am
Some states, such as WA, OR, CA, WI, FL and GA (Atlanta Metro) release their own annual estimates - independently to the Census Bureau numbers (which means they often differ from those).

There are indications that the population growth in WA, OR and GA has picked up in the past year between July 1, 2013 and July 1, 2014.

CA's growth rate is steady at around 0.9% and FL has picked up 250.000 people, which means it has overtaken NY for sure in the new estimates out tomorrow.

The state estimates often differ substantially from the CB. On top of that, the methodology from the states varies from state to state. The CB uses the same methodology for all states, so it's the best measure to compare growth rates from state to state.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 23, 2014, 03:04:45 am
I assume the new numbers will come out at some point in the morning (EST time), which is afternoon here.

I'm at a birthday party during the afternoon, so please someone else post the figures here.

Thx.

I'll check in later.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 23, 2014, 10:35:10 am
Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2014 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 3 and a quarter year 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 only change since my projections last year (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=182602.msg3996843#msg3996843) is that CA is back to +1 and NY is back to -1 as they were after the 2012 estimate instead of even last year. They continue to be the most likely to change, and there is some shifting in the other bubble seats. 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, TX-39, VA-12, CA-54, and AL-7 (#435).
The next five in line are NY-27, OR-6, AZ-10, MT-2, MN-8.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Miles on December 23, 2014, 10:59:58 am
Yep, FL passes NY: (http://census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2014/cb14-232.html)

CA- 38,802,500
TX- 26,956,958
FL- 19,893,297
NY- 19,746,227


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 23, 2014, 11:09:16 am
Since the 2010 Census happened during the housing downturn of the Great Recession, I thought it would be worth testing the model if the growth was based off the last two years of estimates. That means that I use the 2014 and 2012 estimates and use them to extract a compounding rate of population growth.  I apply that to the 2014 estimate and adjust for the April to July difference, then add the overseas population difference increased by the state's growth rate. The result assumes that recent growth is more indicative of how that state will grow for the rest of the decade.

Using this model, I get the following projected changes, using bold to show the differences compared to my full decade projection.
AL -1
AZ +1

CA +1
CO +1
FL +1
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
VA +0
WV -1

The changes are all bubble states. The West shows more increase in growth recently, and if it holds to that growth the West could see extra seats as a benefit.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 23, 2014, 11:20:30 am
I'm at a birthday party during the afternoon, so please someone else post the figures here.

Thx.

I'll check in later.

Back !

...

Top numerical gainers (2013 => 2014):

451K - TX
371K - CA
293K - FL
103K - GA
  97K - AZ
  95K - NC
  88K - WA
  84K - CO
  61K - SC
  56K - VA

Top %-gainers (2013 => 2014):

2.16% ND
1.71% NV
1.70% TX
1.59% CO
1.51% DC
1.50% FL
1.45% AZ
1.38% UT
1.34% ID
1.27% SC

States that lost population (2013 => 2014):

  -1K VT
  -1K AK
  -1K NM
  -3K CT
  -3K WV
-10K IL
-47K PR


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 23, 2014, 11:22:56 am
Any predictions for which states will have the biggest increase in % terms ?

Probably ND and DC will have the highest growth rates again, like last year.

I think CO might actually overtake UT for 3rd.

Or maybe NV is back in the top-3 again.

Last year, only ME, WV and PR lost population.

ND is ahead again, but DC fell back a bit.

NV indeed is in the top-3 again, recovering from the housing bust.

CO is not 3rd, but has overtaken UT.

TX really continues to be a magnet.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 23, 2014, 11:25:21 am
The CB's infographic, showing how FL has caught up to NY in recent decades and now overtook it:

(
Img
)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 23, 2014, 11:36:46 am
States with the highest numerical migration gains (international + domestic):

251K - FL
239K - TX
129K - CA
  58K - NC
  56K - AZ
  52K - WA
  51K - CO
  47K - GA
  45K - SC
  34K - TN

States with the highest numerical migration gains (international only):

161K - CA
119K - NY
112K - FL
  85K - TX
  52K - NJ
  37K - MA
  34K - VA
  33K - IL
  29K - PA
  29K - MD

States with the highest numerical migration gains (domestic only):

155K - TX
139K - FL
  42K - AZ
  40K - CO
  39K - SC
  36K - NC
  28K - WA
  25K - TN
  24K - NV
  23K - OR


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Sol on December 23, 2014, 11:39:40 am
What are the stats for international % of growth in a state? I bet an unusually high percentage of migration to MN is international.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Brittain33 on December 23, 2014, 11:42:00 am
What are the stats for international % of growth in a state? I bet an unusually high percentage of migration to MN is international.

Minnesota's international migration is 2.6 per 1000, a little lower than the national average of 3.1 per 1000. It has net domestic outmigration of -1.2.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 23, 2014, 11:42:13 am
The 10 states with the highest numerical domestic migration losses are all Democratic states:

  -16K MA
  -18K OH
  -20K VA
  -26K CT
  -29K MI
  -32K PA
  -32K CA
  -56K NJ
  -95K IL
-154K NY


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Sol on December 23, 2014, 11:43:40 am
What are the stats for international % of growth in a state? I bet an unusually high percentage of migration to MN is international.

Minnesota's international migration is 2.6 per 1000, a little lower than the national average of 3.1 per 1000. It has net domestic outmigration of -1.2.

Huh, I thought it'd be higher with all the refugee resettlement.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Brittain33 on December 23, 2014, 11:46:17 am
What are the stats for international % of growth in a state? I bet an unusually high percentage of migration to MN is international.

Minnesota's international migration is 2.6 per 1000, a little lower than the national average of 3.1 per 1000. It has net domestic outmigration of -1.2.

Huh, I thought it'd be higher with all the refugee resettlement.

It may be that MN isn't much of a destination for immigrants except for refugees.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Brittain33 on December 23, 2014, 11:47:07 am
Arizona has still not surpassed Massachusetts in official numbers, but probably has as of today.

Maine continues to be a smidge ahead of New Hampshire.

Pennsylvania should break the 13,000,000 barrier by the year 2050.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 23, 2014, 11:58:36 am
The states with the highest international migration gains (per 1000 inhabitants):

   6.1 HI
   6.0 NY
   5.8 NJ
   5.7 DC
   5.7 FL
   5.5 MA
   4.9 MD
   4.7 CT
   4.2 CA
   4.1 VA

The states with the highest domestic migration gains (per 1000 inhabitants):

 12.3 ND
   8.4 NV
   8.0 SC
   7.6 CO
   7.0 FL
   6.3 AZ
   5.8 TX
   5.7 OR
   5.1 DE
   4.7 ID

The states with the highest domestic migration losses (per 1000 inhabitants):

  -3.2 RI
  -3.6 HI
  -4.6 WY
  -4.8 KS
  -6.2 NJ
  -6.8 NM
  -7.3 CT
  -7.4 IL
  -7.8 NY
-13.8 AK


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: hopper on December 23, 2014, 12:15:07 pm
The 10 states with the highest numerical domestic migration losses are all Democratic states:

  -16K MA
  -18K OH
  -20K VA
  -26K CT
  -29K MI
  -32K PA
  -32K CA
  -56K NJ
  -95K IL
-154K NY
VA and OH are purple states not Dem states. MI is Dem at the Presidential Level and at the US Senate level but not so much on the US House level and the Governorship the GOP had controlled the entire decade of the 1990's and will have controlled that office for most of the 2010's till a new Governor gets elected in 2018. The GOP has controlled the State Senate since 1982.

PA is about the same as MI although it has had one Republican US Senator since 1995 except for most of 2009-2010 when the late Arlen Specter switched parties from R to D in early 2009. The GOP lost the governorship last month though.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 23, 2014, 12:16:31 pm
Yeah sure, but I meant 2008/2012 Pres. election results with "Democratic states".


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 23, 2014, 12:21:05 pm
Also worth mentioning:

Overall US population growth is ca. 150.000 higher than last year (but not beacuse of higher natural growth, but because the international migration balance is almost up to 1 Mio. people again).


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 23, 2014, 12:27:05 pm
Pennsylvania should break the 13,000,000 barrier by the year 2050.

I somehow hate long-term demographic projections.

"should" = could/maybe/whatever

Because it's impossible to estimate future migration trends.

You can estimate future natural population developments (births minus deaths) to some extent though, because of past trends in fertility and mortality. But even that does not take into account possible future economic boom/bust periods, which could heavily increase or decrease them (like after 2007/08).

In 2000 for example (during the height of the economic boom), the Census Bureau projected that the US population in 2050 is likely around 450 Mio. people.

In their latest projections though from a few weeks ago, it will have only 395 Mio. anymore ...


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: hopper on December 23, 2014, 12:34:54 pm
AZ is in NC population growth territory. Wow!


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 23, 2014, 12:43:03 pm
AZ is in NC population growth territory. Wow!

That's not surprising.

For most of the 90s and the years between 2000 and 2007 (before the economic and housing crash), AZ had 2.5-3% growth (or +150.000 people each year). Roughly the same amount as NC (but NC is bigger, so the relative growth was lower).

After the bust, both states had a collapse in their growth rates (domestic Americans were unable to move to the South or AZ, because they went unemployed etc.) and international migration went down too (especially from MEX). Also, AZ pissed off immigrants because of their new anti-illegal alien laws.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 23, 2014, 12:55:27 pm
As I've said, I'm not a fan of long-term projections but if you want to know when TX is going to overtake CA as biggest state (based on the past year's numbers):

In the 2160s.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Brittain33 on December 23, 2014, 02:12:59 pm
Pennsylvania should break the 13,000,000 barrier by the year 2050.

I somehow hate long-term demographic projections.

"should" = could/maybe/whatever

Because it's impossible to estimate future migration trends.

You can estimate future natural population developments (births minus deaths) to some extent though, because of past trends in fertility and mortality. But even that does not take into account possible future economic boom/bust periods, which could heavily increase or decrease them (like after 2007/08).

In 2000 for example (during the height of the economic boom), the Census Bureau projected that the US population in 2050 is likely around 450 Mio. people.

In their latest projections though from a few weeks ago, it will have only 395 Mio. anymore ...

Of course, you are absolutely correct. I was joking because Pennsylvania has been a very slow growth state for an extremely long period of time, and is so close to 13,000,000 without getting there.

That said, it is a state we should expect to do pretty well out of climate change.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Panda Express on December 23, 2014, 09:11:55 pm
Yep, FL passes NY: (http://census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2014/cb14-232.html)

CA- 38,802,500
TX- 26,956,958
FL- 19,893,297
NY- 19,746,227

Disgusting


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: ○∙◄☻•tπ[╪AV┼cVÍ└ on December 24, 2014, 01:48:25 am
Yep, FL passes NY: (http://census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2014/cb14-232.html)

CA- 38,802,500
TX- 26,956,958
FL- 19,893,297
NY- 19,746,227

Disgusting

Damn you, Florida.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: ○∙◄☻•tπ[╪AV┼cVÍ└ on December 24, 2014, 01:51:09 am
As I've said, I'm not a fan of long-term projections but if you want to know when TX is going to overtake CA as biggest state (based on the past year's numbers):

In the 2160s.

Predictions like that are meaningless. After some rapid growth in the 1890s, Texas had over twice the population of California in 1900.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 24, 2014, 03:11:59 am
The states with the highest international migration gains (per 1000 inhabitants):

   6.1 HI
   6.0 NY
   5.8 NJ
   5.7 DC
   5.7 FL
   5.5 MA
   4.9 MD
   4.7 CT
   4.2 CA
   4.1 VA

I just looked up our 2013 numbers and it turns out that the international migration balance was 55K last year.

That means Austria had a rate of 6.5 last year and therefore a higher rate than any US state.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 24, 2014, 07:32:57 am

Alabama            6.737   6.461  -0.277   6  -1       9     165
Alaska             1.117   1.126   0.009   1   =     307      64
Arizona            8.999   9.417   0.418   9   =      33     828
Arkansas           4.129   3.986  -0.143   4   =    -393     120
California        52.369  53.406   1.036  54  +1    -179    3747
Colorado           7.087   7.612   0.525   8  +1    -122     803
Connecticut        5.049   4.751  -0.298   5   =    -215      53
Delaware           1.358   1.382   0.024   1   =      92      91
Florida           26.435  27.969   1.534  28  +1    -489    2668
Georgia           13.627  13.919   0.292  14   =    -385     992
Hawaii             1.976   2.022   0.045   2   =     369     144
Idaho              2.260   2.307   0.048   2   =     143     162
Illinois          18.043  16.873  -1.170  17  -1    -364     118
Indiana            9.128   8.810  -0.318   9   =    -278     269
Iowa               4.312   4.186  -0.126   4   =     228     144
Kansas             4.042   3.906  -0.135   4   =    -331     121
Kentucky           6.120   5.903  -0.217   6   =    -336     176
Louisiana          6.392   6.287  -0.105   6   =     143     278
Maine              1.933   1.806  -0.127   2   =    -253       4
Maryland           8.131   8.172   0.041   8   =     225     489
Massachusetts      9.217   9.161  -0.057   9   =     230     475
Michigan          13.902  12.964  -0.938  13  -1    -415      62
Minnesota          7.472   7.404  -0.068   7  -1      49     368
Mississippi        4.201   3.979  -0.222   4   =    -387      63
Missouri           8.433   8.047  -0.386   8   =     321     177
Montana            1.478   1.483   0.005   1   =       9      82
Nebraska           2.615   2.600  -0.016   3   =     -90     132
Nevada             3.829   3.988   0.159   4   =    -395     337
New Hampshire      1.917   1.817  -0.100   2   =    -262      24
New Jersey        12.369  11.915  -0.453  12   =    -373     348
New Mexico         2.937   2.809  -0.129   3   =    -253      63
New York          27.244  26.387  -0.856  27   =     -38     877
North Carolina    13.413  13.717   0.304  14  +1    -230     989
North Dakota       1.070   1.204   0.134   1   =     240     168
Ohio              16.224  15.212  -1.012  15  -1     171     136
Oklahoma           5.297   5.307   0.010   5   =     131     305
Oregon             5.408   5.450   0.042   5   =      21     336
Pennsylvania      17.862  16.813  -1.049  17  -1    -318     201
Rhode Island       1.562   1.467  -0.095   1  -1      22       6
South Carolina     6.521   6.697   0.176   7   =    -182     502
South Dakota       1.249   1.285   0.036   1   =     172      95
Tennessee          8.935   8.916  -0.018   9   =    -360     489
Texas             35.350  38.580   3.230  39  +3    -242    4472
Utah               3.917   4.203   0.286   4   =     215     440
Vermont            1.012   0.958  -0.053   1   =     453       2
Virginia          11.258  11.457   0.199  12  +1     -21     786
Washington         9.466   9.839   0.374  10   =    -305     820
West Virginia      2.652   2.457  -0.195   2  -1      26      -6
Wisconsin          8.010   7.642  -0.368   8   =    -144     167
Wyoming            0.937   0.942   0.005   1   =     468      49


The change since 2012 is that New York is not now estimated to lose a seat, which would the first time since 1940 that this had not happened, and Alabama is now expected to lose a representative.

As of 2014, there would only be four changes: NC and TX gain a seat, and PA and MN lose a seat.

The first column is the entitlement in 2010 if fractional representatives were apportioned, but the geometric mean were used.   If we define the P = population/quota, then a state with a population P = sqrt((n+1/2)(n-1/2)) would be entitled to n representatives.   Solving for
n, n = sqrt(P2 + 1/4).

We can adjust the quota such that sum(n) for all states = 435 (we can estimate the quota as the total US population divided by 435, and then recursively adjust it until sum(n) = 435.  It converges very quickly, and the initial estimate would have yielded a House of 436.865 members, less than two members extra.

The second column represents the entitlement based on the estimated 2020 population, based on projecting the rate of growth for the 4.25 years from April 2010 to July 2014, to April 2020 (using a compounded rate of growth).  Only the domestic population was used.

The national rate of growth would 7.9%.  States growing faster than the nation include all states in the West, except NM; all states in the middle tier from ND to TX, except NE and KS; and all states on the Atlantic Coast, from DE to FL.

The third column represents the change in raw entitlement between 2010 and 2020.

The fourth column represents the estimated number of representative for 2020.   If we use simple rounding, and give Wyoming and Vermont their guaranteed representative, this would only give 432 representatives.   Rather than choosing the states with the three largest fractions, we calculate the quotients as they would be for the apportionment list.   When there are extra seats for be apportioned, this favors larger states, who in essence can distribute their deficit over more representatives.  In this case, the last 3 seats go to CA, NY, and VA; while AL, AZ, OR, MN, and MT miss out.

The fifth column is the change in representation from 2010, showing gains for  CA, CO, FL, NC, TX(3), and VA; and loss of a seat for AL, IL, MI, MN, OH, PA, RI, and WV (Obama +4, -6, Net -2); Romney (+4, -2. net +2).

The next two columns represent the change necessary to get an additional seat, and the estimated increase in population from 2010 to 2020.   For example, if Alabama were to gain an additional 9K it would stave off its loss of its 7th seat.  Since it is estimated to gain 165K, it is pretty clear that it is a coin flip as to whether it not it happens, because of changes in growth rates, errors in estimates, and what happens in other states.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 24, 2014, 07:55:40 am

Alabama            6.737   6.461  -0.277   6  -1       9     165
Alaska             1.117   1.126   0.009   1   =     307      64
Arizona            8.999   9.417   0.418   9   =      33     828
Arkansas           4.129   3.986  -0.143   4   =    -393     120
California        52.369  53.406   1.036  54  +1    -179    3747
Colorado           7.087   7.612   0.525   8  +1    -122     803
Connecticut        5.049   4.751  -0.298   5   =    -215      53
Delaware           1.358   1.382   0.024   1   =      92      91
Florida           26.435  27.969   1.534  28  +1    -489    2668
Georgia           13.627  13.919   0.292  14   =    -385     992
Hawaii             1.976   2.022   0.045   2   =     369     144
Idaho              2.260   2.307   0.048   2   =     143     162
Illinois          18.043  16.873  -1.170  17  -1    -364     118
Indiana            9.128   8.810  -0.318   9   =    -278     269
Iowa               4.312   4.186  -0.126   4   =     228     144
Kansas             4.042   3.906  -0.135   4   =    -331     121
Kentucky           6.120   5.903  -0.217   6   =    -336     176
Louisiana          6.392   6.287  -0.105   6   =     143     278
Maine              1.933   1.806  -0.127   2   =    -253       4
Maryland           8.131   8.172   0.041   8   =     225     489
Massachusetts      9.217   9.161  -0.057   9   =     230     475
Michigan          13.902  12.964  -0.938  13  -1    -415      62
Minnesota          7.472   7.404  -0.068   7  -1      49     368
Mississippi        4.201   3.979  -0.222   4   =    -387      63
Missouri           8.433   8.047  -0.386   8   =     321     177
Montana            1.478   1.483   0.005   1   =       9      82
Nebraska           2.615   2.600  -0.016   3   =     -90     132
Nevada             3.829   3.988   0.159   4   =    -395     337
New Hampshire      1.917   1.817  -0.100   2   =    -262      24
New Jersey        12.369  11.915  -0.453  12   =    -373     348
New Mexico         2.937   2.809  -0.129   3   =    -253      63
New York          27.244  26.387  -0.856  27   =     -38     877
North Carolina    13.413  13.717   0.304  14  +1    -230     989
North Dakota       1.070   1.204   0.134   1   =     240     168
Ohio              16.224  15.212  -1.012  15  -1     171     136
Oklahoma           5.297   5.307   0.010   5   =     131     305
Oregon             5.408   5.450   0.042   5   =      21     336
Pennsylvania      17.862  16.813  -1.049  17  -1    -318     201
Rhode Island       1.562   1.467  -0.095   1  -1      22       6
South Carolina     6.521   6.697   0.176   7   =    -182     502
South Dakota       1.249   1.285   0.036   1   =     172      95
Tennessee          8.935   8.916  -0.018   9   =    -360     489
Texas             35.350  38.580   3.230  39  +3    -242    4472
Utah               3.917   4.203   0.286   4   =     215     440
Vermont            1.012   0.958  -0.053   1   =     453       2
Virginia          11.258  11.457   0.199  12  +1     -21     786
Washington         9.466   9.839   0.374  10   =    -305     820
West Virginia      2.652   2.457  -0.195   2  -1      26      -6
Wisconsin          8.010   7.642  -0.368   8   =    -144     167
Wyoming            0.937   0.942   0.005   1   =     468      49



The second column represents the entitlement based on the estimated 2020 population, based on projecting the rate of growth for the 4.25 years from April 2010 to July 2014, to April 2020 (using a compounded rate of growth).  Only the domestic population was used.

The national rate of growth would 7.9%.  States growing faster than the nation include all states in the West, except NM; all states in the middle tier from ND to TX, except NE and KS; and all states on the Atlantic Coast, from DE to FL.

The third column represents the change in raw entitlement between 2010 and 2020.

The fourth column represents the estimated number of representative for 2020.   If we use simple rounding, and give Wyoming and Vermont their guaranteed representative, this would only give 432 representatives.   Rather than choosing the states with the three largest fractions, we calculate the quotients as they would be for the apportionment list.   When there are extra seats for be apportioned, this favors larger states, who in essence can distribute their deficit over more representatives.  In this case, the last 3 seats go to CA, NY, and VA; while AL, AZ, OR, MN, and MT miss out.

The fifth column is the change in representation from 2010, showing gains for  CA, CO, FL, NC, TX(3), and VA; and loss of a seat for AL, IL, MI, MN, OH, PA, RI, and WV (Obama +4, -6, Net -2); Romney (+4, -2. net +2).

The next two columns represent the change necessary to get an additional seat, and the estimated increase in population from 2010 to 2020.   For example, if Alabama were to gain an additional 9K it would stave off its loss of its 7th seat.  Since it is estimated to gain 165K, it is pretty clear that it is a coin flip as to whether it not it happens, because of changes in growth rates, errors in estimates, and what happens in other states.

Future losses:

AL 2020-2030
AR 2060
CT 2030
IN 2030-2040
IA 2080
KS 2050-2060
KY 2040-2050
ME 2050
MS 2040-2050
MO 2040
NH 2050-2060
NM 2050
WI 2030

IL, MI, NY, OH, and PA will continue to lose about 1 representative per decade.

While LA, NE, and TN are losing population share, it as such a slow rate or they have such a long way to go to lose a seat, it is not worth even guessing.

Gainers:

AZ +1, every couple of decades.
CA +1 per decade.
CO +1, every couple of decades
FL +1 or +2 per decade
GA 2040-2050
ID 2060
DE 2070
MT 2060
NV 2060-2070
NC 2050
ND 2040-2050
OR 2030-2040
SC 2070
TX +3 per decade
UT 2030-2040
VA 2070-2080
WA 2040

AK, MD, OK, SD, and WY are gaining population share, but it is indefinite when this will result in an increase in representation.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Brittain33 on December 24, 2014, 12:31:55 pm
Jim, thanks for posting this. I have a question because I'm missing something critical here.

The next two columns represent the change necessary to get an additional seat, and the estimated increase in population from 2010 to 2020.   For example, if Alabama were to gain an additional 9K it would stave off its loss of its 7th seat.  Since it is estimated to gain 165K, it is pretty clear that it is a coin flip as to whether it not it happens, because of changes in growth rates, errors in estimates, and what happens in other states.

If Alabama were to gain 9k as compared to what? Over its 2014 population by 2020, compared to what is predicted for 2010-2020 (165k?) Am I reading it correctly that Alabama simply has to increase by 9k in the next 6 years to hold its seat?

Put another way, Alabama would need to gain 174k over 2010-2020 to hold on to their 7th seat?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 24, 2014, 04:02:13 pm
Jim, thanks for posting this. I have a question because I'm missing something critical here.

The next two columns represent the change necessary to get an additional seat, and the estimated increase in population from 2010 to 2020.   For example, if Alabama were to gain an additional 9K it would stave off its loss of its 7th seat.  Since it is estimated to gain 165K, it is pretty clear that it is a coin flip as to whether it not it happens, because of changes in growth rates, errors in estimates, and what happens in other states.

If Alabama were to gain 9k as compared to what? Over its 2014 population by 2020, compared to what is predicted for 2010-2020 (165k?) Am I reading it correctly that Alabama simply has to increase by 9k in the next 6 years to hold its seat?

Put another way, Alabama would need to gain 174k over 2010-2020 to hold on to their 7th seat?
If Alabama had 9K additional population in 2020 beyond what is estimated, it would pass New York for the 435th seat.

It is currently estimated to gain 165K over the 10 year period, though 70K of that has happened in the first 4.25 years since the Census.  Assuming that the 2014 estimate is correct, then it is estimated to grow by an additional 95K during the remainder of the decade.

If it grew 9K more (to 104K) it would save the 7th seat.   While 9/104 is 9%, it may be possible to change some of the components.   For example, 9K would only be an increase of 2% in the number of births.  Of course if the birth rate increases in Alabama, it likely will increase in other states.   Alabama has almost zero net domestic migration (3.5K in the first 4 years).   But Mississippi has had 27K net out-migration.   So totally guesstimating, Alabama may have had 50K out and 54K in over the four years.   Decreasing that going out, or increasing those coming in would make a huge difference in the net.   Domestic migration was estimated at 2K in the last year, so there is a favorable trend.

Contrast to Alaska.  It would need 307K more persons to gain a 2nd seat.  But the estimated increase is only 64K.  It is quite unlikely to have that sort of massive change.

Negative numbers indicate a smaller increase that would cause a state to surpass (in the negative sense), Alabama for the 436th seat.  For example, if Colorado gained 122K less than the 803K estimated, it would not gain its 8th district.   But it has also banked the 327K of the increase, so it is not quite like a 15% change in the the rate of increase (from around 1.5% annual increase, to about 1.3% annual increase), but rather a 25% change in the rate of future increase (from around 1.5% annual increase, to about 1.1% annual increase).  Still possible, since migration is more susceptible to economic factors, but becoming less likely.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 25, 2014, 02:40:57 am
Also:

NC to pass 10 million people for the 1st time ever in ca. 1 month.

NC had 9.944 million on July 1, 2014 and adds ca. 8K people each month.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: ○∙◄☻•tπ[╪AV┼cVÍ└ on December 25, 2014, 05:34:31 pm
Also:

NC to pass 10 million people for the 1st time ever in ca. 1 month.

NC had 9.944 million on July 1, 2014 and adds ca. 8K people each month.

FL probably just hit 20 million.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Flake on December 25, 2014, 07:39:37 pm
Yep, FL passes NY: (http://census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2014/cb14-232.html)

CA- 38,802,500
TX- 26,956,958
FL- 19,893,297
NY- 19,746,227

Disgusting

Damn you, Florida.

Obviously great news.

Also:

NC to pass 10 million people for the 1st time ever in ca. 1 month.

NC had 9.944 million on July 1, 2014 and adds ca. 8K people each month.

FL probably just hit 20 million.

Even better news!


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 26, 2014, 04:01:46 am
Jim, thanks for posting this. I have a question because I'm missing something critical here.

The next two columns represent the change necessary to get an additional seat, and the estimated increase in population from 2010 to 2020.   For example, if Alabama were to gain an additional 9K it would stave off its loss of its 7th seat.  Since it is estimated to gain 165K, it is pretty clear that it is a coin flip as to whether it not it happens, because of changes in growth rates, errors in estimates, and what happens in other states.

If Alabama were to gain 9k as compared to what? Over its 2014 population by 2020, compared to what is predicted for 2010-2020 (165k?) Am I reading it correctly that Alabama simply has to increase by 9k in the next 6 years to hold its seat?

Put another way, Alabama would need to gain 174k over 2010-2020 to hold on to their 7th seat?
Here is a couple additional values.  The 2nd to last column is the average annual rate of increase from April 2010 to July 2014, the last column is the average rate of increase from July 2014 to April 2020 that would be needed for a more favorable/less favorable outcome.

Alabama            6.737   6.461  -0.277   6  -1       9     165   0.34%   0.37%
Alaska             1.117   1.126   0.009   1   =     307      64   0.87%   6.90%
Arizona            8.999   9.417   0.418   9   =      33     828   1.22%   1.31%
Arkansas           4.129   3.986  -0.143   4   =    -393     120   0.40%  -1.99%
California        52.369  53.406   1.036  54  +1    -179    3747   0.96%   0.89%
Colorado           7.087   7.612   0.525   8  +1    -122     803   1.49%   1.12%
Connecticut        5.049   4.751  -0.298   5   =    -215      53   0.15%  -0.91%
Delaware           1.358   1.382   0.024   1   =      92      91   0.97%   2.55%
Florida           26.435  27.969   1.534  28  +1    -489    2668   1.34%   0.93%
Georgia           13.627  13.919   0.292  14   =    -385     992   0.98%   0.34%
Hawaii             1.976   2.022   0.045   2   =     369     144   1.01%   4.94%
Idaho              2.260   2.307   0.048   2   =     143     162   0.99%   2.39%
Illinois          18.043  16.873  -1.170  17  -1    -364     118   0.09%  -0.40%
Indiana            9.128   8.810  -0.318   9   =    -278     269   0.41%  -0.32%
Iowa               4.312   4.186  -0.126   4   =     228     144   0.46%   1.68%
Kansas             4.042   3.906  -0.135   4   =    -331     121   0.42%  -1.62%
Kentucky           6.120   5.903  -0.217   6   =    -336     176   0.40%  -0.94%
Louisiana          6.392   6.287  -0.105   6   =     143     278   0.60%   1.11%
Maine              1.933   1.806  -0.127   2   =    -253       4   0.03%  -3.57%
Maryland           8.131   8.172   0.041   8   =     225     489   0.82%   1.44%
Massachusetts      9.217   9.161  -0.057   9   =     230     475   0.70%   1.27%
Michigan          13.902  12.964  -0.938  13  -1    -415      62   0.06%  -0.68%
Minnesota          7.472   7.404  -0.068   7  -1      49     368   0.67%   0.82%
Mississippi        4.201   3.979  -0.222   4   =    -387      63   0.21%  -2.14%
Missouri           8.433   8.047  -0.386   8   =     321     177   0.29%   1.18%
Montana            1.478   1.483   0.005   1   =       9      82   0.80%   0.96%
Nebraska           2.615   2.600  -0.016   3   =     -90     132   0.70%  -0.11%
Nevada             3.829   3.988   0.159   4   =    -395     337   1.18%  -1.23%
New Hampshire      1.917   1.817  -0.100   2   =    -262      24   0.18%  -3.53%
New Jersey        12.369  11.915  -0.453  12   =    -373     348   0.39%  -0.34%
New Mexico         2.937   2.809  -0.129   3   =    -253      63   0.30%  -1.89%
New York          27.244  26.387  -0.856  27   =     -38     877   0.44%   0.41%
North Carolina    13.413  13.717   0.304  14  +1    -230     989   0.99%   0.60%
North Dakota       1.070   1.204   0.134   1   =     240     168   2.26%   6.83%
Ohio              16.224  15.212  -1.012  15  -1     171     136   0.12%   0.37%
Oklahoma           5.297   5.307   0.010   5   =     131     305   0.78%   1.34%
Oregon             5.408   5.450   0.042   5   =      21     336   0.84%   0.93%
Pennsylvania      17.862  16.813  -1.049  17  -1    -318     201   0.16%  -0.28%
Rhode Island       1.562   1.467  -0.095   1  -1      22       6   0.06%   0.42%
South Carolina     6.521   6.697   0.176   7   =    -182     502   1.04%   0.40%
South Dakota       1.249   1.285   0.036   1   =     172      95   1.11%   4.20%
Tennessee          8.935   8.916  -0.018   9   =    -360     489   0.74%  -0.20%
Texas             35.350  38.580   3.230  39  +3    -242    4472   1.65%   1.51%
Utah               3.917   4.203   0.286   4   =     215     440   1.49%   2.64%
Vermont            1.012   0.958  -0.053   1   =     453       2   0.03%   9.95%
Virginia          11.258  11.457   0.199  12  +1     -21     786   0.94%   0.90%
Washington         9.466   9.839   0.374  10   =    -305     820   1.16%   0.43%
West Virginia      2.652   2.457  -0.195   2  -1      26      -6  -0.03%   0.21%
Wisconsin          8.010   7.642  -0.368   8   =    -144     167   0.29%  -0.14%
Wyoming            0.937   0.942   0.005   1   =     468      49   0.85%  11.30%

So Alabama would only need to increase its rate of increase from 0.34% to 0.37% to stave off loss of it 7th seat.

This is the same information, with states ordered on the smallest change needed for a more favorable outcome.  Only states which could improve their outcome with a change in rate of increase of less than 0.50% are shown.


Alabama        6.737  6.461 -0.277  6  -1    9  165  0.34%  0.37%  To avoid loss of 7th.
Arizona        8.999  9.417  0.418  9   =   33  828  1.22%  1.31%  To gain 10th.
Oregon         5.408  5.450  0.042  5   =   21  336  0.84%  0.93%  To gain 6th.
Minnesota      7.472  7.404 -0.068  7  -1   49  368  0.67%  0.82%  To avoid loss of 8th.
Montana        1.478  1.483  0.005  1   =    9   82  0.80%  0.96%  To gain 2nd.
West Virginia  2.652  2.457 -0.195  2  -1   26   -6 -0.03%  0.21%  To avoid loss of 3rd.
Ohio          16.224 15.212 -1.012 15  -1  171  136  0.12%  0.37%  To avoid loss of 16th.
Rhode Island   1.562  1.467 -0.095  1  -1   22    6  0.06%  0.42%  To avoid loss of 2nd.


And here is the change that would result in a less favorable outcome.

New York      27.244 26.387 -0.856 27   =  -38  877  0.44%  0.41%  To lose 27th.
Virginia      11.258 11.457  0.199 12  +1 - 21  786  0.94%   .90%  To not gain 12th.
California    52.369 53.406  1.036 54  +1 -179 3747  0.96%  0.89%  To not gain 54th.
Texas         35.350 38.580  3.230 39  +3 -242 4472  1.65%  1.51%  To be +2, not +3.
Colorado       7.087  7.612  0.525  8  +1 -122  803  1.49%  1.12%  To not gain 8th.
NorthCarolina 13.413 13.717  0.304 14  +1 -230  989  0.99%  0.60%  To not gain 14th.
Florida       26.435 27.969  1.534 28  +1 -489 2668  1.34%  0.93%  To not gain 28th.
Pennsylvania  17.862 16.813 -1.049 17  -1 -318  201  0.16% -0.28%  To be -2, not -1.
Wisconsin      8.010  7.642 -0.368  8   = -144  167  0.29% -0.14%  To lose 8th.
Illinois      18.043 16.873 -1.170 17  -1 -364   18  0.09% -0.40%  To be -2, not -1.


If we regard any change of more than 0.50% in the annual rate of growth to be quite improbable, then the losses of one seat by IL, MI, and PA to be certain; as is the increase of +2 by Texas.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 26, 2014, 04:47:17 am
Also:

NC to pass 10 million people for the 1st time ever in ca. 1 month.

NC had 9.944 million on July 1, 2014 and adds ca. 8K people each month.

This is interesting.  North Carolina have similar populations, and quite similar rates of increase, but the components are quite distiffernt.


State            Increase  Natural    Births    Deaths  Migration  Intern.  Domestic
Georgia          408,662   248,226   556,992   308,766   151,661   102,677    48,984
North Carolina   408,273   166,093   511,558   345,465   233,880    90,452   143,428


Georgia has a substantially higher natural increase, with more births and fewer deaths, which indicates a younger population, or possibly a larger share of the population is Black and Hispanic.  Yet net domestic migration is much higher in North Carolina.  Interstate movers are typically in their 20s, moving for employment or adventure reasons, and would be expected to provide a base of child-bearers, who aren't dying for a few more decades.

Is there substantial movement from Atlanta back to southern states, such that the net change is small?   Is there a difference due to the dominance of Atlanta, which leaves a vast rural area, whereas in North Carolina you have Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Greensboro-Winston-Salem.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: hopper on March 08, 2015, 12:46:08 am
Domestic Migration Gains 2010-2014(rounded to the nearest thousandth.)


Texas: 522,600
Florida 449.900
North Carolina 143.400
Colorado 140,100
Arizona   116,300
South Carolina 112,300
Tennessee 84,300
Washington 84,000
Oregon 58,300
Georgia 48,900

Top Domestic Migration Losses

New York -486,580
Illinois -318,987
New Jersey -204,197
California -189,282
Michigan -153,159
Ohio -122,031
Pennsylvania -89,155
Connecticut -75,852
Missouri -43,539
Kansas -40,173



Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: hopper on March 08, 2015, 01:12:43 am
Top International Population Gains by State(2010-2014)

California 648,856
New York 485,224
Florida 467,201
Texas 343,093
New Jersey 211,165
Massachusetts 151,731
Virginia 141,687
Illinois 128,843
Maryland 118,187
Pennsylvania 118,159


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: hopper on March 08, 2015, 01:49:29 am
Top Migration Gains(International and Domestic Combined.) (2010-2014)

Florida 917,135
Texas 905,754
California 459,574
North Carolina 233,880
Colorado 183,324
Washington 179,873
Arizona 172,848
Georgia 151,661
Virginia 145,072
South Carolina 139,545

Top Migration Losses(International and Domestic Combined.)

Illinois -190,144
Michigan -72,674
Ohio -50,959
New Mexico -18,886
Mississippi -16,999
Kansas -15,299
Wisconsin -11,288
Missouri -8,048
Connecticut -5,861
Alaska -4,700


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Southern Speaker Punxsutawney Phil on March 08, 2015, 01:53:00 am
Top Migration Gains(International and Domestic Combined.) (2010-2014)

Florida 917,135
Texas 905,754
California 459,574
North Carolina 233,880
Colorado 183,324
Washington 179,873
Arizona 172,848
Georgia 151,661
Virginia 145,072
South Carolina 139,545

Top Migration Losses(International and Domestic Combined.)

Illinois -190,144
Michigan -72,674
Ohio -50,959
New Mexico -18,886
Mississippi -16,999
Kansas -15,299
Wisconsin -11,288
Missouri -8,048
Connecticut -5,861
Alaska -4,700


Almost a million for Florida and Texas?  Truely surprising.  Illinois losing almost 200,000 is also very surprising.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Flake on March 08, 2015, 07:29:19 pm
Top Migration Gains(International and Domestic Combined.) (2010-2014)

Florida 917,135
Texas 905,754
California 459,574
North Carolina 233,880
Colorado 183,324
Washington 179,873
Arizona 172,848
Georgia 151,661
Virginia 145,072
South Carolina 139,545

Top Migration Losses(International and Domestic Combined.)

Illinois -190,144
Michigan -72,674
Ohio -50,959
New Mexico -18,886
Mississippi -16,999
Kansas -15,299
Wisconsin -11,288
Missouri -8,048
Connecticut -5,861
Alaska -4,700

We're #1! :D


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on March 08, 2015, 08:36:40 pm
Top Migration Gains(International and Domestic Combined.) (2010-2014)

Florida 917,135
Texas 905,754
California 459,574
North Carolina 233,880
Colorado 183,324
Washington 179,873
Arizona 172,848
Georgia 151,661
Virginia 145,072
South Carolina 139,545

Top Migration Losses(International and Domestic Combined.)

Illinois -190,144
Michigan -72,674
Ohio -50,959
New Mexico -18,886
Mississippi -16,999
Kansas -15,299
Wisconsin -11,288
Missouri -8,048
Connecticut -5,861
Alaska -4,700

We're #1! :D

So are we. :(


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: hopper on March 15, 2015, 01:40:13 am
Top 10 Natural Population Increases(2010-2014.)

Texas 1,711,241
California 1,466,489
Florida 1,041,077
North Carolina 384,476
Georgia 382, 879
New York 345,360
Washington 319,619
Arizona 319,485
Colorado 307,291
Virginia 300,913

Top 10 Slowest Natural Population Increases(2010-2014)

West Virginia -3,850
Vermont 770
Rhode Island 2,095
Maine 2,728
New Hampshire 10,296
Connecticut 17,332
Wyoming 19,795
New Mexico 20,622
Alaska 22,876
Mississippi 23,368


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: KingSweden on March 23, 2015, 07:59:47 pm
Top Migration Gains(International and Domestic Combined.) (2010-2014)

Florida 917,135
Texas 905,754
California 459,574
North Carolina 233,880
Colorado 183,324
Washington 179,873
Arizona 172,848
Georgia 151,661
Virginia 145,072
South Carolina 139,545

Top Migration Losses(International and Domestic Combined.)

Illinois -190,144
Michigan -72,674
Ohio -50,959
New Mexico -18,886
Mississippi -16,999
Kansas -15,299
Wisconsin -11,288
Missouri -8,048
Connecticut -5,861
Alaska -4,700

We're #1! :D

So are we. :(

Where in Illinois are these people leaving from? Downstate or Chicagoland?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Gass3268 on March 23, 2015, 08:23:49 pm
Top Migration Gains(International and Domestic Combined.) (2010-2014)

Florida 917,135
Texas 905,754
California 459,574
North Carolina 233,880
Colorado 183,324
Washington 179,873
Arizona 172,848
Georgia 151,661
Virginia 145,072
South Carolina 139,545

Top Migration Losses(International and Domestic Combined.)

Illinois -190,144
Michigan -72,674
Ohio -50,959
New Mexico -18,886
Mississippi -16,999
Kansas -15,299
Wisconsin -11,288
Missouri -8,048
Connecticut -5,861
Alaska -4,700

We're #1! :D

So are we. :(

Where in Illinois are these people leaving from? Downstate or Chicagoland?

We'll find out on Thursday when the county estimates are released.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: KingSweden on March 24, 2015, 08:43:38 am
Top Migration Gains(International and Domestic Combined.) (2010-2014)

Florida 917,135
Texas 905,754
California 459,574
North Carolina 233,880
Colorado 183,324
Washington 179,873
Arizona 172,848
Georgia 151,661
Virginia 145,072
South Carolina 139,545

Top Migration Losses(International and Domestic Combined.)

Illinois -190,144
Michigan -72,674
Ohio -50,959
New Mexico -18,886
Mississippi -16,999
Kansas -15,299
Wisconsin -11,288
Missouri -8,048
Connecticut -5,861
Alaska -4,700

We're #1! :D

So are we. :(

Where in Illinois are these people leaving from? Downstate or Chicagoland?

We'll find out on Thursday when the county estimates are released.

So Thursday is the day, then? Very exciting. I look forward to the county estimates more than the state ones.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 10, 2015, 01:36:40 pm
On December 22 to be exact.

Some early trends from states who are releasing their own population estimates before the Census Bureau:

California (Jan. 1, 2015): +0.9% (+358.000)

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/view.php

Florida (April 1, 2015): +1.6% (+308.000)

http://www.edr.state.fl.us/Content/population-demographics/data/FLcopops.xls

Washington (April 1, 2015): +1.3% (+93.000)

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

Colorado (July 1, 2015): +1.7% (+90.000)

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dola/population-data-components-change

Oregon (July 1, 2015): +1.3% (+51.000)

https://www.pdx.edu/prc/sites/www.pdx.edu.prc/files/PrelimEst2015_Web.xlsx

...

These numbers would indicate a slightly higher population growth for the US compared with the year before (maybe up by 2.4-2.5 million compared with the 2.36 million between 2013-14).

But this is based only on these handful of states and their estimates are often totally different to the ones from the Census Bureau.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Snowguy716 on December 10, 2015, 11:23:16 pm
I'd imagine growth slowed down significantly in North Dakota.  The boom is over for the time being so I'd imagine many have left the state again.

Minnesota is probably around +0.7%.  Domestic migration continues negative even though millennials are moving to the state (esp the 25-34 age group).  It is being offset by baby boomers leaving.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on December 10, 2015, 11:44:07 pm
I'd imagine growth slowed down significantly in North Dakota.  The boom is over for the time being so I'd imagine many have left the state again.

Minnesota is probably around +0.7%.  Domestic migration continues negative even though millennials are moving to the state (esp the 25-34 age group).  It is being offset by baby boomers leaving.

The county population estimates will be even more interesting in North Dakota and Texas when they are released.  Many of the fastest-growing counties in the past few years have been in the oil patch in those states.  Will those become the fastest-declining counties now?  Statewide, will North Dakota just have slowed growth or has it gone in reverse?  The economies of the non-oil patch cities like Fargo are still vibrant, so growth probably isn't negative statewide yet.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Snowguy716 on December 10, 2015, 11:52:47 pm
I'd imagine the census won't catch the rapid migration due to the oil boom... at least not this year.  So I'd say ND will still have decent growth.  The price crash was thought to be very temporary and many banks still lent money to oil companies until quite recently.

But even during the rush many employees were doing 2 weeks on 2 weeks off rotations and many of those people were commuting from Minnesota.  A guy I know bought a house that way... in MN of course.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 11, 2015, 01:39:01 am
Yeah, ND's growth of over 2% in the previous years will end with the new estimates.

In the November jobs report, ND lost almost 10.000 jobs compared with November 2014 - a decline of more than 2% - which means people are likely moving out of the state again.

I guess ND's population growth is down from 2.2% to ~1% in the new estimates.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm

Also, another state which is badly hit by the mining/oil downturn is West Virginia, which is already one of the slowest growing (or already declining) states due to more deaths than births and almost no migration.

The state lost 14.000 jobs between Nov. 2014 and Nov. 2015, the only state to do so after ND.

Also, Texas' job growth almost halved as well (growing by 400K in previous years, but only 200K in the past year.

In general this could mean that states like NV, CO and UT are now the fastest-growing states in the country, with TX close behind. ND could actually fall out of the top-10 and states like WV could lose population at a higher clip ...


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: DINGO Joe on December 11, 2015, 01:31:36 pm
Yeah, it would be quite an upset if anyone could compete with WV as biggest loser.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 12, 2015, 01:53:06 am
New AZ numbers:

July 1, 2015: +1.4% (+91.000)

https://population.az.gov/population-estimates


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 13, 2015, 03:14:48 pm
Yeah, it would be quite an upset if anyone could compete with WV as biggest loser.

Last year IL lost more in total pop than WV.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: DINGO Joe on December 14, 2015, 01:17:24 am
Yeah, it would be quite an upset if anyone could compete with WV as biggest loser.

Last year IL lost more in total pop than WV.

Not percentage wise, and no matter what travails Illinois may be facing they don't come anywhere close to the demographic and public health problems WV  has.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 17, 2015, 01:41:39 am
New CA numbers for July 1, 2015 came out yesterday:

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-2/documents/pressrelease_package_Jul15.pdf


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 17, 2015, 07:45:06 am
New CA numbers for July 1, 2015 came out yesterday:

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-2/documents/pressrelease_package_Jul15.pdf

Net domestic migration remains negative with foreign migration slightly more than replacing the domestic outflow. They largely cancel, and the growth is mostly natural growth from births minus deaths.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Torie on December 17, 2015, 08:32:09 am
New CA numbers for July 1, 2015 came out yesterday:

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-2/documents/pressrelease_package_Jul15.pdf

My goodness, Orange and San Diego counties have below average growth in CA, while San Francisco is considerably above it. Hip inner city urban areas are the cat's meow now. :)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Cubby on December 18, 2015, 11:57:08 pm
Florida will reach 20,000,000 people. Only a few more years till it's bigger than Australia.

Oil prices started to plunge in Fall 2014, the estimates are for 7/1/15, so its possible North Dakota's rate will slow, but its probably too soon. Though if we have more weeks like this one, with oil below $35 a barrel, then we'll be back to 80's (declining) or 90's (slowest growing in the nation) rates of growth. Then hopefully we can find some land there for Buffalo Commons.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 19, 2015, 10:30:09 am
Also, NC will break 10 Mio. people for the first time.

AZ will overtake MA.

TN could overtake IN, but probably not this year but next.

MD will break 6 Mio. people for the first time.

SC will overtake AL.

OR will break 4 Mio. people for the first time.

MS and AR might break 3 Mio. people for the first time (but it's more likely that UT does before them).

NH could pass ME.

Puerto Rico could drop below 3.5 Mio. people.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 22, 2015, 12:56:24 am
These will be out later today ...


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Vern on December 22, 2015, 01:54:04 am
should be interesting


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 22, 2015, 09:55:04 am
Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2015 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 5 and a quarter year 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.

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

There a number of changes since my projections last year (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=203537.msg4424230#msg4424230). AL is down, AZ is up, OR is up and VA isn't up. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are CA-53, TX-39, OR-6, CA-54, and AZ-10 (#435).
The next five in line are FL-29, AL-7, VA-12, NY-27, MT-2.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Torie on December 22, 2015, 10:07:39 am
How close is NY to the cusp given your latest projections? I ask, because my little CD will have a very new design given the shape of the state and where I am, if it loses a CD. It will become a much more suburban CD. And Nolan in MN-08 will be happy if MN loses a CD. His CD per your rules is slated to become more Dem as it loses Pub areas on its south end.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 22, 2015, 10:23:07 am
Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2015 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 3 and a quarter year period between the Census and the estimate.

4-1/4 ?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 22, 2015, 10:32:27 am
Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2015 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 3 and a quarter year period between the Census and the estimate.

4-1/4 ?

fixed: 5 1/4


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 22, 2015, 10:37:41 am
How close is NY to the cusp given your latest projections? I ask, because my little CD will have a very new design given the shape of the state and where I am, if it loses a CD. It will become a much more suburban CD. And Nolan in MN-08 will be happy if MN loses a CD. His CD per your rules is slated to become more Dem as it loses Pub areas on its south end.

NY would need about 300K more people than it is currently on track for by 2020. Alternatively there needs t be a significant slow down in the fast growing states, much like the Great Recession kept AZ from going to 10 last time.

BTW if I only use the last two years to make my projection, CA won't gain but FL will gain 2.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Asian Nazi on December 22, 2015, 12:18:37 pm
Nice to see Oregon gaining a seat in your projection.  :)

Also didn't realize that Montana was so close to gaining a second district.  It looks like the new Rhode Island At-Large would take Montana's place for largest single district by population.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 22, 2015, 12:54:49 pm
In addition to FL breaking 20 million, let's see how my estimates turned out:

Also, NC will break 10 Mio. people for the first time. TRUE

AZ will overtake MA. TRUE

TN could overtake IN, but probably not this year but next. TRUE (next year)

MD will break 6 Mio. people for the first time. TRUE

SC will overtake AL. TRUE

OR will break 4 Mio. people for the first time. TRUE

MS and AR might break 3 Mio. people for the first time (but it's more likely that UT does before them). Semi-true: MS and AR did not break 3 million, but UT overtook them with 2.996 million and definitely is above 3 million already.

NH could pass ME. TRUE

Puerto Rico could drop below 3.5 Mio. people. TRUE


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 22, 2015, 01:02:09 pm
Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2015 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 5 and a quarter year 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.

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

There a number of changes since my projections last year (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=203537.msg4424230#msg4424230). AL is down, AZ is up, OR is up and VA isn't up. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are CA-53, TX-39, OR-6, CA-54, and AZ-10 (#435).
The next five in line are FL-29, AL-7, VA-12, NY-27, MT-3.

So, Obama-states are projected to lose 7 EV (IL, MI, MN, NY, OH, PA, RI) - while gaining 4 (CA, CO, FL, OR) - for a net loss of 3 EV.

Romney-states gain 5 (3TX, AZ, NC), while losing 2 (AL, WV) - for a net gain of 3 EV.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 22, 2015, 01:05:39 pm
Yeah, it would be quite an upset if anyone could compete with WV as biggest loser.

Last year IL lost more in total pop than WV.

Not percentage wise, and no matter what travails Illinois may be facing they don't come anywhere close to the demographic and public health problems WV  has.

IL lost more this year than last, though WV slightly edges IL in percent loss.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 22, 2015, 01:59:06 pm
The national and state "components of population change" are also interesting:

The US had 3.986 million births last year and 2.625 million deaths (natural increase = 1.361 million).

It also had an international migration surplus of 1.151 million - for a total growth of 2.512 million people (+0.8%).

That means ca. 54% of the population growth came from natural increase and 46% from a migration gain.

...

Looking at the states, CA/NY/FL/TX/NJ were the biggest magnets for international migrants - while basically no person from abroad moved to WY/MT/VT/WV/ME.

The 10 states with the biggest domestic migration (= people moving between the states) gains were FL, TX, CO, AZ, SC, WA, NC, OR, GA and NV.

The 10 states with the biggest domestic migration losses were NY, IL, CA, NJ, PA, MI, OH, CT, MD and VA.

Only 2 states had more deaths than births: WV and ME.

Puerto Rico's population dropped by more than 60.000 people (or 1.7%)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 22, 2015, 02:13:37 pm
Also, what has not been mentioned so far:

North Dakota actually remained the fastest-growing state between 2014-15, despite the downturn in the oil/gas sector in the past year.

ND grew by 2.3%, followed by CO/DC/NV (each +1.9%)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 22, 2015, 02:22:05 pm
And not only that: ND also had the biggest domestic migration gains (= most people moving into a state from other states) per capita last year.

ND gained 10.000 people from other states in the past year - giving it a 13.2/1000 net domestic migration gain.

FL and CO followed far behind with 10/1000.

The state with the worst loss (= most people moving away to other states) was actually Alaska - which had almost 8.000 people leaving for other states and giving the state a -10.4/1000 net domestic migration loss.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 22, 2015, 02:26:34 pm
Also, does anyone know why VA turned from a magnet for US citizens from other states between 2000-2010 to being in the top-10 of states with the most Americans leaving to other states ?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 22, 2015, 04:00:28 pm
Also, does anyone know why VA turned from a magnet for US citizens from other states between 2000-2010 to being in the top-10 of states with the most Americans leaving to other states ?

During the Great Recession the government sector was one of the few growth areas, particularly as driven by the stimulus. That may be a factor in VA. As the rest of the economy has picked up, VA doesn't stand out anymore. It would be consistent with my projection making a seat gain less likely than last year.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Kevinstat on December 22, 2015, 05:53:01 pm
Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2015 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 5 and a quarter year 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.

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

There a number of changes since my projections last year (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=203537.msg4424230#msg4424230). AL is down, AZ is up, OR is up and VA isn't up. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are CA-53, TX-39, OR-6, CA-54, and AZ-10 (#435).
The next five in line are FL-29, AL-7, VA-12, NY-27, MT-3.

Do you mean MT-2 here?  Or WV-3?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 22, 2015, 09:51:32 pm
Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2015 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 5 and a quarter year 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.

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

There a number of changes since my projections last year (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=203537.msg4424230#msg4424230). AL is down, AZ is up, OR is up and VA isn't up. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are CA-53, TX-39, OR-6, CA-54, and AZ-10 (#435).
The next five in line are FL-29, AL-7, VA-12, NY-27, MT-3.

Do you mean MT-2 here?  Or WV-3?

MT-2. Fixed.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on December 22, 2015, 09:59:59 pm
Also, what has not been mentioned so far:

North Dakota actually remained the fastest-growing state between 2014-15, despite the downturn in the oil/gas sector in the past year.

ND grew by 2.3%, followed by CO/DC/NV (each +1.9%)

North Dakota's growth rate from 2014-15 was about the same as the growth rate from 2013-14.  So much for growth slowing down.

The only state to lose population since the 2010 Census is West Virginia.  (Puerto Rico has also lost over 250,000 residents over that time period.)  Maine and Vermont grew by less than 1,000 people over that time frame.  Meanwhile, Texas added more residents than live in many states - over 2.3 million.  

I think D.C. is actually the second-fastest growing state or territory over that time period, behind North Dakota.  If North Dakota growth starts to fall soon, D.C. might end up being the fastest-growing jurisdiction this decade.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: tschandler on December 22, 2015, 11:42:10 pm
Alabama is intriguing.  Granted my experience is limited to North Alabama (the Black belt may certainly be shrinking) but in our rural area of Northeast Alabama we are experiencing solid growth.   I have new neighbors/students from California, Oregon, Texas, Alaska, Tennessee, Florida, and Nevada.   It is known that rural Alabama is a combination of what rural Texas and Florida were a generation ago (cheap open farmland and people retiring because Alabama doesn't tax retirement/social security).  

And Huntsville is rapidly growing.  


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: DINGO Joe on December 23, 2015, 12:45:52 am
Yeah, it would be quite an upset if anyone could compete with WV as biggest loser.

Last year IL lost more in total pop than WV.

Not percentage wise, and no matter what travails Illinois may be facing they don't come anywhere close to the demographic and public health problems WV  has.

IL lost more this year than last, though WV slightly edges IL in percent loss.

IL certainly gave it the old college try


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: DINGO Joe on December 23, 2015, 01:12:14 am
Alabama is intriguing.  

No, no it's not.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: DINGO Joe on December 23, 2015, 01:22:03 am
Nice to see Oregon gaining a seat in your projection.  :)

Also didn't realize that Montana was so close to gaining a second district.  It looks like the new Rhode Island At-Large would take Montana's place for largest single district by population.

Montana has actually had some spillover from the drilling boom in adjacent states.  It may struggle sustaining any growth going forward, especially in the Eastern part of the state.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 23, 2015, 01:28:52 am
Also, what's with New Mexico ?

It even lost population last year, while most western states saw high growth - even the Plain states did better than NM.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: DINGO Joe on December 23, 2015, 01:32:27 am
Also, what's with New Mexico ?

It even lost population last year, while most western states saw high growth - even the Plain states did better than NM.

I guess it's the Mississippi of the Rockies.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 23, 2015, 01:41:56 am
Here's a map of states which have all 3 factors:

A) a natural increase (more births than deaths)
B) a positive international migration balance
C) a positive domestic migration balance (more people coming from other states than moving out)

()


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 23, 2015, 04:22:08 am
Alabama is intriguing.  Granted my experience is limited to North Alabama (the Black belt may certainly be shrinking) but in our rural area of Northeast Alabama we are experiencing solid growth.   I have new neighbors/students from California, Oregon, Texas, Alaska, Tennessee, Florida, and Nevada.   It is known that rural Alabama is a combination of what rural Texas and Florida were a generation ago (cheap open farmland and people retiring because Alabama doesn't tax retirement/social security).  

And Huntsville is rapidly growing.  
If fractional representation was awarded, Alabama would lose 0.299 representatives. It in essence dropped from 7 to 6, due to rounding.

The national growth rate (2010 to 2020) is 8.0%, while for Alabama is 3.2%.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 23, 2015, 04:55:06 am
If we were doing continuous reapportionment, Florida (28) and Oregon (6) would have gained a seat, and Illinois (17) and Michigan (13) would have lost a seat. These would be in addition to previous gains in for Texas (37) and North Carolina (14), and losses for Minnesota (7) and Pennsylvania (17).

In Michigan this would could result in the Detroit UCC adding Washtenaw or Genesee to keep 6 districts.

2014 projected gains: CA, CO, FL, NC, TX (+3), VA
2015 projected gains: AZ, CA, CO, FL, NC, OR TX (+3)

So not only is Oregon projected to now add a seat, it has already reached the level needed.

2014 projected losses: AL, IL, MI, MN, OH, PA, RI, WV
2015 projected losses: AL, IL, MI, MN, NY, OH, PA, RI, WV

While it now appears that New York will extend a 7-decade string of losing districts, this will be the first without multiple losses.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 23, 2015, 07:04:52 am
The first column is the fractional entitlement for 2010, the second column for 2020, and the 3rd column the difference between the two. That is, Alabama has lost about 0.299 of a representative between 2010 and 2020. States with a negative change are growing slower than the United States as a whole. Those with a positive change are growing faster (increasing their representational share). The fourth and fifth columns show the projected 2020 apportionment, and  the change from 2010.

The next column is the change (in 1000s) for a state not being rounded, to get an additional seat. That is, if Alabama were to gain an additional 20K persons beyond what it is projected by 2020, it would retain its 7th seat. For a state that is rounded, it is the decrease needed to cause the lost of rounding. The next column is the projected change (in 1000s). Alabama is projected to add 152K between 2010 and 2020. The next column is the annualized growth rate projected between 2010 and 2020. The final column is the annualized growth rate needed over the remainder of the decade to cause a change in projected apportionment. Alabama is projected to increase at a 0.31% annual rate. If it were to gain at a 0.40% rate for the remainder of the decade it would retain the 7th seat.

States with some uncertainty are in red.


State               2010    2020  Change Apportion  More   Change  Proj.   Needed
Alabama            6.737   6.438  -0.299   6  -1      20     152   0.31%   0.40%
Alaska             1.117   1.114  -0.003   1   =     316      55   0.74%   8.34%
Arizona            8.999   9.447   0.448  10  +1     -22     856   1.26%   1.20%
Arkansas           4.129   3.982  -0.147   4   =    -397     120   0.40%  -2.52%
California        52.369  53.283   0.914  54  +1    -189    3684   0.95%   0.85%
Colorado           7.087   7.662   0.575   8  +1    -174     845   1.57%   0.92%
Connecticut        5.049   4.720  -0.329   5   =    -200      32   0.09%  -1.10%
Delaware           1.358   1.384   0.026   1   =      89      94   1.00%   2.84%
Florida           26.435  28.245   1.810  28  +1      73    2896   1.44%   1.51%
Georgia           13.627  13.957   0.330  14   =    -441    1029   1.01%   0.13%
Hawaii             1.976   2.014   0.038   2   =     372     139   0.98%   5.80%
Idaho              2.260   2.317   0.057   2   =     133     170   1.04%   2.62%
Illinois          18.043  16.779  -1.263  17  -1    -324      56   0.04%  -0.49%
Indiana            9.128   8.793  -0.335   9   =    -282     261   0.40%  -0.50%
Iowa               4.312   4.189  -0.123   4   =     222     148   0.48%   1.90%
Kansas             4.042   3.892  -0.150   4   =    -327     113   0.39%  -2.05%
Kentucky           6.120   5.883  -0.237   6   =    -332     165   0.37%  -1.23%
Louisiana          6.392   6.265  -0.127   6   =     153     265   0.57%   1.24%
Maine              1.933   1.802  -0.131   2   =    -253       2   0.01%  -4.33%
Maryland           8.131   8.117  -0.014   8   =     258     452   0.76%   1.62%
Massachusetts      9.217   9.158  -0.060   9   =     222     478   0.71%   1.37%
Michigan          13.902  12.970  -0.932  13  -1    -444      74   0.07%  -0.88%
Minnesota          7.472   7.388  -0.085   7  -1      54     359   0.66%   0.86%
Mississippi        4.201   3.956  -0.245   4   =    -377      48   0.16%  -2.61%
Missouri           8.433   8.047  -0.387   8   =     312     182   0.30%   1.35%
Montana            1.478   1.485   0.007   1   =       7      85   0.82%   0.95%
Nebraska           2.615   2.602  -0.014   3   =     -96     135   0.72%  -0.34%
Nevada             3.829   4.033   0.204   4   =     342     374   1.31%   3.58%
New Hampshire      1.917   1.819  -0.098   2   =    -266      27   0.20%  -4.35%
New Jersey        12.369  11.869  -0.500  12   =    -360     319   0.36%  -0.49%
New Mexico         2.937   2.790  -0.148   3   =    -243      50   0.24%  -2.31%
New York          27.244  26.271  -0.973  26  -1      62     803   0.41%   0.47%
North Carolina    13.413  13.707   0.294  14  +1    -249     990   0.99%   0.48%
North Dakota       1.070   1.205   0.135   1   =     238     170   2.28%   7.78%
Ohio              16.224  15.214  -1.010  15  -1     153     147   0.13%   0.40%
Oklahoma           5.297   5.310   0.013   5   =     123     311   0.80%   1.43%
Oregon             5.408   5.511   0.103   6  +1     -45     386   0.96%   0.74%
Pennsylvania      17.862  16.789  -1.074  17  -1    -331     191   0.15%  -0.40%
Rhode Island       1.562   1.467  -0.095   1  -1      21       7   0.07%   0.48%
South Carolina     6.521   6.728   0.207   7   =    -218     529   1.09%   0.17%
South Dakota       1.249   1.274   0.025   1   =     180      86   1.01%   4.96%
Tennessee          8.935   8.915  -0.020   9   =    -376     493   0.75%  -0.44%
Texas             35.350  38.730   3.381  39  +3    -433    4610   1.70%   1.38%
Utah               3.917   4.224   0.307   4   =     194     459   1.55%   2.81%
Vermont            1.012   0.956  -0.055   1   =     454       1   0.01%  12.18%
Virginia          11.258  11.392   0.134  11   =      34     743   0.89%   0.97%
Washington         9.466   9.903   0.437  10   =    -373     875   1.23%   0.16%
West Virginia      2.652   2.441  -0.211   2  -1      35     -17  -0.09%   0.31%
Wisconsin          8.010   7.629  -0.381   8   =    -149     162   0.28%  -0.26%
Wyoming            0.937   0.935  -0.002   1   =     473      44   0.75%  13.74%


Alabama has added an estimated 79K population, and is projected to add 73K more by 2020. If they were to add another 20K, they would retain the 7th district (because rounding of the final seats is based on a ranking of the states, there is also additional uncertainty).

Arizona was a very solid 9 districts in 2010, and is projected to gain a 10th on a favorable rounding. But if its projected increase of 856K were reduced by 22K to 834K, it would lose the 10th seat. On the other hand, Arizona has been increasing its population rate following recovery from the housing bubble.

California has been getting favorable rounding for the past few decades. If its projected increase of 3684K were to drop a bit, the rounding for 2020 would be lost, but California would actually earn its 53rd seat. Because of its large delegation California needs to add 3 million people just to tread water (the average district size will increase by nearly 60K this decade).

Florida would only need 73K additional population to gain a second seat. Based on an uptick over the past couple of years, this might almost be regarded as a certainty.

Minnesota could still avoid the loss of a district. It added 186K in the first 5.25 years, and is projected to add 173K more. If it could add another 54K it could keep the 7th seat.. However, Minnesota has had a slower growth the last couple of years.

Montana has been ever so close for ever so long (it sued over its loss of the second seat after the 1990 Census). Montana would only need to add another 7K persons beyond its projected increase of 85K. But in a state that has been adding 8K or so per year, another 7K is a lot.

New York could keep its 26th seat, but its growth has been declining the last couple of years.

Oregon really bumped up its growth for 2015 (57K versus 34K average for the first four years). If it were to drop back down, it might lose the 6th seat.

Rhode Island is only projected to gain 7K for the decade. To increase this to 28K is huge. Montana will likely equal Rhode Island's population by 2018.

Texas has been adding between 400K and 500K per year. A drop to around 350K per year is not out of the range of possibility if the oil price continue below $40/barrel, which would cause a loss of the 3rd additional seat.

Virginia is just short of the projected population for a 12th district. But its growth has been tapering off. If it doesn't add a district, the other districts will continue to be sucked into NOVA. Othewise a 4th district in the NOVA area would push the other districts back some.

West Virginia is estimated to have lost 9K by 2015, and lose another 8K by 2020. To convert this into an 18K increase for the decade would require a huge turn around.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 24, 2015, 03:20:23 pm
Any reason why Hawaii has a net negative domestic migration ?

I always thought HI is a magnet for mainland Americans to move to and retire or buy property, but it actually seems way more Americans are leaving HI for the mainland ...


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Asian Nazi on December 24, 2015, 03:24:12 pm
Any reason why Hawaii has a net negative domestic migration ?

I always thought HI is a magnet for mainland Americans to move to and retire or buy property, but it actually seems way more Americans are leaving HI for the mainland ...

Due to high cost of living and limited job opportunities, lots of younger locals move to the mainland.  My family is an example of this.

It could also have to do with the military.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Hillary pays minimum wage on December 25, 2015, 03:20:24 am
I've devoted my life to opposing statistics in many respects, but I have to take my hat off and admit that you found something interesting.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: hopper on December 26, 2015, 12:11:46 am

States with some uncertainty are in red.



Minnesota could still avoid the loss of a district. It added 186K in the first 5.25 years, and is projected to add 173K more. If it could add another 54K it could keep the 7th seat.. However, Minnesota has had a slower growth the last couple of years.

New York could keep its 26th seat, but its growth has been declining the last couple of years.


Virginia is just short of the projected population for a 12th district. But its growth has been tapering off. If it doesn't add a district, the other districts will continue to be sucked into NOVA. Othewise a 4th district in the NOVA area would push the other districts back some.

Yeah I thought the battle between losing a seat would be between New York and Minnesota but it looks like they are both gonna lose seats.

So if Virginia doesn't gain a seat who loses in redistricting? Comstock or Wittman on the Republican Side or maybe Conolly's district turns into a swing seat again? I was looking at the current Virginia Congressional Map and it doesn't look like Brat will be redistricted out. His district is to far off the Washington DC path. Beyer's district is too D for him to be redistricted out.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Kevinstat on January 03, 2016, 01:25:07 pm
State               2010    2020  Change Apportion  More   Change  Proj.   Needed
Alabama            6.737   6.438  -0.299   6  -1      20     152   0.31%   0.40%
Florida           26.435  28.245   1.810  28  +1      73    2896   1.44%   1.51%
Minnesota          7.472   7.388  -0.085   7  -1      54     359   0.66%   0.86%
Montana            1.478   1.485   0.007   1   =       7      85   0.82%   0.95%
New York          27.244  26.271  -0.973  26  -1      62     803   0.41%   0.47%
Rhode Island       1.562   1.467  -0.095   1  -1      21       7   0.07%   0.48%
Virginia          11.258  11.392   0.134  11   =      34     743   0.89%   0.97%
West Virginia      2.652   2.441  -0.211   2  -1      35     -17  -0.09%   0.31%
Arizona            8.999   9.447   0.448  10  +1     -22     856   1.26%   1.20%
California        52.369  53.283   0.914  54  +1    -189    3684   0.95%   0.85%
Oregon             5.408   5.511   0.103   6  +1     -45     386   0.96%   0.74%
Texas             35.350  38.730   3.381  39  +3    -433    4610   1.70%   1.38%

Based on your table, which I've altered to get rid of the states you didn't have in red, change red to green for the states that might end up better than your predicting (as opposed to worse, although maybe California could (by your mathematical standard) also be within range of gaining a 2nd seat (doing 1 better than your projection) or losing a seat (doing 2 worse than your projection)), and to put all the states in red after all those in green, you have 12 states competing for 4 seats, although as you pointed out some of the states I just put in green really don't have much chance of having a result other than your projected one.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on January 03, 2016, 10:41:12 pm
Edit: "New York is quite solid at either no change or losing one."

State               2010    2020  Change Apportion  More   Change  Proj.   Needed
Florida           26.435  28.245   1.810  28  +1      73    2896   1.44%   1.51%
Virginia          11.258  11.392   0.134  11   =      34     743   0.89%   0.97%
Montana            1.478   1.485   0.007   1   =       7      85   0.82%   0.95%
New York          27.244  26.271  -0.973  26  -1      62     803   0.41%   0.47%
Alabama            6.737   6.438  -0.299   6  -1      20     152   0.31%   0.40%
Minnesota          7.472   7.388  -0.085   7  -1      54     359   0.66%   0.86%
Rhode Island       1.562   1.467  -0.095   1  -1      21       7   0.07%   0.48%
West Virginia      2.652   2.441  -0.211   2  -1      35     -17  -0.09%   0.31%

Arizona            8.999   9.447   0.448  10  +1     -22     856   1.26%   1.20%
California        52.369  53.283   0.914  54  +1    -189    3684   0.95%   0.85%
Texas             35.350  38.730   3.381  39  +3    -433    4610   1.70%   1.38%
Oregon             5.408   5.511   0.103   6  +1     -45     386   0.96%   0.74%

Based on your table, which I've altered to get rid of the states you didn't have in red, change red to green for the states that might end up better than your predicting (as opposed to worse, although maybe California could (by your mathematical standard) also be within range of gaining a 2nd seat (doing 1 better than your projection) or losing a seat (doing 2 worse than your projection)), and to put all the states in red after all those in green, you have 12 states competing for 4 seats, although as you pointed out some of the states I just put in green really don't have much chance of having a result other than your projected one.
Thanks.

I have reordered the states based on the ratio of the needed growth rate vs. projected growth rate. For example, Florida would need to increase its growth rate from 1.44% to 1.51% to gain a second seat. The green states are ordered by most likely to do better. This ignores dynamic effects. For example, the growth rate in Florida has been increasing as a resulted of the recovery from the housing bubble. So it is actually quite likely to gain an additional seat. The growth rate has been declining in New York and Virginia, so their projections (loss of one for New York, no change for Virginia) are becoming more reliable.

While Arizona would appear to be the most vulnerable, its growth has also been recovering. California may be the most vulnerable. For the past two census, rounding has been favorable for larger states, and this may disappear. It depends on the overall distribution of state population, and the apportionment method does not systematically favor larger states.

Based on back of the envelope calculations:

With 53 districts, California gains an additional district with about a 2% gain. Over the 5 remaining years of the decade, this is annual increase of about 0.40%. So California would be around gaining a 55th district if it upped its increase to 1.25% per year, or could lose as seat if it were to drop to 0.45%.

For Texas, 1/36 is about 3%, or 0.6% for the remaining 5 years until the census. If the growth rate increased to 1.98% per year it would be in line for gaining 4 seats. This indicates that Texas is about as close to gaining 4 seats, as it as gaining 2.

For New York, 1/27 is about 4%, or 0.8% for the remaining 5 years until 2020. It would need to increase to 1.27% per year to gain a seat, or decline by 0.33% per year to lose two seats. New York is quite solid at either no change or losing one. Similarly Florida is quite solid at gaining either one or two.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: DINGO Joe on January 06, 2016, 11:21:22 am
I just realized that the 2014 estimates were slightly different for the states.  Did the revision occur with the release of the 2015 estimates, or was there some sort of interim revision?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on January 06, 2016, 11:23:52 am
I just realized that the 2014 estimates were slightly different for the states.  Did the revision occur with the release of the 2015 estimates, or was there some sort of interim revision?

Old estimates are always revised when the new numbers come out.

Also, after each 10-year Census the intercensal estimates are revised based on the new Census numbers.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on January 06, 2016, 03:58:02 pm
I just realized that the 2014 estimates were slightly different for the states.  Did the revision occur with the release of the 2015 estimates, or was there some sort of interim revision?
This is normal.

Based on a quick read of Population Estimate Metodology (PDF) (http://www.census.gov/popest/methodology/2015-natstcopr-meth.pdf), the difference may be due to lagging of reporting of vital statistics (birth and deaths).

They don't have any data for 2015, and only national data for 2014. So the 2015 estimates assume the same birth and death rate for 2015 as 2014, and there is also an adjustment for the lag in state and county reporting.

Next year, when making the 2016 estimates, they will have 2015 national vital statistics and 2014 state and local data. This means they will be able to improve the 2014 and 2015 estimates as well as making the 2016 estimates.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Sol on January 18, 2016, 01:31:43 pm
When Maryland gain a district?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Brittain33 on January 18, 2016, 03:18:48 pm
When Maryland gain a district?

According to Jim's table, it's trending very slightly downward.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on January 18, 2016, 06:55:20 pm
When Maryland gain a district?
When it is realized that the best solution for federal representation for the District of Columbia is to have residents vote with Maryland.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Torie on January 19, 2016, 11:13:23 am
"For New York, 1/27 is about 4%, or 0.8% for the remaining 5 years until 2020. It would need to increase to 1.27% per year to gain a seat, or decline by 0.33% per year to lose two seats. New York is quite solid at either no change or losing two. Similarly Florida is quite solid at gaining either one or two."

Based on the above, it appears to me that NY is quite solid to lose one, and only one, seat. What am I missing? Your figures represent pretty substantial changes in growth rates, and my impression is that the 9 upstate seats are pretty stable at having no growth up or down, thereby requiring a higher change in the NYC metro area to make a difference. I guess maybe NY could lose two seats, if Wall Street takes another rather long enduring dump.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on January 20, 2016, 10:40:13 am
"For New York, 1/27 is about 4%, or 0.8% for the remaining 5 years until 2020. It would need to increase to 1.27% per year to gain a seat, or decline by 0.33% per year to lose two seats. New York is quite solid at either no change or losing two. Similarly Florida is quite solid at gaining either one or two."

Based on the above, it appears to me that NY is quite solid to lose one, and only one, seat. What am I missing? Your figures represent pretty substantial changes in growth rates, and my impression is that the 9 upstate seats are pretty stable at having no growth up or down, thereby requiring a higher change in the NYC metro area to make a difference. I guess maybe NY could lose two seats, if Wall Street takes another rather long enduring dump.
I miswrote. New York is quite solid at either no change or losing one.

Losing two would require New York to start losing population (50,000 or so per year). Gaining one, would require a substantial increase in population.

New York is projected to increase by 803K. If it could increase by 62K more, it would be in position to not lose a seat. Prior to this year, New York was projected to not lose a seat, but its growth rate has slowed a bit. Since the 2020 projection is based on an assumption that the 2010-2015 growth rate will be maintained, it is optimistic.

One reason that it is difficult to project apportionment is it is based on a competition among the states.

Imagine that it were a marathon, and New York were on a pace for a 3:43 finish. We would look at past results and say that would be good for 438th place. We might also say that the average spacing was 21 seconds per place.

But when we are at the finish line in this race, the runners are not going to be spread out at 21 second intervals. And even if New York finishes at 3:43 it might get 435th. And this is without even considering changes in pace over the remainder of the race.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Torie on January 20, 2016, 11:16:55 am
OK, thanks. Giving the the nine upstate NY CD's are so stably stagnant, NYC metro growth would have to increase by a pretty brisk rate to avoid losing a seat, putting aside your footrace comment. Any NY growth slowed down this last year didn't it, suggesting NYC metro area growth is slowing down, which makes sense given Wall Street is slowing down, and now slowing down some more.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Torie on January 21, 2016, 09:44:40 am
If the growth rates for each state over the past two years, continue at that rate for the balance of the census period, what would be the CD allocation for each state? That might be an interesting projection.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on January 21, 2016, 01:02:10 pm
If the growth rates for each state over the past two years, continue at that rate for the balance of the census period, what would be the CD allocation for each state? That might be an interesting projection.

I looked at that when the numbers came out. Compared to the five-year data the only change I project is that CA stays the same and FL gets +2 instead of +1. AZ 10 was the last seat in that projection and CA 54 is the next.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Torie on January 21, 2016, 01:18:06 pm
If the growth rates for each state over the past two years, continue at that rate for the balance of the census period, what would be the CD allocation for each state? That might be an interesting projection.

I looked at that when the numbers came out. Compared to the five-year data the only change I project is that CA stays the same and FL gets +2 instead of +1. AZ 10 was the last seat in that projection and CA 54 is the next.

It looks like in NY, if the same slow growth of the last two years persists until the end of the census cycle, and the population of the 9 upstate CD's stays the same, that NY-18 just takes Columbia County (still about 7,000 short, but that can be fudged), with a pack penalty incurred, while NY-17 retains Sullivan County.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: hopper on January 30, 2016, 07:59:06 pm
In addition to FL breaking 20 million, let's see how my estimates turned out:



AZ will overtake MA. TRUE

TN could overtake IN, but probably not this year but next. TRUE (next year)

SC will overtake AL. TRUE


MS and AR might break 3 Mio. people for the first time (but it's more likely that UT does before them). Semi-true: MS and AR did not break 3 million, but UT overtook them with 2.996 million and definitely is above 3 million already.

NH could pass ME. TRUE

Quote
Yes NH passed ME.

Other states that can pass each other in population:

Colorado should pass Minnesota in population next year for the 21st largest state in population.

AR will come close to passing MS in population next year but I think will just miss.

On a side note I wonder how much population is Illinois's is gonna lose given they lost 23,000 people last year in natural population in the last 2 census cycles going from 12.859 million people  this year to 12.882 people last year and from 12.889 people from the year before in 2013. Illinois is now back to the population that it had in 2011 with 12.681 million people.



Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 17, 2016, 01:51:41 am
New mid-2016 population estimates are out next Tuesday for the US, the states, DC and Puerto Rico as well as the voting-age estimates for each state and demographic changes over the past year (births, deaths, migration balances - which includes international and domestic migration estimates for each state).

Something to look at:

* CO will overtake MN in terms of total population
* PA could overtake IL, but that's very unlikely (more likely in 2017)
* NJ could hit 9 million (also unlikely => 2017)
* TN will overtake IN's population
* UT will definitely pass the 3 million
* AR could hit 3 million too (but much more likely that it will be in 2017)
* NV will overtake KS

---

* TX will remain the state with the biggest numerical gain (+450k)
* FL and CA will follow with +350k each
* WA might actually become the 4th fastest growing state numerically
* GA and NC still have steady high growth (+130K each)
* CO and AZ will be around +100K each
* OR probably picked up some speed (+70K)
* The 10th slot will go to SC (+65K)

---

In terms of % growth, a couple states will match themselves for 1st place because I guess ND's growth will fall back a bit to 1.5%

CO, NV, FL, UT, TX and DC are likely to grow between 1.7 and 2% each.

Hard to say who comes out on top ...

---

In general, births in the US dropped by 1% last year while deaths increased by 3.5% - resulting in a lower natural increase.

The big unknown is the immigration balance.

In general I believe the US population is up a bit less than last year (2.45 million vs. 2.51 million), but if the migration surplus was higher that could also change.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 17, 2016, 09:01:13 am
My estimates for the TOP-10 states:

CA: 39.52 million (+380k) +1.0%
TX: 27.98 million (+510k) +1.8%
FL: 20.65 million (+380k) +1.8%
NY: 19.84 million (+ 45k) +0.2%
IL: 12.83 million  (- 30k) -0.2%
PA: 12.82 million  (+12k) +0.1%
OH: 11.63 million (+16k) +0.1%
GA: 10.35 million (+135k) +1.3%
NC: 10.16 million (+117k) +1.1%


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 17, 2016, 09:07:42 am
New mid-2016 population estimates are out next Tuesday for the US, the states, DC and Puerto Rico as well as the voting-age estimates for each state and demographic changes over the past year (births, deaths, migration balances - which includes international and domestic migration estimates for each state).

Something to look at:

* CO will overtake MN in terms of total population
* PA could overtake IL, but that's very unlikely (more likely in 2017)
* NJ could hit 9 million (also unlikely => 2017)
* TN will overtake IN's population
* UT will definitely pass the 3 million
* AR could hit 3 million too (but much more likely that it will be in 2017)
* NV will overtake KS

---

* TX will remain the state with the biggest numerical gain (+450k)
* FL and CA will follow with +350k each
* WA might actually become the 4th fastest growing state numerically
* GA and NC still have steady high growth (+130K each)
* CO and AZ will be around +100K each
* OR probably picked up some speed (+70K)
* The 10th slot will go to SC (+65K)

---

In terms of % growth, a couple states will match themselves for 1st place because I guess ND's growth will fall back a bit to 1.5%

CO, NV, FL, UT, TX and DC are likely to grow between 1.7 and 2% each.

Hard to say who comes out on top ...

---

In general, births in the US dropped by 1% last year while deaths increased by 3.5% - resulting in a lower natural increase.

The big unknown is the immigration balance.

In general I believe the US population is up a bit less than last year (2.45 million vs. 2.51 million), but if the migration surplus was higher that could also change.
ND could totally collapse. No jobs on the rigs, means no support jobs in grocery stores, construction of apartments, etc. These are the types of jobs that will instantly disappear. Without family roots, people will pack up and move on.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 17, 2016, 09:22:32 am
I don't see a total collapse in ND.

Maybe down to +1% from the previous year's 2% (when it was still the fastest growing state in the US, even though oil prices already went down).

ND still has much more births than deaths and some people are still moving there, so probably no total collapse ...


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 17, 2016, 09:28:04 am
I don't see a total collapse in ND.

Maybe down to +1% from the previous year's 2% (when it was still the fastest growing state in the US, even though oil prices already went down).

ND still has much more births than deaths and some people are still moving there, so probably no total collapse ...
They'll take their children with them when they move.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 17, 2016, 10:19:01 am
I don't see a total collapse in ND.

Maybe down to +1% from the previous year's 2% (when it was still the fastest growing state in the US, even though oil prices already went down).

ND still has much more births than deaths and some people are still moving there, so probably no total collapse ...
They'll take their children with them when they move.

Probably a silly thing for me to post ... but some families may stay put and wait for higher oil prices rather than moving out of the state. Some might also have moved to bigger ND cities who are less dependent on oil and gas in the meantime ...


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: RINO Tom on December 17, 2016, 11:14:27 am
New mid-2016 population estimates are out next Tuesday for the US, the states, DC and Puerto Rico as well as the voting-age estimates for each state and demographic changes over the past year (births, deaths, migration balances - which includes international and domestic migration estimates for each state).

Something to look at:

* CO will overtake MN in terms of total population
* PA could overtake IL, but that's very unlikely (more likely in 2017)
* NJ could hit 9 million (also unlikely => 2017)
* TN will overtake IN's population
* UT will definitely pass the 3 million
* AR could hit 3 million too (but much more likely that it will be in 2017)
* NV will overtake KS

---

* TX will remain the state with the biggest numerical gain (+450k)
* FL and CA will follow with +350k each
* WA might actually become the 4th fastest growing state numerically
* GA and NC still have steady high growth (+130K each)
* CO and AZ will be around +100K each
* OR probably picked up some speed (+70K)
* The 10th slot will go to SC (+65K)

---

In terms of % growth, a couple states will match themselves for 1st place because I guess ND's growth will fall back a bit to 1.5%

CO, NV, FL, UT, TX and DC are likely to grow between 1.7 and 2% each.

Hard to say who comes out on top ...

---

In general, births in the US dropped by 1% last year while deaths increased by 3.5% - resulting in a lower natural increase.

The big unknown is the immigration balance.

In general I believe the US population is up a bit less than last year (2.45 million vs. 2.51 million), but if the migration surplus was higher that could also change.

NEVER! :P


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: White Trash on December 17, 2016, 12:02:35 pm
Surprised that PA might overtake IL. Is all this growth in urban areas?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 17, 2016, 12:23:54 pm
Surprised that PA might overtake IL. Is all this growth in urban areas?

Mostly, yes.

And the suburban areas in the South-East.

The areas which swung heavily to Trump are losing population fast. The light-blue areas and the red ones, which swung slightly to Hillary, are having modest population gains:

(
Img
)

citypopulation.de has a nice clickable map of population changes by county:

https://www.citypopulation.de/php/usa-census-admin.php


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: RINO Tom on December 17, 2016, 12:27:31 pm
At least as of a couple years ago, literally the only places in IL with any growth were some north and northwest Chicago suburbs, some Peoria suburbs, Bloomington-Normal and Champaign (growing like crazy, not necessarily in population terms, but in redevelopment and revitalization). :(


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 18, 2016, 02:38:10 am
I don't see a total collapse in ND.

Maybe down to +1% from the previous year's 2% (when it was still the fastest growing state in the US, even though oil prices already went down).

ND still has much more births than deaths and some people are still moving there, so probably no total collapse ...
They'll take their children with them when they move.

Probably a silly thing for me to post ... but some families may stay put and wait for higher oil prices rather than moving out of the state. Some might also have moved to bigger ND cities who are less dependent on oil and gas in the meantime ...
Rig count:

June 2014: 170 (and had been around that range for 3 years, and would be for another 1/2 year).
June 2015: 77 (55% drop in 6 months). You may hang on now.
June 2016: 24

A lot of people would be moving in for opportunities. As workers take jobs on rigs, other employers have to push up wages, motels might be built, people hired in truck rental agencies, etc. Some people would move from Fargo and Grand Forks, and rent a trailer, but others would move from Rapid City and Gillette, and beyond.

If you built a motel, and have 80% vacancy, you're going to let everyone go, and pay the others minimum wages, as you try to hang on.

The timing is right for July 2016 to have 0% growth. I'm not saying that it will go negative. It just won't have growth like before.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 18, 2016, 04:28:51 am
This will be interesting to see who's right ...

I'm still predicting some 0.8% to 1.5% growth for ND between 7/2015 and 7/2016.

Do we have any other indicator of people moving out of ND over the past year other than the fall of oil rigs ?

Did the overall ND economy collapse last year and in the first half of 2016 ?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 18, 2016, 10:58:49 am
This will be interesting to see who's right ...

I'm still predicting some 0.8% to 1.5% growth for ND between 7/2015 and 7/2016.

Do we have any other indicator of people moving out of ND over the past year other than the fall of oil rigs ?

Did the overall ND economy collapse last year and in the first half of 2016 ?
Budget shortfalls.

I found one article that said there was a small increase in school enrollment, as kindergartners entered the system. It also said rig workers tended to be 2-week on and 2-week off, and not necessarily from the state. I met a work who was on his way from Shreveport for a 2-week shift, and was getting 100 hours per week, which with overtime would be equivalent to 130 hours. But production workers were more local.

Another article used IRS data that showed the average taxpayer moving to North Dakota between 2014 and 2015 experienced a 26% increase in income, the highest in the country. All states other than California showed an improvement for in-movers. If you move to California, you will see a loss in income plus impossible housing costs.

North Dakota still has one of the lowest unemployment rates, but that may be because population matches employment opportunities. North Dakota can be miserable in winter (Williston has a forecast of wind chill of -55 F (-48 C).


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Gass3268 on December 20, 2016, 10:29:12 am
North Dakota plummeted down to 0.1%, Utah was the fastest growing state, 8 states lost population (CT, IL, MS, NY, PA, VT, WV, and WY).


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 20, 2016, 10:34:23 am
ND down to 0.1% growth, from 2.3% in the previous year.

:o


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 20, 2016, 10:35:35 am
Interesting that NY lost population ...

(
Img
)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Gass3268 on December 20, 2016, 10:42:54 am
So much for New York not losing a congressional seat.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 20, 2016, 10:48:03 am
FL now has a higher domestic migration gain than TX ...

And NY has the worst domestic migration loss of all states (almost 200K people last year).


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 20, 2016, 10:56:41 am
As a percentage of the state's population, OR had the biggest domestic migration gain of all states.

NY once again the worst loss.

When it comes to international migration though, DC, MA and NY had the biggest gains - MT had the smallest international gain.

When both domestic and international migration are combined, the results show that FL, NV and OR had the biggest gains, while WY, IL and ND had the biggest losses.



Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 20, 2016, 10:58:39 am
UT and ND had the highest birth rates last year, NH and ME the lowest.

UT also had the lowest death rate, WV the highest.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 20, 2016, 11:02:42 am
Despite ND's economic collapse over the past year, 3 states actually had a higher domestic outmigration rate than ND:

NY
IL
CT


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 20, 2016, 11:10:19 am
Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2016 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 6 and a quarter year 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.

AL -1
AZ +1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

There is only one change since my projections last year (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=166668.msg4837582#msg4837582). CA stays unchanged at 53 instead of adding a seat and FL gains 2 instead of 1 up to 29. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are IL-17, TX-39, CA-53, AZ-10, and FL-29 (#435).
The next five in line are MT-2, AL-7, CA-54, VA-12, and MN-8.

An alternate projection could use just the last two years of estimates to determine the rate of growth for the rest of the decade. That model gives the same projection as the one above, with changes only in the order of the bubble seats.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 20, 2016, 11:15:35 am
Based on muon's model, states won by Trump would gain 2 EV after the 2020 Census, while Hillary states would lose 2.

Using Obama 2012, Obama states would lose 3, Romney states gain 3.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 20, 2016, 11:25:50 am
States with high population growth mostly trended to Hillary, while virtually all states that lost population last year (except IL) trended to Trump.

That is pretty similar to Austria: In regions with high population growth, the Green VdB did well - but (periphery) regions with slow growth or losses voted for Hofer.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 20, 2016, 12:02:03 pm
If Austria were a US state, it would:

* be the 12th biggest state (after NJ - with 8.78 million people)
* have the 5th highest numerical population increase (after TX, FL, CA and WA - at 116.000 people)
* have the 11th highest percentage population growth (tied with SC at 1.35%)
* have the 4th lowest birth rate (9.9/1000, after NH, ME and VT)
* rank 21st when it comes to the death rate (9.0/1000)
* have the 4th highest migration surplus (tied with WA)
* have the highest international migration surplus


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: VirginiŠ on December 20, 2016, 12:33:22 pm
If Austria were a US state, it would:

* be the 12th biggest state (after NJ - with 8.78 million people)
* have the 5th highest numerical population increase (after TX, FL, CA and WA - at 116.000 people)
* have the 11th highest percentage population growth (tied with SC at 1.35%)
* have the 4th lowest birth rate (9.9/1000, after NH, ME and VT)
* rank 21st when it comes to the death rate (9.0/1000)
* have the 4th highest migration surplus (tied with WA)
* have the highest international migration surplus

I'd also like to add:

* 14th largest clustering of people around Tender's house, particularly the basement area.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Nyvin on December 20, 2016, 02:00:03 pm
Is there any set date when the county estimates come out?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 20, 2016, 02:58:46 pm
Is there any set date when the county estimates come out?

They come out in March, I don't know if there's a public date yet.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: LLR on December 20, 2016, 04:13:44 pm
NY losing population? Sad!

Any reason why, though?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 20, 2016, 04:48:32 pm
NY losing population? Sad!

Any reason why, though?

Here are the relevant components:
Births +237K
Deaths -161K
Natural increase +76K

International migration +118K
Domestic migration -191K
Net migration -73K

Total population change -2K

Note that's the sum of natural change and migration is a 3K increase not the -2K decrease that's being reported. According to the CB the change "includes a residual. This residual represents the change in population that cannot be attributed to any specific demographic component. See Population Estimates Terms and Definitions at http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/about/glossary.html."

In any case the largest factor in the decline in NY is the net migration to other states.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: krazen1211 on December 20, 2016, 05:37:15 pm
Illinois losing 2 Congressional districts could put a damper on the ruthless gerrymander.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: KingSweden on December 20, 2016, 05:58:58 pm
Illinois losing 2 Congressional districts could put a damper on the ruthless gerrymander.

The county estimates will be interesting in that regard. Probably an odd mix of downstate and downscale Chicago suburbs


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tintrlvr on December 20, 2016, 06:36:50 pm
NY losing population? Sad!

Any reason why, though?

I would guess that, as in the past, the main cause is continued decline in upstate (both urban and rural) due to poor economic conditions and undesirable weather, along with stagnation of growth (or possibly even decline) in outer suburban NYC counties like Suffolk and Orange. NYC itself is still growing at a good clip relative to other large cities.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 20, 2016, 07:28:59 pm
Illinois losing 2 Congressional districts could put a damper on the ruthless gerrymander.

The county estimates will be interesting in that regard. Probably an odd mix of downstate and downscale Chicago suburbs

IL would have to lose at least 200K through the rest of the decade to lose a second CD. That's a much faster pace than losses have occurred so far, and short of stopping legal immigration (not just illegal immigration), it's hard to see IL lose that much in the next 3+ years.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Nyvin on December 20, 2016, 08:35:55 pm
Illinois losing 2 Congressional districts could put a damper on the ruthless gerrymander.

It goes that FL-29 is the last seat to be added, then AZ-10 second to last, etc, then IL-17 is the fifth to last.   So the bottom five are

431:  IL-17
432:  TX-39
433: CA-53
434: AZ-10
435: FL-29

So for Illinois to lose a seat, it would "currently" mean the other four either passed IL or all five dropped further down the list, replaced by other states.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Figueira on December 20, 2016, 09:20:33 pm
So, California might lose a congressional district?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Kevinstat on December 20, 2016, 09:35:14 pm
So, California might lose a congressional district?
It's kind of on the bubble for both gaining and losing a seat I guess.  A fairly small difference in growth rate can be the difference between x+1 seats and x-1 seats in a state with as many current seats (x) as California.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on December 20, 2016, 11:16:22 pm
Hmmm... could the oil crash put TX-39 in doubt again by 2020?  And I'm surprised MT is holding up so well given the collapse in ND.  VA-12 now seems quite unlikely, especially with Republicans taking control of the federal budget.  IL losing 2 CDs would really be something.

There is little reason for Montana's population to collapse.  Montana's growth isn't one-tenth as dependent on oil as North Dakota's.  Besides, the portion of eastern Montana near North Dakota is sparsely populated.  Its oil patch cities are few and far between - Sidney and perhaps Glendive, but even categorizing Glendive as an oil patch city is a stretch. 


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 21, 2016, 03:14:04 am
ND down to 0.1% growth, from 2.3% in the previous year.
:o
:)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 21, 2016, 04:02:24 am
Through 2016 there have been the following changes.

Florida +1 to 28.
North Carolina +1 to 14
Oregon +1 to 6
Texas +1 to 37

Illinois -1 to 17
Michigan -1 to 13
Minnesota -1 to 7
Pennsylvania -1 to 17

Were this Australia, a redistribution would have occurred, but this would have been in 2015 or earlier. There were no changes this year.

Projected additional changes by 2020:

Arizona +1 to 10
Colorado +1 to 8
Florida +1 (more) to 29 *** This is a change ***
Texas +2 to 39

Alabama -1 to 6
New York -1 to 26
Ohio -1 to 15
Rhode Island -1 to 1
West Virginia -1 to 2

California 0 to 53 *** This is a change ***


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 21, 2016, 12:45:27 pm
So, California might lose a congressional district?
States get a proportional share of the representatives. A state that grows at the decennial national growth rate (10% for 2000-2010, 7.6% estimated for 2010-2020) will maintain its representation - subject to collective rounding.

California can go from 52.5/435 to 53.5/435 of the population with an increase of 1.9% in population relative to that of the country. So a 9.5% increase would add one representative, a 5.7% increase would subtract one representative.

But you also have to consider rounding. California can spread any error around among 53 districts. For the past two decades the overall distribution has been favorable to rounding up. California was entitled to less than 52.5 districts, but got a favorable rounding. In 2010, CA, FL, MN, TX, and WA all got favorable rounding.

By 2020, it is estimated that only FL will get a favorable rounding.

So California might get rounded from 52.3 to 53 one census; and from 52.7 to 52 the next.

Another factor is that the Census Bureau revises its estimates.

In 2015, the estimate of the 2015 population was 39.144M.

In 2016, the estimate of the 2015 population was 38.994M.
In 2016, the estimate of the 2016 population was 39.250M.

Based on the 2015 and 2016 vintage estimates California only grew 0.27%.
Based on 2016 vintage estimates the increase was 0.66%.

While growth has slowed, it was not as severe as suggested by two different vintages.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 21, 2016, 01:20:15 pm
Hmmm... could the oil crash put TX-39 in doubt again by 2020?  And I'm surprised MT is holding up so well given the collapse in ND.  VA-12 now seems quite unlikely, especially with Republicans taking control of the federal budget.  IL losing 2 CDs would really be something.
There is little reason for Montana's population to collapse.  Montana's growth isn't one-tenth as dependent on oil as North Dakota's.  Besides, the portion of eastern Montana near North Dakota is sparsely populated.  Its oil patch cities are few and far between - Sidney and perhaps Glendive, but even categorizing Glendive as an oil patch city is a stretch. 
Williston is a long way from anywhere. The closet city with 100,000+ cities is Regina, which is closer than Billings and Fargo. Regina is also the closest capital.

There is so little population base in the area that Minot and Bismarck have also had considerable growth this decade. You might be able to commute from Minot at least for a few months until you found an apartment or mobile home closer.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 21, 2016, 02:03:15 pm
It appears that traditional growth areas in the West are having accelerated growth, with both the 1st and 2nd derivatives positive in WA, OR, NV, AZ, UT, ID, MT and CO.

The most dramatic effect has been in Oregon which has dawdled along below 6 seats for some time. They made the 2020 projection for a gain in 2015; and actually would have achieved it in 2016.

Based on the 2016 vintage estimates:

2011: CO+1, FL+1, NC+1, TX+3, VA+1; AL-1; IL-1; MI-1, MN-1, OH-1, PA-1, RI-1.
Actual change: NC+1; MN-1

2012: CO+1, FL+1, NC+1, TX+3, VA+1; AL-1; IL-1, MI-1, MN-1, OH-1, PA-1, RI-1.
Actual change: NC+1; MN-1

2013: CO+1, FL+1, NC+1, TX+3, VA+1; AL=0; IL-1, MI-1,  MN-1, OH-1, PA-1, RI-1, WV-1.
Actual change: NC+1; MN-1

West Virginia has turned negative and declined for the past four years. It, in effect, dropped faster than Alabama.

2014: CO+1, FL+1, NC+1, TX+3, VA+1; AL=0; IL-1, MI-1,  MN-1, OH-1, PA-1, RI-1, WV-1.
Actual change: NC+1, TX+1; MN-1, PA-1

2015: AZ+1, CA+1, CO+1, FL+1, NC+1, OR+1, TX+3, VA=0; AL-1, IL-1, MI-1,  MN-1, NY-1, OH-1, PA-1, RI-1, WV-1.
Actual change: FL+1, NC+1, TX+1; IL-1, MN-1, PA-1

Accelerating growth in the West added three seats in Arizona, California, and Oregon, at the expense of Alabama, New York, and Virginia. In the case of Alabama and Virginia it was a case of being caught by faster gainers, while New York has had a substantial decline in growth (and its projected population for 2020).

2016: AZ+1, CO+1, FL+2, NC+1, OR+1, TX+3; CA=0, VA=0;  AL-1, IL-1, MI-1,  MN-1, NY-1, OH-1, PA-1, RI-1, WV-1.
Actual change: FL+1, NC+1, OR+1, TX+1; IL-1, MI-1, MN-1, PA-1

Accelerating growth in Florida gives it a second seat by the end of the decade while the growth rate in California is declining. Oregon actually gains its 6th seat, one year after being projected to gain a seat.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: King Francis I on December 21, 2016, 07:13:52 pm
Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2016 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 6 and a quarter year 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.

AL -1
AZ +1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

There is only one change since my projections last year (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=166668.msg4837582#msg4837582). CA stays unchanged at 53 instead of adding a seat and FL gains 2 instead of 1 up to 29. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are IL-17, TX-39, CA-53, AZ-10, and FL-29 (#435).
The next five in line are MT-2, AL-7, CA-54, VA-12, and MN-8.

An alternate projection could use just the last two years of estimates to determine the rate of growth for the rest of the decade. That model gives the same projection as the one above, with changes only in the order of the bubble seats.
Wait, IL might lose 2 CDs?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: ○∙◄☻•tπ[╪AV┼cVÍ└ on December 21, 2016, 09:50:11 pm
Even losing one would be sort of a victory for NY since it'd be the first time it didn't lose multiple since peaking at 45 in the '30s and '40s.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 22, 2016, 05:25:08 am
The last five awarded are IL-17, TX-39, CA-53, AZ-10, and FL-29 (#435).
The next five in line are MT-2, AL-7, CA-54, VA-12, and MN-8.

An alternate projection could use just the last two years of estimates to determine the rate of growth for the rest of the decade. That model gives the same projection as the one above, with changes only in the order of the bubble seats.
Wait, IL might lose 2 CDs?
Illinois was entitled to 18.043 representatives in 2010, and is projected at 16.710 in 2020.

For 2000 and 2010, larger states with a fraction less than 0.5 were being rounded upward. But it appears that this tendency may be balancing out. Arizona and Florida are increasing their growth, so that a projection that assumes a constant rate of increase will underestimate the population, so AZ-10 and FL-29 will likely pass IL-17 by 2020.

For MT-2 or AL-7 etc. to pass IL-17 would require an even larger decrease for Illinois. Illinois has been negative for the past 3 years, and the rate of decline is increasing .

So it appears to be in the realm of possibility, but perhaps not likelihood.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 24, 2016, 02:10:47 am
Question:

The 2020 Census is done on April 1, 2020 (and slightly before and after that).

But the results + apportionment of CD's and EV's are only announced in December 2020.

So, are the new EV numbers already used for the 2020 Presidential election, or only for 2024 ?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: hopper on December 24, 2016, 03:21:17 am
ND down to 0.1% growth, from 2.3% in the previous year.

:o
ND lost 4,700 people in terms of migration(international and domestic combined) from 2015-2016.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: hopper on December 24, 2016, 03:28:54 am
NY losing population? Sad!

Any reason why, though?

Here are the relevant components:
Births +237K
Deaths -161K
Natural increase +76K

International migration +118K
Domestic migration -191K
Net migration -73K

Total population change -2K

Note that's the sum of natural change and migration is a 3K increase not the -2K decrease that's being reported. According to the CB the change "includes a residual. This residual represents the change in population that cannot be attributed to any specific demographic component. See Population Estimates Terms and Definitions at http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/about/glossary.html."

In any case the largest factor in the decline in NY is the net migration to other states.

International Immigration was enough from 2010/2011-2013/2014 of Census Periods to offset Domestic Migration Losses during that time period. However in both Census Periods of 2014/2015 and 2015/2016  International Migration was not enough to offset Domestic Migration during that time period.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 24, 2016, 04:29:22 am
Question:

The 2020 Census is done on April 1, 2020 (and slightly before and after that).

But the results + apportionment of CD's and EV's are only announced in December 2020.

So, are the new EV numbers already used for the 2020 Presidential election, or only for 2024 ?

The next apportionment comes out after the 2020 election, so it will first be used in the 2022 off-year election and the presidential election of 2024.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 24, 2016, 05:02:50 am
Question:

The 2020 Census is done on April 1, 2020 (and slightly before and after that).

But the results + apportionment of CD's and EV's are only announced in December 2020.

So, are the new EV numbers already used for the 2020 Presidential election, or only for 2024 ?

The next apportionment comes out after the 2020 election, so it will first be used in the 2022 off-year election and the presidential election of 2024.

Interesting, thanks.

If they'd release the numbers 2 months earlier, they could already use the newly apportioned EV for the 2020 Presidential Election, instead of waiting 4 years.

But I guess calculating the results from the Census takes some time ...


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 24, 2016, 05:26:42 am
Question:

The 2020 Census is done on April 1, 2020 (and slightly before and after that).

But the results + apportionment of CD's and EV's are only announced in December 2020.

So, are the new EV numbers already used for the 2020 Presidential election, or only for 2024 ?

The next apportionment comes out after the 2020 election, so it will first be used in the 2022 off-year election and the presidential election of 2024.

Interesting, thanks.

If they'd release the numbers 2 months earlier, they could already use the newly apportioned EV for the 2020 Presidential Election, instead of waiting 4 years.

But I guess calculating the results from the Census takes some time ...

They'd need the numbers well before that. The electors are selected at state party conventions before the national conventions. The follow up Census for those who didn't respond isn't done until the summer, but by then state conventions have already occurred.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Nyvin on December 24, 2016, 10:54:16 am
Question:

The 2020 Census is done on April 1, 2020 (and slightly before and after that).

But the results + apportionment of CD's and EV's are only announced in December 2020.

So, are the new EV numbers already used for the 2020 Presidential election, or only for 2024 ?

The next apportionment comes out after the 2020 election, so it will first be used in the 2022 off-year election and the presidential election of 2024.

Interesting, thanks.

If they'd release the numbers 2 months earlier, they could already use the newly apportioned EV for the 2020 Presidential Election, instead of waiting 4 years.

But I guess calculating the results from the Census takes some time ...

I don't think that would work either,  the candidates need to know what district their primary will be in well in advance of the actual election.   


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: hopper on December 24, 2016, 12:38:31 pm
States that passed each other in the population rankings in 2016:

Tennessee passed Indiana for 16th most populous state

Colorado passed Minnesota for 21st most populous state

Utah passed Mississippi for 31st most populous state

Nevada passed Kansas for most 34 most populous state(I think that happened this year.)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: hopper on December 24, 2016, 12:57:21 pm
Surprised that PA might overtake IL. Is all this growth in urban areas?
PA lost 7,700 people in terms of population overall (taking into account international and domestic migration, births, deaths) and Illinois lost 37,5000 in terms of population overall in the 2015-2016 Census Period.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Vern on December 24, 2016, 12:57:39 pm
Could NC pass GA in the next few years in population?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 24, 2016, 01:29:11 pm
Could NC pass GA in the next few years in population?

GA and NC are both growing at a rate of 1.0%/year. The were 162K apart in pop in 2010 an GA got a favorable rounding to give it one more seat than NC. In the 2016 estimate GA is 172K ahead of NC so GA is actually gaining slightly faster and should stay ahead of NC.

If they maintain the same rate of growth for the whole decade GA will be 181K ahead of NC for the 2020 census. However, this time GA will round down and NC will round up so NC gains a seat to equalize with GA.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Torie on December 24, 2016, 06:07:13 pm
In other news, Hudson seems to be on track to fall a tad below 6,000 (excluding the prisoner population). No, I have not crunched the numbers - it was just an eyeball thing. On my block, since the 2010 census, I suspect that the drop has been around 40% - just massive. But I am bring a new unit on line on my block. But I see no abatement to the trend. If anything it is accelerating, and since the local school district is so horrible, the new folks moving in, into refurbished housing, or who refurbish, convert multi family dwellings to single family, etc., are almost always folks with no kids, or with kids who don't live at home (they have achieved the age of majority). So Hudson is moving slowly towards more well to do folks with no kids in school, or in private school, or folks with kids, who are poor.

Quite a toxic combo really, and replicated across the Fruited Plain. We have a problem! Who knew?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Snowguy716 on December 24, 2016, 06:56:20 pm
In other news, Hudson seems to be on track to fall a tad below 6,000 (excluding the prisoner population). No, I have not crunched the numbers - it was just an eyeball thing. On my block, since the 2010 census, I suspect that the drop has been around 40% - just massive. But I am bring a new unit on line on my block. But I see no abatement to the trend. If anything it is accelerating, and since the local school district is so horrible, the new folks moving in, into refurbished housing, or who refurbish, convert multi family dwellings to single family, etc., are almost always folks with no kids, or with kids who don't live at home (they have achieved the age of majority). So Hudson is moving slowly towards more well to do folks with no kids in school, or in private school, or folks with kids, who are poor.

Quite a toxic combo really, and replicated across the Fruited Plain. We have a problem! Who knew?
Basically what demographers predicted to happen by the 1990s is only now starting to occur.  An irreversible trend of fast aging and population decline for the vast majority of the U.S.  Already the winners and losers among big cities are being picked... Denver, Seattle, Houston, Dallas win... Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis lose...

Upstate New York is in for it... without a new baby boom.. because people tend to have kids in place (as opposed to attracting immigrants)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 24, 2016, 11:38:20 pm
Question:

The 2020 Census is done on April 1, 2020 (and slightly before and after that).

But the results + apportionment of CD's and EV's are only announced in December 2020.

So, are the new EV numbers already used for the 2020 Presidential election, or only for 2024 ?
The number of representatives take effect with the term beginning on January 3, 2023. If there is a special election in 2022 to fill a vacancy in the house, the old boundaries will be used, even if a primary for the new boundaries is held at the same time. Some states with odd-year legislative elections may use the new census data for 2011 elections.

Based on the 2000 census data, the population of the Bush states and the Gore states was extremely close. Had the 2000 apportion been used, Bush would have won the electoral vote based on winning the greater number of states carried and the two senate-based electors. This would have been true even if thousands of representatives had been apportioned.

The electoral vote was as close as it was, only because it was based on 10+ year old data.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 24, 2016, 11:39:20 pm
Is there any set date when the county estimates come out?

They come out in March, I don't know if there's a public date yet.
It appears to be March 23, with an embargoed release on March 21.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: / on January 23, 2017, 08:19:09 am
What are NC's chances of getting a 15th district in 2030?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on January 23, 2017, 10:07:39 am
What are NC's chances of getting a 15th district in 2030?

As I noted above, GA is maintaining its lead over NC this decade. If that continues into the next decade then GA gets its 15th CD before NC. The question you would have to ask is what conditions are needed for both GA and NC to gain in 2030. That requires some guesses about changes in growth in places like TX and FL, and how much the Rust Belt slows compared to the rest of the US. That's hard so far out without a lot of other projection data that isn't in the basic estimate.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Kevinstat on January 30, 2017, 07:39:33 pm
In other news, Hudson seems to be on track to fall a tad below 6,000 (excluding the prisoner population). No, I have not crunched the numbers - it was just an eyeball thing. On my block, since the 2010 census, I suspect that the drop has been around 40% - just massive. But I am bring a new unit on line on my block. But I see no abatement to the trend. If anything it is accelerating, and since the local school district is so horrible, the new folks moving in, into refurbished housing, or who refurbish, convert multi family dwellings to single family, etc., are almost always folks with no kids, or with kids who don't live at home (they have achieved the age of majority). So Hudson is moving slowly towards more well to do folks with no kids in school, or in private school, or folks with kids, who are poor.

Quite a toxic combo really, and replicated across the Fruited Plain. We have a problem! Who knew?
Basically what demographers predicted to happen by the 1990s is only now starting to occur.  An irreversible trend of fast aging and population decline for the vast majority of the U.S.  Already the winners and losers among big cities are being picked... Denver, Seattle, Houston, Dallas win... Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis lose...

Upstate New York is in for it... without a new baby boom.. because people tend to have kids in place (as opposed to attracting immigrants)
I didn't get what you were saying in that last paragraph, about having kids "in place" as opposed to attracting immigrants.  I'm admitting to it as from your overall post, I imagine it will be something worth "getting", once I do.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Kevinstat on January 30, 2017, 07:44:49 pm
Is there any set date when the county estimates come out?

They come out in March, I don't know if there's a public date yet.
It appears to be March 23, with an embargoed release on March 21.
Living in New England, it's the May release of county subdivision and place (like municipality) data that I'm anxiously awaiting.  In terms of what legislative districts might look like, the county projections are most useful indicators at the ends of the state and less so in the middle (population-wise), which is pretty much where I am.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on February 03, 2017, 05:23:22 am
Could NC pass GA in the next few years in population?

Pretty unlikely.

They are having virtually the same growth.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Cokeland Chastain on February 12, 2017, 02:42:27 pm
AL = Loser; Montgomery and Birmingham shrinking
AZ = Winner; Area around Phoenix exploding
CA = Winner; Mexicans entering state
CO = Winner
FL = Winner; Cubans + Old people moving to state
GA = Winner; Atlanta growing
IL = Loser; R.I.P. Chicago
MA = Loser; Boston shrinking
MI = Loser; R.I.P. Detroit
MO = Loser; R.I.P. St. Louis
NV = Winner; Las Vegas exploding
NY = Loser; people getting the heck out
etc.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Brittain33 on February 12, 2017, 11:09:10 pm
AL = Loser; Montgomery and Birmingham shrinking
AZ = Winner; Area around Phoenix exploding
CA = Winner; Mexicans entering state
CO = Winner
FL = Winner; Cubans + Old people moving to state
GA = Winner; Atlanta growing
IL = Loser; R.I.P. Chicago
MA = Loser; Boston shrinking
MI = Loser; R.I.P. Detroit
MO = Loser; R.I.P. St. Louis
NV = Winner; Las Vegas exploding
NY = Loser; people getting the heck out
etc.

I'm not sure I understand this post, but Boston is growing in population faster than it has in decades.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Nyvin on February 13, 2017, 10:31:31 am
AL = Loser; Montgomery and Birmingham shrinking
AZ = Winner; Area around Phoenix exploding
CA = Winner; Mexicans entering state
CO = Winner
FL = Winner; Cubans + Old people moving to state
GA = Winner; Atlanta growing
IL = Loser; R.I.P. Chicago
MA = Loser; Boston shrinking
MI = Loser; R.I.P. Detroit
MO = Loser; R.I.P. St. Louis
NV = Winner; Las Vegas exploding
NY = Loser; people getting the heck out
etc.

In a lot of those cases it's actually the rural/small town area's decline that's causing them to be "losers".    NYC and Boston in particular are actually doing pretty good.   Upstate NY is where the population loss is happening.   

Same goes for Illinois,  Chicago itself might be losing people (very recently) but the downstate area is where the real loses are happening as well.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Wiz in Wis on February 14, 2017, 04:42:58 pm
AL = Loser; Montgomery and Birmingham shrinking
AZ = Winner; Area around Phoenix exploding
CA = Winner; Mexicans entering state
CO = Winner
FL = Winner; Cubans + Old people moving to state
GA = Winner; Atlanta growing
IL = Loser; R.I.P. Chicago
MA = Loser; Boston shrinking
MI = Loser; R.I.P. Detroit
MO = Loser; R.I.P. St. Louis
NV = Winner; Las Vegas exploding
NY = Loser; people getting the heck out
etc.

This makes me think the last time you did your research was 1997.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Snowguy716 on February 14, 2017, 05:59:09 pm
In other news, Hudson seems to be on track to fall a tad below 6,000 (excluding the prisoner population). No, I have not crunched the numbers - it was just an eyeball thing. On my block, since the 2010 census, I suspect that the drop has been around 40% - just massive. But I am bring a new unit on line on my block. But I see no abatement to the trend. If anything it is accelerating, and since the local school district is so horrible, the new folks moving in, into refurbished housing, or who refurbish, convert multi family dwellings to single family, etc., are almost always folks with no kids, or with kids who don't live at home (they have achieved the age of majority). So Hudson is moving slowly towards more well to do folks with no kids in school, or in private school, or folks with kids, who are poor.

Quite a toxic combo really, and replicated across the Fruited Plain. We have a problem! Who knew?
Basically what demographers predicted to happen by the 1990s is only now starting to occur.  An irreversible trend of fast aging and population decline for the vast majority of the U.S.  Already the winners and losers among big cities are being picked... Denver, Seattle, Houston, Dallas win... Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis lose...

Upstate New York is in for it... without a new baby boom.. because people tend to have kids in place (as opposed to attracting immigrants)
I didn't get what you were saying in that last paragraph, about having kids "in place" as opposed to attracting immigrants.  I'm admitting to it as from your overall post, I imagine it will be something worth "getting", once I do.
These areas don't attract immigrants or domestic migrants because there are not jobs available and they might be seeking nicer climes.

But if people started having more children, which can happen for myriad reasons that have nothing to do with the economy, it would increase demand for products and services which would push up demand for productivity from the parents, increasing job security.  The aggregate effect is a more vibrant economy and community.

Reinforcing this would be that families with children try to avoid picking up and moving far away.  A baby boom would likely decrease mobility and there would be a desire for companies to invest where they were rather than somewhere that immigrants or domestic migrants want to go.

At this point, we are so far along in the aging and deindustrialization process, that this would likely not fix the situation... but it would slow the decline.

New England has a top heavy age structure because fertility there is low.  In 15 years the largest cohorts of people will be in their early 70s and without a major change in migration, the population will be declining quickly.  And the problem is that unlike with growth, which can be directed into neat, new subdivisions one at a time... shrinkage is piecemeal... one older couple dies out down the street, another across the street... now you have two empty houses with no chance of being filled again... and the lawns become overgrown, etc.  Empty lots slowly replace the once bustling, tidy neighborhood... this drives the remaining people out... to places like Florida.







Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: hopper on February 18, 2017, 11:45:50 pm
AL = Loser; Montgomery and Birmingham shrinking
AZ = Winner; Area around Phoenix exploding
CA = Winner; Mexicans entering state
CO = Winner
FL = Winner; Cubans + Old people moving to state
GA = Winner; Atlanta growing
IL = Loser; R.I.P. Chicago
MA = Loser; Boston shrinking
MI = Loser; R.I.P. Detroit
MO = Loser; R.I.P. St. Louis
NV = Winner; Las Vegas exploding
NY = Loser; people getting the heck out
etc.
No the Hispanic Population Boom in CA was from 1970-2010.
MA-Boston is growing by the way. Its Western Massachusetts that's not gaining much population or maybe losing population.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Kevinstat on February 24, 2017, 08:43:44 pm
In other news, Hudson seems to be on track to fall a tad below 6,000 (excluding the prisoner population). No, I have not crunched the numbers - it was just an eyeball thing. On my block, since the 2010 census, I suspect that the drop has been around 40% - just massive. But I am bring a new unit on line on my block. But I see no abatement to the trend. If anything it is accelerating, and since the local school district is so horrible, the new folks moving in, into refurbished housing, or who refurbish, convert multi family dwellings to single family, etc., are almost always folks with no kids, or with kids who don't live at home (they have achieved the age of majority). So Hudson is moving slowly towards more well to do folks with no kids in school, or in private school, or folks with kids, who are poor.

Quite a toxic combo really, and replicated across the Fruited Plain. We have a problem! Who knew?
Basically what demographers predicted to happen by the 1990s is only now starting to occur.  An irreversible trend of fast aging and population decline for the vast majority of the U.S.  Already the winners and losers among big cities are being picked... Denver, Seattle, Houston, Dallas win... Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis lose...

Upstate New York is in for it... without a new baby boom.. because people tend to have kids in place (as opposed to attracting immigrants)
I didn't get what you were saying in that last paragraph, about having kids "in place" as opposed to attracting immigrants.  I'm admitting to it as from your overall post, I imagine it will be something worth "getting", once I do.
These areas don't attract immigrants or domestic migrants because there are not jobs available and they might be seeking nicer climes.

But if people started having more children, which can happen for myriad reasons that have nothing to do with the economy, it would increase demand for products and services which would push up demand for productivity from the parents, increasing job security.  The aggregate effect is a more vibrant economy and community.

Reinforcing this would be that families with children try to avoid picking up and moving far away.  A baby boom would likely decrease mobility and there would be a desire for companies to invest where they were rather than somewhere that immigrants or domestic migrants want to go.

At this point, we are so far along in the aging and deindustrialization process, that this would likely not fix the situation... but it would slow the decline.

New England has a top heavy age structure because fertility there is low.  In 15 years the largest cohorts of people will be in their early 70s and without a major change in migration, the population will be declining quickly.  And the problem is that unlike with growth, which can be directed into neat, new subdivisions one at a time... shrinkage is piecemeal... one older couple dies out down the street, another across the street... now you have two empty houses with no chance of being filled again... and the lawns become overgrown, etc.  Empty lots slowly replace the once bustling, tidy neighborhood... this drives the remaining people out... to places like Florida.
Thanks.  Your explanation was definitely worth asking for, as I expected.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: nclib on February 25, 2017, 05:10:59 pm
Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but where could I find congressional district data/populations in 2010, and also in 2016 (or most recent estimate)?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on February 25, 2017, 11:57:55 pm
Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but where could I find congressional district data/populations in 2010, and also in 2016 (or most recent estimate)?

The Census Bureau American Fact Finder.

There was a special compilation of Census Data for the new congressional districts (113th session was after redistricting) (they won't be correct for Florida or Virginia, until they get updated they will be 115th)

The American Community Survey has estimates for congressional districts. Be sure to use 1-year 2015. Otherwise, you get blended data over 5 years - better for social characteristics since there is more data, but less so for a snapshot population. You could get 1-year data for previous years and try to project a trend line.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: nclib on February 26, 2017, 09:00:43 pm
Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but where could I find congressional district data/populations in 2010, and also in 2016 (or most recent estimate)?

The Census Bureau American Fact Finder.

There was a special compilation of Census Data for the new congressional districts (113th session was after redistricting) (they won't be correct for Florida or Virginia, until they get updated they will be 115th)

The American Community Survey has estimates for congressional districts. Be sure to use 1-year 2015. Otherwise, you get blended data over 5 years - better for social characteristics since there is more data, but less so for a snapshot population. You could get 1-year data for previous years and try to project a trend line.

Somehow it's too big for my computer's memory. Is there another way; I'm mainly looking for actual population estimates for CDs in 2010 and 2015.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on February 28, 2017, 09:23:54 am
Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but where could I find congressional district data/populations in 2010, and also in 2016 (or most recent estimate)?

The Census Bureau American Fact Finder.

There was a special compilation of Census Data for the new congressional districts (113th session was after redistricting) (they won't be correct for Florida or Virginia, until they get updated they will be 115th)

The American Community Survey has estimates for congressional districts. Be sure to use 1-year 2015. Otherwise, you get blended data over 5 years - better for social characteristics since there is more data, but less so for a snapshot population. You could get 1-year data for previous years and try to project a trend line.

Somehow it's too big for my computer's memory. Is there another way; I'm mainly looking for actual population estimates for CDs in 2010 and 2015.
I doubt that.

Go to American Fact Finder. Do advanced search show all.

Topic > Years > 2010
Topic > Data Set > 2010 113th Congress 100% Data

Geographies (show all radio button)
Geographies > Congressional Districts > All Congressional Districts for United States

Topics > People > Basic Count/Estimate > Total Population
Check P1, View or Download

========

Clear All Selections

Topics > Year > 2015
(no need to select data set since there is only one for 2015)
Geographies > Congressional Districts
Select all congressional districts in United States
Topic > People > Basic Count/Estimate > Total Population

Check total count, using the 2015 1-year estimate.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: nclib on February 28, 2017, 11:12:38 pm
That works now, thanks.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on March 20, 2017, 08:13:21 am
2016 County Estimates will be released on Thursday, March 23 .


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: libertpaulian on March 22, 2017, 07:18:16 pm
2016 County Estimates will be released on Thursday, March 23 .
It'll be interesting to see if my county (Lake) declined yet again.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on March 22, 2017, 07:22:59 pm
I want to see if the (until recently) fast-growing oil counties, like McKenzie and Williams, ND, have started to lose population or are just growing more slowly.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Gass3268 on March 22, 2017, 08:58:57 pm
I want to see if the (until recently) fast-growing oil counties, like McKenzie and Williams, ND, have started to lose population or are just growing more slowly.

Based on the state data it will be close.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on March 23, 2017, 06:34:29 am
I want to see if the (until recently) fast-growing oil counties, like McKenzie and Williams, ND, have started to lose population or are just growing more slowly.

It looks like they are losing:

Quote
North Dakota counties no longer top the list of fastest-growing counties by percentage change.

McKenzie County fell from second-fastest growing by percentage change to 2,858th.
Williams County fell from third to 3,105th.
Mountrail County fell from sixth to 2,375th.
Stark County fell from eighth to 3,103rd.

(
Img
)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on March 23, 2017, 08:06:57 pm
When do the county subdivision estimates come out?  June?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on March 23, 2017, 08:24:37 pm
When do the county subdivision estimates come out?  June?
May.

Technically it is incorporated place and minor civil division (i.e. legal entities).


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on March 23, 2017, 09:19:06 pm
When do the county subdivision estimates come out?  June?
May.

Technically it is incorporated place and minor civil division (i.e. legal entities).

Great! 

Hopefully, I'll find the time to update the maps I made last year, like the 2014-2015 Percentage Change Map (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/1404d830-21fd-11e6-9f99-0e674067d321/public_map) for those incorporated places, minor civil divisions (and CDPs?).


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on March 23, 2017, 10:16:42 pm
When do the county subdivision estimates come out?  June?
May.

Technically it is incorporated place and minor civil division (i.e. legal entities).

Great! 

Hopefully, I'll find the time to update the maps I made last year, like the 2014-2015 Percentage Change Map (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/1404d830-21fd-11e6-9f99-0e674067d321/public_map) for those incorporated places, minor civil divisions (and CDPs?).


Incorporated places only.

The American Community Survey does produce estimates for other census geography down to the Block Group level. The sampling used for the ACS is designed to produce statistically valid results for such small areas - if you use the 5-year sample. So for CDP's you could get an 2011-2015 estimate. Perhaps not so useful for population total, but useful for other social characteristics.

For small population cities (a couple of hundred) the census uses a higher sampling rate for the ACS.

The ACS also produces results for things like congressional districts and legislative districts. For some of these, you may be able to use one-year samples. The census bureau knows where their samples are from and they could produce estimates for a census block, but a 4-household sample for a block with 20 houses is not a very good sample, and would break confidentiality anyhow. But they can aggregate samples for larger areas. For example, they have produced CVAP estimates by race for various congressional district plans in Texas.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on April 27, 2017, 06:19:59 pm
When do the county subdivision estimates come out?  June?
May.

Technically it is incorporated place and minor civil division (i.e. legal entities).

According to Census' calendar, the incorporated place and minor civil division population estimates will be released to the public on Thursday, May 25.  It looks like there will be an embargoed release to the media on Tuesday, May 23.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on May 10, 2017, 09:49:41 pm
Census has released their November 2016 Voting and Registration Supplement (https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and-registration/p20-580.html?intcmp=s1_voting).

From what I've read elsewhere on the Internet but not independently verified, overall Hispanic turnout was slightly down in 2016 versus 2012, even though more Hispanics voted due to Hispanic VAP growth.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on May 23, 2017, 11:43:35 am
2016 city and town population estimates come out on Thursday (an embargoed press release and graphic supposedly went out to the media today).  Any predictions or things you want to see?

I'm interested in population declines in Western North Dakota, and how much Upstate New York Cities proper have lost population over the past year.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Seattle on May 23, 2017, 01:18:15 pm
Prediction: Seattle tops 700k. It'll be tough, but July 2015-2016 saw around ~7,500 units delivered, a similar, if not slightly greater amount than the previous period. 2016-2017, 2017-2018, and 2018-2019 should be nuts though, with ~10k and ~13k expected in 2017 and 2018 respectively.

I'd also like to see if growth has picked up in Tacoma and Spokane.

Things to look for:
Phoenix passes Philadelphia (4k difference)
San Francisco passes Jacksonville (4k difference)
Columbus passes Indianapolis (3k difference)
DC passes Detroit (5k difference), as Detroit is still declining


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on May 24, 2017, 11:20:21 pm
The embargo on the city estimates has been lifted, and various news websites are filing stories on the population estimates.  But the database and press release isn't available yet on census.gov.

Here's an alternate link to search for city results from Cleveland.com (http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2017/05/2016_census_population_estimat.html).

Yes, Seattle topped 700,000 residents.

The Top 10 U.S. Cities (http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2017/05/25/phoenix-overtakes-philadelphia-5th-largest-u-s-city/344047001/)
1. New York: 8,537,673
2. Los Angeles: 3,976,322
3. Chicago: 2,704,958
4. Houston: 2,303,482
5. Phoenix: 1,615,017
6. Philadelphia: 1,567,872
7. San Antonio: 1,492,510
8. San Diego: 1,406,630
9. Dallas: 1,317,929
10. San Jose: 1,025,350


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on May 24, 2017, 11:49:57 pm
Census' press release is here (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2017/cb17-81-population-estimates-subcounty.html#fastest-growing).  The rest of their press kit is here (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-kits/2017/population-estimates-subcounty.html). The actual data will be available in the morning, before 10AM.

From the press release:

Quote
Ten of the 15 fastest-growing large cities were located across the South in 2016, with four of the top five in Texas, according to new population estimates released today by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Conroe, Texas (near Houston), was the fastest-growing large city (population of 50,000 or more) between 2015 and 2016 at 7.8 percent, making its growth rate more than 11 times the nationís growth rate of 0.7 percent. Some of the other fastest-growing cities were: Frisco, Texas (6.2 percent); McKinney, Texas (5.9 percent); Greenville, S.C. (5.8 percent); and Georgetown, Texas (5.5 percent).

ďOverall, cities in the South continue to grow at a faster rate than any other U.S region,Ē said Amel Toukabri, a demographer in the Census Bureauís population division. ďSince the 2010 Census, the population in large southern cities grew by an average of 9.4 percent. In comparison, cities in the West grew 7.3 percent, while cities in the Northeast and Midwest had much lower growth rates at 1.8 percent and 3.0 percent respectively.Ē

Four cities in the West ó Bend, Ore.; Buckeye, Ariz.; Lehi, Utah; and Meridian, Idaho ó were among the top 15 fastest growing. Only one city in the Midwest, Ankeny, Iowa, topped the list while no cities in the Northeast were among the nationís fastest growing.

--Snip--

Things to look for:
Phoenix passes Philadelphia (4k difference)
San Francisco passes Jacksonville (4k difference)
Columbus passes Indianapolis (3k difference)
DC passes Detroit (5k difference), as Detroit is still declining

Phoenix passed Philadelphia.
San Francisco did not pass Jacksonville.
Columbus passed Indianapolis.
DC passed Detroit, which is still declining.  Detroit reportedly fell to 23 or 24, depending on which newspaper you believe.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Seattle on May 25, 2017, 12:10:19 am
Thanks for the data scrounging! Very happy to see Seattle reach over 700k. Back in 2010, no one thought the city would reach that mark before 2020, let alone 2016!


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Gass3268 on May 25, 2017, 09:14:55 am
Has the data been posted yet?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Gass3268 on May 25, 2017, 09:24:41 am
Nashville passed Memphis to become the largest city in Tennessee.

Charleston passed Columbia to become the largest city in South Carolina.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: KingSweden on May 25, 2017, 09:39:35 am
Nashville passed Memphis to become the largest city in Tennessee.

Charleston passed Columbia to become the largest city in South Carolina.

It's always surprised me that Charleston and Nashville weren't previously the largest


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on May 25, 2017, 10:02:00 am
After growing by 23K in the first 3 years of the decade Chicago has joined the rest of IL with population losses, falling by 14K since 2013, 8K just in last estimate year (7/1/15 - 7/1/16).


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: KingSweden on May 25, 2017, 11:19:19 am
Has the data been posted yet?

I didn't see the raw data anywhere


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Gass3268 on May 25, 2017, 12:57:54 pm
Has the data been posted yet?

I didn't see the raw data anywhere

Here ya go! (https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/popest/total-cities-and-towns.html)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tintrlvr on May 25, 2017, 01:13:52 pm
DC passed Detroit, which is still declining.  Detroit reportedly fell to 23 or 24, depending on which newspaper you believe.

#23, apparently. Boston also passed Detroit. Still ahead of Nashville with a gap big enough that Nashville probably won't pass Detroit next year (but obviously will in 2019).


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on May 25, 2017, 02:13:09 pm
Nashville passed Memphis to become the largest city in Tennessee.

Charleston passed Columbia to become the largest city in South Carolina.
So the number of capitals that are the largest remains constant at 17.

Possible future losses would be Cheyenne (to Casper) and Charleston (to Huntington), and a reversal Nashville (to Memphis).

Possible reversals Columbia (from Charleston), Hartford (from Bridgeport and New Haven), and Madison (from Milwaukee)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on May 26, 2017, 03:01:22 am
I've made my maps using the 2016 Estimates Data.  Please let me know if there are any obvious errors. There may be a separate post analyzing trends in the future:

2015-2016 Percentage Change in  Cities, Towns, and County Remainders Population (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/f83928f7-f42c-4ba7-a659-4c4502f5d84b/public_map)
2010-2016 Percentage Change versus 2010 Census (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/19fb16fa-41d7-11e7-8f7d-0e05a8b3e3d7/public_map)
2010-2016 Percentage Change versus 2010 Estimates Base (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/2179fb11-c942-4958-b0e8-147324cb395a/public_map) (takes into account annexations and the like)

2015-2016 Numerical Change in  Cities, Towns, and County Remainders Population (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/b2bcd2b7-6090-4cdd-9d5d-04353b466967/public_map)
2010-2016 Numerical Change versus 2010 Census (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/3e9b0441-a862-46e8-a23c-7065e1c6e568/public_map)
2010-2016 Numerical Change versus 2010 Estimates Base (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/cdeddf5d-ac4c-45e8-87b8-56860b43e1d5/public_map)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: ajc0918 on May 26, 2017, 07:30:34 am
I've made my maps using the 2016 Estimates Data.  Please let me know if there are any obvious errors. There may be a separate post analyzing trends in the future:

2015-2016 Percentage Change in  Cities, Towns, and County Remainders Population (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/f83928f7-f42c-4ba7-a659-4c4502f5d84b/public_map)
2010-2016 Percentage Change versus 2010 Census (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/19fb16fa-41d7-11e7-8f7d-0e05a8b3e3d7/public_map)
2010-2016 Percentage Change versus 2010 Estimates Base (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/2179fb11-c942-4958-b0e8-147324cb395a/public_map) (takes into account annexations and the like)

2015-2016 Numerical Change in  Cities, Towns, and County Remainders Population (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/b2bcd2b7-6090-4cdd-9d5d-04353b466967/public_map)
2010-2016 Numerical Change versus 2010 Census (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/3e9b0441-a862-46e8-a23c-7065e1c6e568/public_map)
2010-2016 Numerical Change versus 2010 Estimates Base (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/cdeddf5d-ac4c-45e8-87b8-56860b43e1d5/public_map)

Wow these are awesome, thank you.

I'm a little biased but I can't help but notice how Florida sticks out so much in the 2015-2016 and 2010-2016 percentage change map. Central Florida both Orlando and Tampa are seeing huge influxes of population. It will be interesting how this changes things politically.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: JerryArkansas on May 26, 2017, 07:51:54 am
I've made my maps using the 2016 Estimates Data.  Please let me know if there are any obvious errors. There may be a separate post analyzing trends in the future:

2015-2016 Percentage Change in  Cities, Towns, and County Remainders Population (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/f83928f7-f42c-4ba7-a659-4c4502f5d84b/public_map)
2010-2016 Percentage Change versus 2010 Census (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/19fb16fa-41d7-11e7-8f7d-0e05a8b3e3d7/public_map)
2010-2016 Percentage Change versus 2010 Estimates Base (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/2179fb11-c942-4958-b0e8-147324cb395a/public_map) (takes into account annexations and the like)

2015-2016 Numerical Change in  Cities, Towns, and County Remainders Population (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/b2bcd2b7-6090-4cdd-9d5d-04353b466967/public_map)
2010-2016 Numerical Change versus 2010 Census (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/3e9b0441-a862-46e8-a23c-7065e1c6e568/public_map)
2010-2016 Numerical Change versus 2010 Estimates Base (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/cdeddf5d-ac4c-45e8-87b8-56860b43e1d5/public_map)
Cinyc, in Arkansas, what are you going to do with College City located in Lawrence County.  It consolidated with Walnut Ridge in May of last year.  It was in the final phases of occurring when the data was estimated.

Could you possibly combine the two on one of your maps to show that this occurred?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Brittain33 on May 26, 2017, 08:52:34 am
I've made my maps using the 2016 Estimates Data.  Please let me know if there are any obvious errors. There may be a separate post analyzing trends in the future:

2010-2016 Percentage Change versus 2010 Census (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/19fb16fa-41d7-11e7-8f7d-0e05a8b3e3d7/public_map)

Do annexations cause "Balance of X County" to drop? Looking at Dekalb, GA in particular.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on May 26, 2017, 10:11:35 am
I've made my maps using the 2016 Estimates Data.  Please let me know if there are any obvious errors. There may be a separate post analyzing trends in the future:

2010-2016 Percentage Change versus 2010 Census (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/19fb16fa-41d7-11e7-8f7d-0e05a8b3e3d7/public_map)

Do annexations cause "Balance of X County" to drop? Looking at Dekalb, GA in particular.

In the 2010 census version of the map, yes.   But not in the version versus 2010 population estimates, which controls for annexations and the like.  IIRC, the balance of Dekalb, GA dropped because of the creation of a new city.  We had the same issue in the 2010-15 version of the map.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on May 26, 2017, 10:14:42 am
Cinyc, in Arkansas, what are you going to do with College City located in Lawrence County.  It consolidated with Walnut Ridge in May of last year.  It was in the final phases of occurring when the data was estimated.

Could you possibly combine the two on one of your maps to show that this occurred?

I could estimate things manually when I get a chance, but if Census hasn't caught up with the change yet, I'm not going to change the shapefile.  I used the most recent Census shapefile for each type (County, MCD and Place).


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: JerryArkansas on May 26, 2017, 11:07:15 am
Cinyc, in Arkansas, what are you going to do with College City located in Lawrence County.  It consolidated with Walnut Ridge in May of last year.  It was in the final phases of occurring when the data was estimated.

Could you possibly combine the two on one of your maps to show that this occurred?

I could estimate things manually when I get a chance, but if Census hasn't caught up with the change yet, I'm not going to change the shapefile.  I used the most recent Census shapefile for each type (County, MCD and Place).
It occurred over a year ago, so it may not be in the shapefile for 2016.  It defently should be in the 2017 version though if they ever release it.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on May 26, 2017, 04:31:51 pm
Cinyc, in Arkansas, what are you going to do with College City located in Lawrence County.  It consolidated with Walnut Ridge in May of last year.  It was in the final phases of occurring when the data was estimated.

Could you possibly combine the two on one of your maps to show that this occurred?

I could estimate things manually when I get a chance, but if Census hasn't caught up with the change yet, I'm not going to change the shapefile.  I used the most recent Census shapefile for each type (County, MCD and Place).
It occurred over a year ago, so it may not be in the shapefile for 2016.  It defently should be in the 2017 version though if they ever release it.

The combined entity gained 3 residents from 2015 to 2016.  Its 2016 population is 5180.  It has lost 3.08% of its population from 2010, or 165 residents.

If census hasn't gotten around to fixing the shapefile, I'm not going to change the map.  It would take more work to do that than you think.

Edited to add:  Census is aware of the consolidation (it made their list of entity changes), but it didn't take effect until January 1, 2017.  The estimates are 2016 estimates - so it makes sense to show the entities as they existed in 2016, not 2017.  I'm sure Census will update their 2017 shapefiles to reflect the consolidation.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Kevinstat on May 27, 2017, 03:19:24 am
In the 2010 census, the State House "quotas" of Maine's largest municipalities (those over 0.9/151 of Maine's population in any one of the three following tables, plus Old Town which would meet that criteria if you added in the Penobscot Reservation where the part where people live is right next to Old Town (they basically make up a State House district now)), were as follows (with instances where the "Estimates Base" (EB) yields a different quota than the official census numbers noted in parentheses):

=7.6 (8*0.95)  "cutoff"=
Portland city 7.5245 (State Senate quota* 1.7441, between 1.05 and 1.9 "cutoffs")
=7.35 (7*1.05)  "cutoff"=
...
=4.2 (4*1.05) "cutoff"=
Lewiston city 4.1596 (EB 4.1595) (State Senate quota* 0.9641, between 0.95 "cutoff" and 1.0 mark)
=4.0 mark=
=3.8 (4*0.95) "cutoff"=
Bangor city 3.7557 (EB 3.7554)
=3.15 (3*1.05) "cutoff"=
=3.0 mark=
=2.85 (3*0.95) "cutoff"=
South Portland city 2.8421
Auburn city 2.6208 (EB 2.6204)
Biddeford city 2.4186
Sanford city 2.3642 (EB 2.3640)
Brunswick town 2.3051
Augusta city 2.1753 (EB 2.1748)
Scarborough town 2.1506
Saco city 2.1009 (EB 2.1030)
=2.1 (2*1.05) "cutoff"=
=2.0 mark=
Westbrook city 1.9886
Windham town 1.9326 (EB 1.9321)
=1.9 (2*0.95) "cutoff"=
Gorham town 1.8621 (EB 1.8620)
Waterville city 1.7872
York town 1.4242 (EB 1.4231)
Falmouth town 1.2714
Kennebunk town 1.2275 (EB 1.2274)
Orono town 1.1779 (EB 1.1772)
Standish town 1.1224 (EB 1.1222)
Presque Isle city 1.1017
Wells town 1.0900
Kittery town 1.0788
Brewer city 1.0779
=1.05 "cutoff"=
Cape Elizabeth town 1.0248
Lisbon town 1.0241 (EB 1.0242)
=1.0 mark=
Topsham town 0.9985
Old Orchard Beach town 0.9803 (EB 0.9793)
Skowhegan town 0.9763 (EB 0.9766)
Bath city 0.9678
[Old Town city (0.8912 (EB 0.8919)) + Penobscot Indian Island Reservation (0.0693)] 0.9605 (EB 0.9612)
=0.95 "cutoff"=
Yarmouth town 0.9491
Caribou city 0.9309
Buxton town 0.9133 (EB 0.9129)
Freeport town 0.8956
...
Gray town 0.8822
...
Ellsworth city 0.8799
...
Cumberland town 0.8197 (EB 0.8187)

The largest municipalities as and according to the 2016 estimates and their State House "quotas" are as follows:

=7.6 (8*0.95)  "cutoff"=
Portland city 7.5912 (State Senate quota* 1.7595, between 1.05 and 1.9 "cutoffs")
=7.35 (7*1.05)  "cutoff"=
...
=4.2 (4*1.05) "cutoff"=
Lewiston city 4.0986 (State Senate quota* 0.949996, 0.14 people below 0.95 "cutoff")
=4.0 mark=
=3.8 (4*0.95) "cutoff"=
Bangor city 3.6273
=3.15 (3*1.05) "cutoff"=
=3.0 mark=
South Portland city 2.9006
=2.85 (3*0.95) "cutoff"=
Auburn city 2.6025
Biddeford city 2.4226
Sanford city 2.3745
Brunswick town 2.3413
Scarborough town 2.2708
Saco city 2.1789
=2.1 (2*1.05) "cutoff"=
Augusta city 2.0974
Westbrook city 2.0869
Windham town 2.0417
=2.0 mark=
Gorham town 1.9711
=1.9 (2*0.95) "cutoff"=
Waterville city 1.8606
York town 1.4683
Falmouth town 1.3725
Kennebunk town 1.2838
Orono town 1.2749
Wells town 1.1549
Standish town 1.1538
Kittery town 1.0937
Cape Elizabeth town 1.0580
=1.05 "cutoff"=
Brewer city 1.0328
Presque Isle city 1.0327
Lisbon town 1.0032
=1.0 mark=
Old Orchard Beach town 0.9990
Topsham town 0.9964
Yarmouth town 0.9705
Freeport town 0.9555
=0.95 "cutoff"=
Bath city 0.9416
Skowhegan town 0.9415
Buxton town 0.9294
Gray town 0.9203
[Old Town city (0.8526) + Penobscot Indian Island Reservation (0.0673)] 0.9199
Ellsworth city 0.8972
Cumberland town 0.8895
...
Caribou city 0.8773

Taking the "Estimates base" from April 1, 2010 (usually within a few people of the official numbers) shown in the same Census Bureau tables showing the above estimates, and adding to it the population gains (negative for losses) from that base to July 1, 2016 multiplied by 10/6.25 (I use a linear progression rather than exponential as it has the benefit of municipal projections being the same as county projections), the following are the projected 2020 State House "quotas" for all municipalities (in descending order) with projected (or 2010) quotas above 0.9000:

=8.0 mark=
Portland city 7.6310 (State Senate quota* 1.7688, between 1.05 and 1.9 "cutoffs")
=7.6 (8*0.95)  "cutoff"=
...
=4.2 (4*1.05) "cutoff"=
Lewiston city 4.0621 (State Senate quota* 0.9415, below 0.95 "cutoff")
=4.0 mark=
=3.8 (4*0.95) "cutoff"=
Bangor city 3.5508
=3.15 (3*1.05) "cutoff"=
=3.0 mark=
South Portland city 2.9356
=2.85 (3*0.95) "cutoff"=
Auburn city 2.5918
Biddeford city 2.4250
Sanford city 2.3809
Brunswick town 2.3630
Scarborough town 2.3426
Saco city 2.2243
Westbrook city 2.1457
Windham town 2.1072
=2.1 (2*1.05) "cutoff"=
Augusta city 2.0511
Gorham town 2.0364
=2.0 mark=
Waterville city 1.9044
=1.9 (2*0.95) "cutoff"=
York town 1.4953
Falmouth town 1.4328
Orono town 1.3333
Kennebunk town 1.3174
Wells town 1.1938
Standish town 1.1727
Kittery town 1.1026
Cape Elizabeth town 1.0778
=1.05 "cutoff"=
Old Orchard Beach town 1.0108
Brewer city 1.0059
=1.0 mark=
Topsham town 0.9951
Presque Isle city 0.9914
Freeport town 0.9912
Lisbon town 0.9907
Yarmouth town 0.9834
=0.95 "cutoff"=
Gray town 0.9431
Buxton town 0.9392
Cumberland town 0.9318
Bath city 0.9260
Skowhegan town 0.9206
Ellsworth city 0.9075
[Old Town city (0.8291) + Penobscot Indian Island Reservation (0.0660)] 0.8951
...
Caribou city 0.8453

*assuming 35 Senators.  With 33 or 31, Lewiston would be too small for a Senate district even under the 2010 Census figures.  Portland would still be comfortably between 1.05 and 1.9 State Senate quotas.

Wow, I wouldn't have done this if I didn't enjoy the result of having done it, but that took some work, even though I created the spreadsheet by copying and modifying an existing one and did the same thing with this post.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on May 28, 2017, 01:25:55 am
I made single-year maps for 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, etc.  They're available in my Carto account (https://cinyc.carto.com/me).  These are backward looking, so if there was a merger or consolidation, you're only going to get stats for the 2016 entity, and won't get stats for dissolved entities.

Unfortunately, I compared 2011 to the 2010 estimate instead of the estimates base or census, and didn't compare the 2010 estimate to the 2010 EB or census in my spreadsheet.  It's way too much of a pain to fix that (I'd have to update all the maps), so it will have to stay that way.  At least all of the comparisons are for a one-year period, though.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: True Federalist on August 31, 2017, 09:50:22 pm
Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2016 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 6 and a quarter year 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.

AL -1
AZ +1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

There is only one change since my projections last year (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=166668.msg4837582#msg4837582). CA stays unchanged at 53 instead of adding a seat and FL gains 2 instead of 1 up to 29. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are IL-17, TX-39, CA-53, AZ-10, and FL-29 (#435).
The next five in line are MT-2, AL-7, CA-54, VA-12, and MN-8.

An alternate projection could use just the last two years of estimates to determine the rate of growth for the rest of the decade. That model gives the same projection as the one above, with changes only in the order of the bubble seats.

I think it's fairly safe to say Harvey ended any chance of Texas gaining three seats in the next census.  Even if the disruption proves only half as bad as Katrina, there will be a lot of people who otherwise might live in Texas who won't be able to thirty-one months from now.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: KingSweden on August 31, 2017, 09:59:06 pm
Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2016 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 6 and a quarter year 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.

AL -1
AZ +1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

There is only one change since my projections last year (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=166668.msg4837582#msg4837582). CA stays unchanged at 53 instead of adding a seat and FL gains 2 instead of 1 up to 29. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are IL-17, TX-39, CA-53, AZ-10, and FL-29 (#435).
The next five in line are MT-2, AL-7, CA-54, VA-12, and MN-8.

An alternate projection could use just the last two years of estimates to determine the rate of growth for the rest of the decade. That model gives the same projection as the one above, with changes only in the order of the bubble seats.

I think it's fairly safe to say Harvey ended any chance of Texas gaining three seats in the next census.  Even if the disruption proves only half as bad as Katrina, there will be a lot of people who otherwise might live in Texas who won't be able to thirty-one months from now.

So they'll just gain 2, then?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: True Federalist on August 31, 2017, 11:26:52 pm
The only way I could see Texas not gaining two would be if Republican xenophobia has the side effect of causing a severe undercount of Hispanics in Texas.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on September 01, 2017, 07:09:46 am
Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2016 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 6 and a quarter year 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.

AL -1
AZ +1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

There is only one change since my projections last year (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=166668.msg4837582#msg4837582). CA stays unchanged at 53 instead of adding a seat and FL gains 2 instead of 1 up to 29. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are IL-17, TX-39, CA-53, AZ-10, and FL-29 (#435).
The next five in line are MT-2, AL-7, CA-54, VA-12, and MN-8.

An alternate projection could use just the last two years of estimates to determine the rate of growth for the rest of the decade. That model gives the same projection as the one above, with changes only in the order of the bubble seats.

I think it's fairly safe to say Harvey ended any chance of Texas gaining three seats in the next census.  Even if the disruption proves only half as bad as Katrina, there will be a lot of people who otherwise might live in Texas who won't be able to thirty-one months from now.

Unfortunately we wont have a good estimate of that next year. The date used for next year's estimate release is July 1, 2017 and the impact of Harvey is after that. Until then it will useful to see where displaced Houstonians go. A lot of Katrina victims moved to se TX, but if Harvey victims shift within TX, eg to DFW, it will have minimal impact on the statewide estimates.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Brittain33 on September 01, 2017, 09:55:44 am
I miss jimrtex's table of projected apportionment across multiple decades with three decimal places.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on September 01, 2017, 12:07:20 pm
I miss jimrtex's table of projected apportionment across multiple decades with three decimal places.
I thought I had posted this.

2010 is apportionment based on geometric mean but calculated to three decimal places.
2020 is projected apportionment assuming annual percentage growth rate for 2010-2016 (6.25 years) continues for next 3.75 years.
Change is difference between 2010 and 2020.

For example, Alabama was entitled to 6.737 representatives in 2010, and is projected to be entitled to 6.440 in 2020, a decrease of 0.297 representatives.

2020 is the projected whole number apportionment in 2020 and the change from 2010. It does take into account the list method used by Congress, and is not based on simple independent rounding (though for smaller states simple rounding is reasonably accurate). Alabama is not projected to lose a seat based on 6.440 rounding to 6, but rather the quotient for a 7th seat is projected to rank 438th, and miss the 435 cutoff.

Need is the number (in thousands) necessary to add (avoid loss) or lose (avoid gain) for an additional seat. If Alabama were to gain an additional 39,000 it could keep a 7th seat. This assumes that no other state changes.
Proj is the projected change in population (in thousands) from 2010 to 2020. Alabama is project to increase by 134,000.

10-16 is the estimated annual percentage change for April 2010 (census) to July 2016 (estimate).
16-20 is the estimated annual percentage change from July 2016 (estimate) to April 2020 (census) needed to change the projected apportionment. Alabama is estimated to be growing at a 0.28% growth rate, but could save it 7th seat if it kicked this up to 0.48% for the remainder of the decade.


State               2010    2020  Change   2020     Need    Proj   10-16   16-20     
Alabama            6.737   6.440  -0.297   6  -1      39     134   0.28%   0.49%
Alaska             1.117   1.114  -0.003   1   =     319      51   0.70%  10.56%
Arizona            8.999   9.520   0.521  10  +1     -60     884   1.30%   1.08%
Arkansas           4.129   3.993  -0.136   4   =    -397     117   0.39%  -3.30%
California        52.369  52.915   0.546  53   =    -566    3245   0.84%   0.46%
Colorado           7.087   7.688   0.601   8  +1    -180     843   1.56%   0.72%
Connecticut        5.049   4.701  -0.348   5   =    -176       4   0.01%  -1.33%
Delaware           1.358   1.382   0.024   1   =      95      88   0.94%   3.44%
Florida           26.435  28.462   2.026  29  +2    -105    2978   1.48%   1.35%
Georgia           13.627  13.993   0.366  14   =    -441    1015   1.00%  -0.13%
Hawaii             1.976   1.986   0.010   2   =    -395     111   0.79%  -7.29%
Idaho              2.260   2.349   0.089   2   =     116     189   1.14%   2.88%
Illinois          18.043  16.710  -1.332  17  -1    -239     -47  -0.04%  -0.54%
Indiana            9.128   8.800  -0.328   9   =    -270     240   0.36%  -0.73%
Iowa               4.312   4.196  -0.116   4   =     230     142   0.46%   2.34%
Kansas             4.042   3.874  -0.168   4   =    -305      87   0.30%  -2.59%
Kentucky           6.120   5.896  -0.224   6   =    -330     157   0.36%  -1.66%
Louisiana          6.392   6.256  -0.136   6   =     181     240   0.52%   1.52%
Maine              1.933   1.812  -0.121   2   =    -258       5   0.04%  -5.53%
Maryland           8.131   8.073  -0.058   8   =     319     394   0.66%   2.02%
Massachusetts      9.217   9.127  -0.090   9   =     276     428   0.63%   1.68%
Michigan          13.902  13.016  -0.886  13  -1     357      72   0.07%   1.02%
Minnesota          7.472   7.404  -0.069   7  -1      66     350   0.64%   0.95%
Mississippi        4.201   3.953  -0.247   4   =    -367      34   0.12%  -3.30%
Missouri           8.433   8.059  -0.374   8   =     329     167   0.28%   1.68%
Montana            1.478   1.492   0.014   1   =       5      86   0.84%   0.97%
Nebraska           2.615   2.606  -0.010   3   =     -94     131   0.69%  -0.62%
Nevada             3.829   4.073   0.244   4   =     324     393   1.37%   4.10%
New Hampshire      1.917   1.828  -0.089   2   =    -270      29   0.22%  -5.59%
New Jersey        12.369  11.818  -0.551  12   =    -298     245   0.28%  -0.62%
New Mexico         2.937   2.781  -0.156   3   =    -231      35   0.17%  -2.90%
New York          27.244  26.095  -1.149  26  -1     283     591   0.30%   0.68%
North Carolina    13.413  13.770   0.357  14  +1    -270     997   1.00%   0.30%
North Dakota       1.070   1.176   0.106   1   =     267     142   1.93%   9.93%
Ohio              16.224  15.244  -0.980  15  -1     180     125   0.11%   0.52%
Oklahoma           5.297   5.290  -0.007   5   =     156     279   0.72%   1.75%
Oregon             5.408   5.587   0.179   6  +1     -93     428   1.07%   0.47%
Pennsylvania      17.862  16.775  -1.088  17  -1    -288     131   0.10%  -0.50%
Rhode Island       1.562   1.471  -0.091   1  -1      22       6   0.06%   0.61%
South Carolina     6.521   6.779   0.258   7   =    -244     549   1.13%  -0.17%
South Dakota       1.249   1.275   0.026   1   =     183      84   0.98%   6.11%
Tennessee          8.935   8.952   0.018   9   =    -387     495   0.75%  -0.80%
Texas             35.350  38.718   3.368  39  +3    -349    4486   1.66%   1.33%
Utah               3.917   4.260   0.343   4   =     181     474   1.60%   3.08%
Vermont            1.012   0.956  -0.055   1   =     457      -2  -0.03%  15.75%
Virginia          11.258  11.336   0.078  11   =     113     667   0.80%   1.15%
Washington         9.466  10.005   0.540  10   =     368     924   1.30%   2.57%
West Virginia      2.652   2.427  -0.225   2  -1      54     -35  -0.19%   0.59%
Wisconsin          8.010   7.639  -0.370   8   =    -142     147   0.26%  -0.40%
Wyoming            0.937   0.929  -0.008   1   =     482      35   0.61%  17.76%



Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on September 01, 2017, 12:41:13 pm
For 2020

Alabama's loss is fairly certain, unless some other states falter.

Arizona is kind of iffy, except the 2010-2016 estimated growth is below more recent increases due to recovery from the housing bubble.

California is pretty solid. In the past they have received a favorable rounding, but now 53 is becoming pretty solid. California with about 1/8 of the nation's population has a hard time growing faster since it is such a large component.

Colorado is solid as it continues to recover from the housing bubble.

Florida is quite iffy, but it is also recovering from the housing bubble.

Montana could gain a 2nd seat, but it doesn't seem to be able to main consistent growth. The slowdown in the Williston Basin may hurt (some spillover of drilling into Montana, and Billings is closest city, excluding Regina (Canadian) and Bismarck (not a city)).

Texas could miss out on a 3rd seat, but the estimates already have factored in the slowdown in Houston growth due to low oil prices. Greater Houston has about 1/4 of the state population, so that 350K dropoff is unlikely, and if people move, they will move to DFW, San Antonio, and Austin. At least for the next couple of years there will be lots of construction work.

Virginia is not that far off, but draining the swamp may have an impact.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on September 01, 2017, 11:13:44 pm
We can project the decennial change forward (for states that are losing population share, the value will decline, since it really relative to its current population share, and vice versa for gainers).

Alabama: If no loss in 2020, it will lose in 2030. The drop to 5 will occur in 2060, but possibly 2050.
Alaska: No change - Alaska is growing slower than the US as a whole.
Arizona: Will gain a district every 20 years, but this could be quite irregular. For example if it doesn't gain a district in 2020, it could gain in 2030 and 2040.
Arkansas: Drops to 3 in 2060.
California: Could gain 54th in 2030 or 2040.
Colorado: Gains 8th in 2020 and 9th in 2040.
Connecticut: Loses 5th in 2030.
Delaware: Will get its 2nd seat back in 2070 (Wyoming and Alaska are only states that have never had at least two representatives).
Florida: Will gain two representatives per decade, though like Arizona, this may be irregular (1 some decades or 3 others).
Georgia: Gains 15th in 2040 (Georgia is increasing its lead on North Carolina)
Hawaii: No change (at current rate would gain 3rd seat in 2440).
Idaho: 3rd in 2040 (or perhaps 2050).
Illinois: Could lose 2 in 2030. By 2040 will be behind Georgia, and there will be increasing references to Atlantaland as distinguished from Downstate Georgia.
Indiana: Could lose in 2030, but more likely 2040.
Iowa: Loses in 2080. Des Moines in western district?
Kansas: Could lose in 2040, but 2050 is more likely.
Kentucky: Loses 6th in 2040, though 2050 is possible.
Louisiana: Loses 6th in 2080.
Maine: Loses 2nd in 2050, will they change their electoral vote allocation to 3 electoral districts?
Massachusetts: No losses until 2090.
Michigan: One per decade, but may be unchanged in 2040 or 2050. Michigan drops to 10th this decade, passed by Georgia and North Carolina, but won't drop out of top 10 until passed by Washington or Arizona in 2040 or 2050.
Minnesota: Will not lose another for the next century.
Mississippi: Possibly loses 4th in 2040, certainly by 2050.
Missouri: Loses 8th in 2040.
Montana: Regains 2nd in 2030? Montana is like a swimmer swimming against the current. Their position never changes.
Nebraska: May cling to 3rd indefinitely.
Nevada: Could gain 5th in 2040, particularly if housing bubble abates.
New Hampshire: Loses 2nd in 2060.
New Jersey: Loses 12th in 2030, and 11th in 2050.
New Mexico: Could lose 3rd in 2040.
New York: Should continue to lose one district per decade.
North Carolina: Very solid for 14th district in 2020. Could gain 15th in 2040. If not then, 2050.
North Dakota: Could regain 2nd by 2050, but that assumes continued growth in the Williston Basin.
Ohio: Will continue to lose a district per decade.
Oklahoma: Growing only slightly slower than country as a whole. Could have 5 districts forever.
Oregon: Could gain 7th district in 2080.
Pennsylvania: Will continue to lose a district per decade. Could see a loss of two due to rounding in the next few decades.
Rhode Island: Leads the path for Maine and New Hampshire to a single district.
South Carolina: Could gain 8th in 2050, maybe sooner if Charlotte spillover increases.
South Dakota: Regains 2nd in 2110.
Tennessee: Stuck on 9 forever.
Texas: Will add 3 or 4 each decade. Could surpass California by 2070.
Utah: Will likely gain 5th in 2030.
Vermont: Will likely fall below Wyoming by 2030.
Virginia: Possibility of 12 in 2040, but 2050 more likely.
West Virginia: Will keep 2 until at least 2070.
Wisconsin: Will lose 8th in 2030, as it will probably fall behind Minnesota.
Wyoming: One forever.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on September 01, 2017, 11:17:41 pm
One year ACS estimates for 2016 will be released on September 14. These are statistically valid for entities with greater than 65,000 population, which includes congressional districts. This could provide a clue about redistricting in 2020 for states that don't change the number of representatives.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: True Federalist on September 25, 2017, 10:39:27 pm
I wonder if the post-Maria exodus from Puerto Rico might keep New York from losing a seat. If you take a look at the Puerto Rican demographics, a lot of the people who left were men who couldn't find work there. Now we're likely to see a lot of women and kids who can't live there as well as those displaced by lack of work. A 10% exodus is probably a bare minimum under current conditions, and many will head to New York. Probably not enuf by itself to keep the Empire State from losing another seat, but it should make it close.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: KingSweden on September 30, 2017, 07:08:06 pm
We can project the decennial change forward (for states that are losing population share, the value will decline, since it really relative to its current population share, and vice versa for gainers).

Alabama: If no loss in 2020, it will lose in 2030. The drop to 5 will occur in 2060, but possibly 2050.
Alaska: No change - Alaska is growing slower than the US as a whole.
Arizona: Will gain a district every 20 years, but this could be quite irregular. For example if it doesn't gain a district in 2020, it could gain in 2030 and 2040.
Arkansas: Drops to 3 in 2060.
California: Could gain 54th in 2030 or 2040.
Colorado: Gains 8th in 2020 and 9th in 2040.
Connecticut: Loses 5th in 2030.
Delaware: Will get its 2nd seat back in 2070 (Wyoming and Alaska are only states that have never had at least two representatives).
Florida: Will gain two representatives per decade, though like Arizona, this may be irregular (1 some decades or 3 others).
Georgia: Gains 15th in 2040 (Georgia is increasing its lead on North Carolina)
Hawaii: No change (at current rate would gain 3rd seat in 2440).
Idaho: 3rd in 2040 (or perhaps 2050).
Illinois: Could lose 2 in 2030. By 2040 will be behind Georgia, and there will be increasing references to Atlantaland as distinguished from Downstate Georgia.
Indiana: Could lose in 2030, but more likely 2040.
Iowa: Loses in 2080. Des Moines in western district?
Kansas: Could lose in 2040, but 2050 is more likely.
Kentucky: Loses 6th in 2040, though 2050 is possible.
Louisiana: Loses 6th in 2080.
Maine: Loses 2nd in 2050, will they change their electoral vote allocation to 3 electoral districts?
Massachusetts: No losses until 2090.
Michigan: One per decade, but may be unchanged in 2040 or 2050. Michigan drops to 10th this decade, passed by Georgia and North Carolina, but won't drop out of top 10 until passed by Washington or Arizona in 2040 or 2050.
Minnesota: Will not lose another for the next century.
Mississippi: Possibly loses 4th in 2040, certainly by 2050.
Missouri: Loses 8th in 2040.
Montana: Regains 2nd in 2030? Montana is like a swimmer swimming against the current. Their position never changes.
Nebraska: May cling to 3rd indefinitely.
Nevada: Could gain 5th in 2040, particularly if housing bubble abates.
New Hampshire: Loses 2nd in 2060.
New Jersey: Loses 12th in 2030, and 11th in 2050.
New Mexico: Could lose 3rd in 2040.
New York: Should continue to lose one district per decade.
North Carolina: Very solid for 14th district in 2020. Could gain 15th in 2040. If not then, 2050.
North Dakota: Could regain 2nd by 2050, but that assumes continued growth in the Williston Basin.
Ohio: Will continue to lose a district per decade.
Oklahoma: Growing only slightly slower than country as a whole. Could have 5 districts forever.
Oregon: Could gain 7th district in 2080.
Pennsylvania: Will continue to lose a district per decade. Could see a loss of two due to rounding in the next few decades.
Rhode Island: Leads the path for Maine and New Hampshire to a single district.
South Carolina: Could gain 8th in 2050, maybe sooner if Charlotte spillover increases.
South Dakota: Regains 2nd in 2110.
Tennessee: Stuck on 9 forever.
Texas: Will add 3 or 4 each decade. Could surpass California by 2070.
Utah: Will likely gain 5th in 2030.
Vermont: Will likely fall below Wyoming by 2030.
Virginia: Possibility of 12 in 2040, but 2050 more likely.
West Virginia: Will keep 2 until at least 2070.
Wisconsin: Will lose 8th in 2030, as it will probably fall behind Minnesota.
Wyoming: One forever.

Great list, though it appears you missed Washington.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on October 02, 2017, 01:26:04 am
We can project the decennial change forward (for states that are losing population share, the value will decline, since it really relative to its current population share, and vice versa for gainers).

Alabama: If no loss in 2020, it will lose in 2030. The drop to 5 will occur in 2060, but possibly 2050.
Alaska: No change - Alaska is growing slower than the US as a whole.
Arizona: Will gain a district every 20 years, but this could be quite irregular. For example if it doesn't gain a district in 2020, it could gain in 2030 and 2040.
Arkansas: Drops to 3 in 2060.
California: Could gain 54th in 2030 or 2040.
Colorado: Gains 8th in 2020 and 9th in 2040.
Connecticut: Loses 5th in 2030.
Delaware: Will get its 2nd seat back in 2070 (Wyoming and Alaska are only states that have never had at least two representatives).
Florida: Will gain two representatives per decade, though like Arizona, this may be irregular (1 some decades or 3 others).
Georgia: Gains 15th in 2040 (Georgia is increasing its lead on North Carolina)
Hawaii: No change (at current rate would gain 3rd seat in 2440).
Idaho: 3rd in 2040 (or perhaps 2050).
Illinois: Could lose 2 in 2030. By 2040 will be behind Georgia, and there will be increasing references to Atlantaland as distinguished from Downstate Georgia.
Indiana: Could lose in 2030, but more likely 2040.
Iowa: Loses in 2080. Des Moines in western district?
Kansas: Could lose in 2040, but 2050 is more likely.
Kentucky: Loses 6th in 2040, though 2050 is possible.
Louisiana: Loses 6th in 2080.
Maine: Loses 2nd in 2050, will they change their electoral vote allocation to 3 electoral districts?
Massachusetts: No losses until 2090.
Michigan: One per decade, but may be unchanged in 2040 or 2050. Michigan drops to 10th this decade, passed by Georgia and North Carolina, but won't drop out of top 10 until passed by Washington or Arizona in 2040 or 2050.
Minnesota: Will not lose another for the next century.
Mississippi: Possibly loses 4th in 2040, certainly by 2050.
Missouri: Loses 8th in 2040.
Montana: Regains 2nd in 2030? Montana is like a swimmer swimming against the current. Their position never changes.
Nebraska: May cling to 3rd indefinitely.
Nevada: Could gain 5th in 2040, particularly if housing bubble abates.
New Hampshire: Loses 2nd in 2060.
New Jersey: Loses 12th in 2030, and 11th in 2050.
New Mexico: Could lose 3rd in 2040.
New York: Should continue to lose one district per decade.
North Carolina: Very solid for 14th district in 2020. Could gain 15th in 2040. If not then, 2050.
North Dakota: Could regain 2nd by 2050, but that assumes continued growth in the Williston Basin.
Ohio: Will continue to lose a district per decade.
Oklahoma: Growing only slightly slower than country as a whole. Could have 5 districts forever.
Oregon: Could gain 7th district in 2080.
Pennsylvania: Will continue to lose a district per decade. Could see a loss of two due to rounding in the next few decades.
Rhode Island: Leads the path for Maine and New Hampshire to a single district.
South Carolina: Could gain 8th in 2050, maybe sooner if Charlotte spillover increases.
South Dakota: Regains 2nd in 2110.
Tennessee: Stuck on 9 forever.
Texas: Will add 3 or 4 each decade. Could surpass California by 2070.
Utah: Will likely gain 5th in 2030.
Vermont: Will likely fall below Wyoming by 2030.
Virginia: Possibility of 12 in 2040, but 2050 more likely.
West Virginia: Will keep 2 until at least 2070.
Wisconsin: Will lose 8th in 2030, as it will probably fall behind Minnesota.
Wyoming: One forever.

Great list, though it appears you missed Washington.
Washington: Had a population just short of 9.5 in 2010, but got its 10th seat by a favorable rounding. Adding about 1/2 seat per decade, it will have 10 solid representatives in 2020  (in 2010 the districts were slightly underpopulated relative to the US). Will possibly get a favorable rounding in 2030, or for certain an 11th district in 2040.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: KingSweden on October 02, 2017, 09:27:06 am
We can project the decennial change forward (for states that are losing population share, the value will decline, since it really relative to its current population share, and vice versa for gainers).

Alabama: If no loss in 2020, it will lose in 2030. The drop to 5 will occur in 2060, but possibly 2050.
Alaska: No change - Alaska is growing slower than the US as a whole.
Arizona: Will gain a district every 20 years, but this could be quite irregular. For example if it doesn't gain a district in 2020, it could gain in 2030 and 2040.
Arkansas: Drops to 3 in 2060.
California: Could gain 54th in 2030 or 2040.
Colorado: Gains 8th in 2020 and 9th in 2040.
Connecticut: Loses 5th in 2030.
Delaware: Will get its 2nd seat back in 2070 (Wyoming and Alaska are only states that have never had at least two representatives).
Florida: Will gain two representatives per decade, though like Arizona, this may be irregular (1 some decades or 3 others).
Georgia: Gains 15th in 2040 (Georgia is increasing its lead on North Carolina)
Hawaii: No change (at current rate would gain 3rd seat in 2440).
Idaho: 3rd in 2040 (or perhaps 2050).
Illinois: Could lose 2 in 2030. By 2040 will be behind Georgia, and there will be increasing references to Atlantaland as distinguished from Downstate Georgia.
Indiana: Could lose in 2030, but more likely 2040.
Iowa: Loses in 2080. Des Moines in western district?
Kansas: Could lose in 2040, but 2050 is more likely.
Kentucky: Loses 6th in 2040, though 2050 is possible.
Louisiana: Loses 6th in 2080.
Maine: Loses 2nd in 2050, will they change their electoral vote allocation to 3 electoral districts?
Massachusetts: No losses until 2090.
Michigan: One per decade, but may be unchanged in 2040 or 2050. Michigan drops to 10th this decade, passed by Georgia and North Carolina, but won't drop out of top 10 until passed by Washington or Arizona in 2040 or 2050.
Minnesota: Will not lose another for the next century.
Mississippi: Possibly loses 4th in 2040, certainly by 2050.
Missouri: Loses 8th in 2040.
Montana: Regains 2nd in 2030? Montana is like a swimmer swimming against the current. Their position never changes.
Nebraska: May cling to 3rd indefinitely.
Nevada: Could gain 5th in 2040, particularly if housing bubble abates.
New Hampshire: Loses 2nd in 2060.
New Jersey: Loses 12th in 2030, and 11th in 2050.
New Mexico: Could lose 3rd in 2040.
New York: Should continue to lose one district per decade.
North Carolina: Very solid for 14th district in 2020. Could gain 15th in 2040. If not then, 2050.
North Dakota: Could regain 2nd by 2050, but that assumes continued growth in the Williston Basin.
Ohio: Will continue to lose a district per decade.
Oklahoma: Growing only slightly slower than country as a whole. Could have 5 districts forever.
Oregon: Could gain 7th district in 2080.
Pennsylvania: Will continue to lose a district per decade. Could see a loss of two due to rounding in the next few decades.
Rhode Island: Leads the path for Maine and New Hampshire to a single district.
South Carolina: Could gain 8th in 2050, maybe sooner if Charlotte spillover increases.
South Dakota: Regains 2nd in 2110.
Tennessee: Stuck on 9 forever.
Texas: Will add 3 or 4 each decade. Could surpass California by 2070.
Utah: Will likely gain 5th in 2030.
Vermont: Will likely fall below Wyoming by 2030.
Virginia: Possibility of 12 in 2040, but 2050 more likely.
West Virginia: Will keep 2 until at least 2070.
Wisconsin: Will lose 8th in 2030, as it will probably fall behind Minnesota.
Wyoming: One forever.

Great list, though it appears you missed Washington.
Washington: Had a population just short of 9.5 in 2010, but got its 10th seat by a favorable rounding. Adding about 1/2 seat per decade, it will have 10 solid representatives in 2020  (in 2010 the districts were slightly underpopulated relative to the US). Will possibly get a favorable rounding in 2030, or for certain an 11th district in 2040.


Thanks!


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: #WalkAwayFromDesantis on November 15, 2017, 10:35:54 pm
We can project the decennial change forward (for states that are losing population share, the value will decline, since it really relative to its current population share, and vice versa for gainers).

Alabama: If no loss in 2020, it will lose in 2030. The drop to 5 will occur in 2060, but possibly 2050.
Alaska: No change - Alaska is growing slower than the US as a whole.
Arizona: Will gain a district every 20 years, but this could be quite irregular. For example if it doesn't gain a district in 2020, it could gain in 2030 and 2040.
Arkansas: Drops to 3 in 2060.
California: Could gain 54th in 2030 or 2040.
Colorado: Gains 8th in 2020 and 9th in 2040.
Connecticut: Loses 5th in 2030.
Delaware: Will get its 2nd seat back in 2070 (Wyoming and Alaska are only states that have never had at least two representatives).
Florida: Will gain two representatives per decade, though like Arizona, this may be irregular (1 some decades or 3 others).
Georgia: Gains 15th in 2040 (Georgia is increasing its lead on North Carolina)
Hawaii: No change (at current rate would gain 3rd seat in 2440).
Idaho: 3rd in 2040 (or perhaps 2050).
Illinois: Could lose 2 in 2030. By 2040 will be behind Georgia, and there will be increasing references to Atlantaland as distinguished from Downstate Georgia.
Indiana: Could lose in 2030, but more likely 2040.
Iowa: Loses in 2080. Des Moines in western district?
Kansas: Could lose in 2040, but 2050 is more likely.
Kentucky: Loses 6th in 2040, though 2050 is possible.
Louisiana: Loses 6th in 2080.
Maine: Loses 2nd in 2050, will they change their electoral vote allocation to 3 electoral districts?
Massachusetts: No losses until 2090.
Michigan: One per decade, but may be unchanged in 2040 or 2050. Michigan drops to 10th this decade, passed by Georgia and North Carolina, but won't drop out of top 10 until passed by Washington or Arizona in 2040 or 2050.
Minnesota: Will not lose another for the next century.
Mississippi: Possibly loses 4th in 2040, certainly by 2050.
Missouri: Loses 8th in 2040.
Montana: Regains 2nd in 2030? Montana is like a swimmer swimming against the current. Their position never changes.
Nebraska: May cling to 3rd indefinitely.
Nevada: Could gain 5th in 2040, particularly if housing bubble abates.
New Hampshire: Loses 2nd in 2060.
New Jersey: Loses 12th in 2030, and 11th in 2050.
New Mexico: Could lose 3rd in 2040.
New York: Should continue to lose one district per decade.
North Carolina: Very solid for 14th district in 2020. Could gain 15th in 2040. If not then, 2050.
North Dakota: Could regain 2nd by 2050, but that assumes continued growth in the Williston Basin.
Ohio: Will continue to lose a district per decade.
Oklahoma: Growing only slightly slower than country as a whole. Could have 5 districts forever.
Oregon: Could gain 7th district in 2080.
Pennsylvania: Will continue to lose a district per decade. Could see a loss of two due to rounding in the next few decades.
Rhode Island: Leads the path for Maine and New Hampshire to a single district.
South Carolina: Could gain 8th in 2050, maybe sooner if Charlotte spillover increases.
South Dakota: Regains 2nd in 2110.
Tennessee: Stuck on 9 forever.
Texas: Will add 3 or 4 each decade. Could surpass California by 2070.
Utah: Will likely gain 5th in 2030.
Vermont: Will likely fall below Wyoming by 2030.
Virginia: Possibility of 12 in 2040, but 2050 more likely.
West Virginia: Will keep 2 until at least 2070.
Wisconsin: Will lose 8th in 2030, as it will probably fall behind Minnesota.
Wyoming: One forever.

Very interesting to see such tepid growth and even the loss of EV's for most of the non sun belt Deep South. I would have assumed that their high black population as well as high levels of religiosity would lead to higher birth rates and levels of population growth than the more secular states. I remember in the 2000's after Bush won a second term, that people said how liberals were losing the demographic war because they were having fewer kids than conservatives.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on November 16, 2017, 07:22:02 am
We can project the decennial change forward (for states that are losing population share, the value will decline, since it really relative to its current population share, and vice versa for gainers).

Alabama: If no loss in 2020, it will lose in 2030. The drop to 5 will occur in 2060, but possibly 2050.

Arkansas: Drops to 3 in 2060.

Kentucky: Loses 6th in 2040, though 2050 is possible.

Louisiana: Loses 6th in 2080.

Mississippi: Possibly loses 4th in 2040, certainly by 2050.

Tennessee: Stuck on 9 forever.

Very interesting to see such tepid growth and even the loss of EV's for most of the non sun belt Deep South. I would have assumed that their high black population as well as high levels of religiosity would lead to higher birth rates and levels of population growth than the more secular states. I remember in the 2000's after Bush won a second term, that people said how liberals were losing the demographic war because they were having fewer kids than conservatives.
Most change is by people moving to an area. Only Utah, and some surrounding states can grow based on higher birth rates. While fertility rates are declining, Mormons may tend to have earlier marriages and earlier birthings. Some high growth states like North Dakota may have higher birth rates due to younger people moving in and having the money to afford children.

To move to a new location, requires money. This can be a pension or savings for retirees. But this also needs constant replenishment, as retirees die or move back "home" where their children live. Northwest Arkansas and Tennessee may be attractive based on weather and low cost of living. But why would anyone retire to Alabama or Mississippi?

Someone who has a lot of wealth can live where they want to, but are likely to choose a place  based on weather or lifestyle. Some people can make income remotely, but they too are likely to choose a place based on weather or lifestyle. Colorado is much more attractive than Mississippi.

Or you can move for a job. But there are no jobs in rural area, and few in small towns. The number of jobs for school teachers, doctors, grocery workers, etc. is dependent on the underlying population of an area.

Manufacturing jobs are declining. While Alabama has attracted a lot of auto plants, this likely means that the overall decline is slower than in other states (Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, etc.)

Service jobs based on regional or national economy need large cities. No major corporation is going to relocate their HQ to a small town (Walmart is an anomaly, and the HQ was in Bentonville before it was a big company). If a company grows, they may move away from a smaller city like Jackson or Little Rock. Tennessee has a couple of larger cities (big enough to support major league teams), and unsurprisingly it is the only state in the mid-South holding its own.

Mississippi has the largest decline in relative population share. Jackson is a small city, and when Horn Lake, Southaven, and Pearl are top 10 cities, you don't have cities. Kentucky and Arkansas are quite concentrated. If you were choosing between Louisville, Columbus, and Indianapolis for a regional or national HQ, which do you choose?

Alabama has many cities, but may be held back by Birmingham shedding its image as an aging industrial city.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on November 26, 2017, 08:38:50 am
Update:

The new estimates for Mid-2017 are out in 4 weeks.

Based on preliminary CDC data of births and deaths, the US population growth rate likely dropped to the lowest level on record last year ... => 0.6%

(Not even in the 1930s was population growth so low, but there were no annual estimates back then. Only a decade-long growth rate of 7.5%)

Why ?

Births between July 2016 and June 2017 were only at 3.884 million (vs. 3.976 million in the year before).

Deaths between July 2016 and June 2017 were up at 2.780 million (vs. 2.721 million in the year before).

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/provisional-tables.htm

So, the natural increase decreased from 1.255 million between 2015-16 to just 1.104 million between 2016-17.

It is likely that the immigration balance is also down slightly from the +1 million in 2015-16, so the population likely increased by about 2 million people (maybe 2.1 million if immigration levels remain stable).


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on November 26, 2017, 03:14:18 pm
Update:

The new estimates for Mid-2017 are out in 4 weeks.

Deaths between July 2016 and June 2017 were up at 2.780 million (vs. 2.721 million in the year before).


The earliest baby boomers are now 72. Their death rate is 9.1% higher than a year earlier. They and their younger siblings are driving the 2.2% overall increase in the death rate.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on November 26, 2017, 03:36:37 pm
Update:

The new estimates for Mid-2017 are out in 4 weeks.

Deaths between July 2016 and June 2017 were up at 2.780 million (vs. 2.721 million in the year before).


The earliest baby boomers are now 72. Their death rate is 9.1% higher than a year earlier. They and their younger siblings are driving the 2.2% overall increase in the death rate.

Yes, this might be a reason.

Also:

Traditionally, some states have already released their own estimates for 2017 and it seems the high growth rates on the West Coast are very stable (WA had 1.7%, OR 1.6% and CA 0.9%) - while CO is also at 1.7%

FL is projected at +335.000, or +1.7% (like the year before).

Metro Atlanta increased by 80.000 people to April 2017, the highest level since before the 2008 recession.

On the other hand, WI's growth is down from 30.000 to about 8.000 within a year - suggesting an increased trend of stagnant/declining population in the Rust Belt/Northeast, with more and more people moving to the South and West Coast + the Mountain West.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 06, 2017, 02:55:46 pm
A new study estimates that some 470.000 Puerto Ricans have left the island after the hurricane there, with 215.000 heading to Florida (and a sizeable amount to NY of course).

These numbers won't show up in the new release out soon, because the data will be for July 1, 2017 and the hurricane was after that.

But FL should get a significant bump for the 2018 estimates, probably some 350-500K growth (or more than 2%).

NY should be lifted out of stagnation next year, before falling back into stagnation/decline.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2017/12/05/puerto-rico-immigration-hurricane-maria/


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Skycraper15 on December 06, 2017, 09:09:06 pm
Isn't Washington State also growing rapidly?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Southern Speaker Punxsutawney Phil on December 06, 2017, 09:42:00 pm
NY might wind up losing no seats this decade.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tintrlvr on December 06, 2017, 11:17:07 pm
A new study estimates that some 470.000 Puerto Ricans have left the island after the hurricane there, with 215.000 heading to Florida (and a sizeable amount to NY of course).

These numbers won't show up in the new release out soon, because the data will be for July 1, 2017 and the hurricane was after that.

But FL should get a significant bump for the 2018 estimates, probably some 350-500K growth (or more than 2%).

NY should be lifted out of stagnation next year, before falling back into stagnation/decline.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2017/12/05/puerto-rico-immigration-hurricane-maria/

So, the question is, which New York-area county will grow faster - the Bronx or Hudson County, New Jersey?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 07, 2017, 12:09:53 am
Isn't Washington State also growing rapidly?

Yes, but not because of Puerto Ricans.

(by 1.8% to April 2017 according to their own state estimates.)

Also, UT has released their state estimates recently: +1.9% to July 2017, which is roughly the same growth as the year before.



Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on December 10, 2017, 11:55:07 pm
Census' 2012-16 ACS estimates came out last week. I have started to map some of the results, and might start a thread here later in the week with #analysis, if I can find the time.

For my first project, I compiled the Seq 23 commuting data. For now, you can see some of the interactive maps I made of that data on my Carto page (http://cinyc.carto.com).


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: heatcharger on December 19, 2017, 06:52:29 pm
Aren't the latest state population estimates set to come out soon? Does anyone know when?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Vern on December 19, 2017, 07:03:29 pm
Aren't the latest state population estimates set to come out soon? Does anyone know when?

Tomorrow


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: DINGO Joe on December 20, 2017, 12:38:16 am
Aren't the latest state population estimates set to come out soon? Does anyone know when?

Tomorrow @9AM I think.  Part of the reason I wandered back in (though VA and AL were other reasons).


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on December 20, 2017, 10:24:35 am
The 2017 state estimates are out. It looks like Alaska, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming lost population.

The largest numerical gain was in Texas - almost 400,000, followed by Florida.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on December 20, 2017, 11:00:04 am
Censusí press release is out here:

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2017/estimates-idaho.html?intcmp=s1-popest-state

Idaho, Nevada and Utah had the highest percentage gains year-over-year.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Brittain33 on December 20, 2017, 11:00:43 am
Any surprises affecting reapportionment?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on December 20, 2017, 11:08:23 am
Any surprises affecting reapportionment?

Iíll leave that up to the experts.

Pennsylvania passed Illinois and is now the 5th largest state.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Brittain33 on December 20, 2017, 11:12:51 am
It's been an hour and Jim hasn't posted his updated spreadsheet yet.

(
Img
)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: DINGO Joe on December 20, 2017, 11:13:28 am
The most annoying thing about the estimates is that they change prior year(s) estimates (which i understand), but don't give you an easy way to see those changes.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: DINGO Joe on December 20, 2017, 11:14:40 am
It's been an hour and Jim hasn't posted his updated spreadsheet yet.

(
Img
)

We can only assume the worst--he's in Tender's basement.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 20, 2017, 11:19:23 am
Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2017 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 7 and a quarter year 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.

AL -1
AZ +1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

There are no changes since my projections last year (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=166668.msg5441819#msg5441819). The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are IL-17, TX-39, CA-53, FL-29, and AZ-10 (#435).
The next five in line are MT-2, AL-7, MN-8, NY-36, and CA-54.

An alternate projection could use just the last two years of estimates to determine the rate of growth for the rest of the decade. That model gives an extra seat to MT at the expense of one from CA.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗 on December 20, 2017, 11:34:08 am
Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2017 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 7 and a quarter year 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.

AL -1
AZ +1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

There are no changes since my projections last year (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=166668.msg5441819#msg5441819). The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are IL-17, TX-39, CA-53, FL-29, and AZ-10 (#435).
The next five in line are MT-2, AL-7, MN-8, NY-36, and CA-54.

An alternate projection could use just the last two years of estimates to determine the rate of growth for the rest of the decade. That model gives an extra seat to MT at the expense of one from CA.
So basically, the sun belt is gaining population and the rust belt is losing it.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: DINGO Joe on December 20, 2017, 11:41:14 am
The estimate for Illinois is actually higher than last year's estimate, but they raised last year's estimate by 34,000, so a 1,000 gain becomes a 33,000 loss.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Torie on December 20, 2017, 11:41:59 am
Any surprises affecting reapportionment?

Iíll leave that up to the experts.

Pennsylvania passed Illinois and is now the 5th largest state.

It is kind of shocking to read about PA passing another state in this department. When it happens, you know that the "passee" is in a sad state (yeah is in a sad state works too).  I wonder when Muon2 is moving out. I mean, I don't think he needs to be there anymore a year hence, and his kids live in the northeast I think.  :)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 20, 2017, 11:48:41 am
The estimates this year had few surprises, but next year may be different. The impact of the 2017 hurricanes will show up in the 2018 estimates. For example, a wave from PR to NY might keep NY from losing a seat.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: KingSweden on December 20, 2017, 12:33:51 pm
The estimates this year had few surprises, but next year may be different. The impact of the 2017 hurricanes will show up in the 2018 estimates. For example, a wave from PR to NY might keep NY from losing a seat.

Think TX might get bounced down to just 2 seats in such a scenario?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Starpaul20 on December 20, 2017, 02:09:49 pm
I decided to see what a Wyoming Rule house would look like with the new population estimates. The house membership would expand to 561 seats, an increase of 126 over its current size:

()
(States in red gain 1 seat, blue gains 2 seats, green gains 3 seats, yellow gains 4 seats, orange gains 5 or more and gray means no change)

EDIT: For comparison, here's what a Wyoming Rule house would look like with the 2010 census results (547 seats):
()


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 20, 2017, 02:40:30 pm
The international immigration surplus to the US was actually 1.1 million to July 2017 (up from less than 1 million in the year before), which is surprising considering Trump's harsh anti-immigrant policies.

When it comes to domestic migration patterns, the top-10 states with the highest domestic migration gains (excl. international migration) are:

FL (by far), TX, NC, WA, AZ, SC, GA, TN, NV and OR.

While NY, CA and IL have by far the largest domestic migration losses.

CA and NY have also the biggest international migration surplus, so this balances their huge domestic losses to other states.

2 states (ME and WV) had more deaths than births last year. CA and TX had the biggest birth surplus.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Gass3268 on December 20, 2017, 06:02:19 pm
(
Img
)

From Election Data Services (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRhkjOSXUAAfVj0.jpg)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Brittain33 on December 20, 2017, 06:53:54 pm
Are the only *certain* partisan impacts of the change AL -1R, RI -1D, WV -1R?

Is there any reasonable way Ohio actually eliminates another Dem? I have to imagine they are maxed out, the Trump surge in Ryan's district notwithstanding.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 21, 2017, 02:01:57 am
It's been an hour and Jim hasn't posted his updated spreadsheet yet.
Alabama would have been entitled to 6.737 representatives in 2010, based on use of the harmonic mean. By 2020 (based on exponential projection of 2010-2017 estimated growth rate) it will be entitled to 6.431 representatives. If we wanted to avoid paradoxes associated with ranking methods, we could independently round these numbers, though the total number of representatives would vary from 435. The difference between these two numbers is -0.309. This can be used to guesstimate future changes. For example, Alabama could be around 5.5 in 2050, and would lost its 6th seat in 2050 or 2060. The next columns are the projected number of seats for 2020 and the change from 2010. This does take into account ranking. These projections are unchanged from 2016.

The next columns are the additional change needed to get another seat, and the projected change for 2010-2020. Alabama is projected to increase by 132K from 2010 to 2020. It would need an additional 54K to get seven districts (and stave off the loss of a seat). Alabama has been growing at an annual rate at 0.27% from 2010-2017, and would have to kick it into gear at 0.69% for the last three years to keep a seventh seat.

State               2010    2020   10-20  20  Ch.   Need     Act    Rate    Need
Alabama            6.737   6.431  -0.307   6  -1      54     132   0.27%   0.67%
Alaska             1.117   1.101  -0.016   1   =     332      41   0.56%  14.89%
Arizona            8.999   9.502   0.503  10  +1     -60     877   1.29%   0.99%
Arkansas           4.129   3.998  -0.131   4   =    -406     123   0.41%  -4.69%
California        52.369  52.791   0.422  53   =    -547    3185   0.82%   0.33%
Colorado           7.087   7.644   0.557   8  +1    -157     814   1.51%   0.51%
Connecticut        5.049   4.718  -0.331   5   =    -195      19   0.05%  -1.96%
Delaware           1.358   1.383   0.025   1   =      96      89   0.95%   4.42%
Florida           26.435  28.562   2.127  29  +2    -223    3074   1.53%   1.15%
Georgia           13.627  14.010   0.383  14   =     378    1038   1.02%   2.30%
Hawaii             1.976   1.963  -0.014   2   =    -379      94   0.67%  -9.81%
Idaho              2.260   2.373   0.114   2   =     100     210   1.26%   3.29%
Illinois          18.043  16.705  -1.337  17  -1    -259     -39  -0.03%  -0.77%
Indiana            9.128   8.810  -0.318   9   =    -290     254   0.38%  -1.21%
Iowa               4.312   4.186  -0.126   4   =     242     137   0.44%   3.16%
Kansas             4.042   3.865  -0.176   4   =    -304      83   0.29%  -3.62%
Kentucky           6.120   5.894  -0.226   6   =    -336     159   0.36%  -2.44%
Louisiana          6.392   6.212  -0.180   6   =     223     210   0.45%   2.14%
Maine              1.933   1.818  -0.115   2   =    -264      10   0.08%  -7.61%
Maryland           8.131   8.059  -0.072   8   =     340     388   0.65%   2.64%
Massachusetts      9.217   9.128  -0.089   9   =     287     434   0.64%   2.13%
Michigan          13.902  13.054  -0.848  13  -1     344     109   0.11%   1.35%
Minnesota          7.472   7.436  -0.036   7  -1      50     380   0.69%   1.01%
Mississippi        4.201   3.936  -0.265   4   =    -358      23   0.08%  -4.46%
Missouri           8.433   8.059  -0.375   8   =     340     173   0.28%   2.26%
Montana            1.478   1.489   0.011   1   =       9      85   0.83%   1.13%
Nebraska           2.615   2.603  -0.012   3   =     -96     131   0.69%  -1.12%
Nevada             3.829   4.103   0.274   4   =     307     419   1.45%   4.98%
New Hampshire      1.917   1.836  -0.081   2   =    -278      36   0.27%  -7.78%
New Jersey        12.369  11.874  -0.494  12   =    -358     296   0.33%  -1.12%
New Mexico         2.937   2.785  -0.152   3   =    -238      40   0.19%  -4.09%
New York          27.244  26.154  -1.090  26  -1     269     653   0.33%   0.82%
North Carolina    13.413  13.805   0.392  14  +1    -317    1033   1.03%  -0.08%
North Dakota       1.070   1.145   0.076   1   =     294     117   1.61%  14.02%
Ohio              16.224  15.288  -0.936  15  -1     164     169   0.15%   0.65%
Oklahoma           5.297   5.247  -0.050   5   =     195     250   0.65%   2.41%
Oregon             5.408   5.593   0.185   6  +1    -105     436   1.08%   0.17%
Pennsylvania      17.862  16.775  -1.087  17  -1    -313     143   0.11%  -0.78%
Rhode Island       1.562   1.474  -0.088   1  -1      21      10   0.09%   0.81%
South Carolina     6.521   6.786   0.265   7   =    -260     559   1.15%  -0.73%
South Dakota       1.249   1.267   0.018   1   =     192      78   0.91%   8.32%
Tennessee          8.935   8.971   0.037   9   =    -414     516   0.78%  -1.47%
Texas             35.350  38.649   3.299  39  +3    -351    4459   1.65%   1.21%
Utah               3.917   4.260   0.343   4   =     186     477   1.60%   3.69%
Vermont            1.012   0.955  -0.057   1   =     461      -3  -0.05%  22.25%
Virginia          11.258  11.309   0.051  11   =     148     654   0.79%   1.41%
Washington         9.466  10.040   0.575  10   =     354     957   1.34%   3.01%
West Virginia      2.652   2.405  -0.247   2  -1      75     -51  -0.28%   1.21%
Wisconsin          8.010   7.636  -0.373   8   =    -151     150   0.26%  -0.69%
Wyoming            0.937   0.913  -0.024   1   =     498      22   0.38%  25.57%



Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 21, 2017, 07:04:25 am
It's been an hour and Jim hasn't posted his updated spreadsheet yet.
State               2010    2020   10-20  20  Ch.   Need     Act    Rate    Need
Alabama            6.737   6.431  -0.307   6  -1      54     132   0.27%   0.67%
Alaska             1.117   1.101  -0.016   1   =     332      41   0.56%  14.89%
Arizona            8.999   9.502   0.503  10  +1     -60     877   1.29%   0.99%
Arkansas           4.129   3.998  -0.131   4   =    -406     123   0.41%  -4.69%
California        52.369  52.791   0.422  53   =    -547    3185   0.82%   0.33%
Colorado           7.087   7.644   0.557   8  +1    -157     814   1.51%   0.51%
Connecticut        5.049   4.718  -0.331   5   =    -195      19   0.05%  -1.96%
Delaware           1.358   1.383   0.025   1   =      96      89   0.95%   4.42%
Florida           26.435  28.562   2.127  29  +2    -223    3074   1.53%   1.15%
Georgia           13.627  14.010   0.383  14   =     378    1038   1.02%   2.30%
Hawaii             1.976   1.963  -0.014   2   =    -379      94   0.67%  -9.81%
Idaho              2.260   2.373   0.114   2   =     100     210   1.26%   3.29%
Illinois          18.043  16.705  -1.337  17  -1    -259     -39  -0.03%  -0.77%
Indiana            9.128   8.810  -0.318   9   =    -290     254   0.38%  -1.21%
Iowa               4.312   4.186  -0.126   4   =     242     137   0.44%   3.16%
Kansas             4.042   3.865  -0.176   4   =    -304      83   0.29%  -3.62%
Kentucky           6.120   5.894  -0.226   6   =    -336     159   0.36%  -2.44%
Louisiana          6.392   6.212  -0.180   6   =     223     210   0.45%   2.14%
Maine              1.933   1.818  -0.115   2   =    -264      10   0.08%  -7.61%
Maryland           8.131   8.059  -0.072   8   =     340     388   0.65%   2.64%
Massachusetts      9.217   9.128  -0.089   9   =     287     434   0.64%   2.13%
Michigan          13.902  13.054  -0.848  13  -1     344     109   0.11%   1.35%
Minnesota          7.472   7.436  -0.036   7  -1      50     380   0.69%   1.01%
Mississippi        4.201   3.936  -0.265   4   =    -358      23   0.08%  -4.46%
Missouri           8.433   8.059  -0.375   8   =     340     173   0.28%   2.26%
Montana            1.478   1.489   0.011   1   =       9      85   0.83%   1.13%
Nebraska           2.615   2.603  -0.012   3   =     -96     131   0.69%  -1.12%
Nevada             3.829   4.103   0.274   4   =     307     419   1.45%   4.98%
New Hampshire      1.917   1.836  -0.081   2   =    -278      36   0.27%  -7.78%
New Jersey        12.369  11.874  -0.494  12   =    -358     296   0.33%  -1.12%
New Mexico         2.937   2.785  -0.152   3   =    -238      40   0.19%  -4.09%
New York          27.244  26.154  -1.090  26  -1     269     653   0.33%   0.82%
North Carolina    13.413  13.805   0.392  14  +1    -317    1033   1.03%  -0.08%
North Dakota       1.070   1.145   0.076   1   =     294     117   1.61%  14.02%
Ohio              16.224  15.288  -0.936  15  -1     164     169   0.15%   0.65%
Oklahoma           5.297   5.247  -0.050   5   =     195     250   0.65%   2.41%
Oregon             5.408   5.593   0.185   6  +1    -105     436   1.08%   0.17%
Pennsylvania      17.862  16.775  -1.087  17  -1    -313     143   0.11%  -0.78%
Rhode Island       1.562   1.474  -0.088   1  -1      21      10   0.09%   0.81%
South Carolina     6.521   6.786   0.265   7   =    -260     559   1.15%  -0.73%
South Dakota       1.249   1.267   0.018   1   =     192      78   0.91%   8.32%
Tennessee          8.935   8.971   0.037   9   =    -414     516   0.78%  -1.47%
Texas             35.350  38.649   3.299  39  +3    -351    4459   1.65%   1.21%
Utah               3.917   4.260   0.343   4   =     186     477   1.60%   3.69%
Vermont            1.012   0.955  -0.057   1   =     461      -3  -0.05%  22.25%
Virginia          11.258  11.309   0.051  11   =     148     654   0.79%   1.41%
Washington         9.466  10.040   0.575  10   =     354     957   1.34%   3.01%
West Virginia      2.652   2.405  -0.247   2  -1      75     -51  -0.28%   1.21%
Wisconsin          8.010   7.636  -0.373   8   =    -151     150   0.26%  -0.69%
Wyoming            0.937   0.913  -0.024   1   =     498      22   0.38%  25.57%

Over this decade projections have changed very little.

After 2011, projected gainers were Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Texas+3, and Virginia.
Projected losers were Alabama, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.

In 2011, Arizona and Florida were still shaking off the effects of the housing bubble in 2008, which saw people without jobs upside down on their mortgages, and near-seniors not able to retire and move to Florida.  Oregon has been grasping a 6th seat for a long time, but not quite able to keep up with Washington, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and Colorado. Mid-decade they had an uptick in population increase.

Meanwhile, New York has dropped from a rate that would have kept them losing a whole seat, to much slower growth. West Virginia went from anemic growth to an actual loss, and Virginia has slowed its growth, as the big government boom of the early Obama years has ended.

By 2011, North Carolina had gained a seat, and Minnesota had lost a seat, and if this were Australia, there would have been a redistribution.

By 2002, there were no changes.

By 2003, West Virginia was projected to lose its 3rd district, and Alabama keep its 7th. At the time West Virginia was at zero growth, and could have kept the district if it could only increase its rate of growth to 0.08%. It wasn't anything Alabama was doing, but simply that West Virginia had spun out.

By 2004, Texas would have gained a seat, and Pennsylvania lost a seat, triggering an Australian redistribution. There were no changes in the projections, but Alabama was getting narrowly close to losing a seat.

By 2005, Florida would have gained a seat, and Illinois lost a seat, triggering redistribution. The projections changed significantly. Arizona was projected to gain a seat, as was Oregon. Mid-decade growth in Oregon is roughly twice that of the early decade. California was also projected to gain a seat, but just barely. Virginia had fallen below (it had grown at a 0.86% rate, but if it increased to 0.89% it could keep the gain. Alabama was again projected to lose a seat, and New York to barely lose a seat.

By 2016, Oregon would have gained a seat, and Michigan lost a seat. Florida was now projected to gain a second seat, while California no longer was.

For 2017, Colorado would have gained a seat, and Texas a second seat. We would be busy speculating on the 8-district map in Colorado and 38-district map in Texas for the 2008 election. Meanwhile, New York and West Virginia would have lost a district.

In Australia, if it is too late to draw a full map, the most populous district is split in half, or the least two populous adjacent districts merged.

The projections for 2020 have not changed. There would be speculative maps for Arizona+1, Florida+2, and Texas+3, as well as Alabama-1, Ohio-1, and Rhode Island -1 (no speculation needed here, except who will win the Democratic primary between two incumbents).


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Brittain33 on December 21, 2017, 08:35:35 am
Interesting that a Puerto Rican in-migration can't move the needle further in Florida, but a hurricane-driven bust in Texas *could* cost the third seat if sizable enough.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Gass3268 on December 21, 2017, 10:27:29 am
Interesting that a Puerto Rican in-migration can't move the needle further in Florida, but a hurricane-driven bust in Texas *could* cost the third seat if sizable enough.

I believe these estimates are supposed to be from July, 2017. So they would not take into account the Hurricanes. Like Muon said, it will be interesting if the Puerto Rican hurricane diaspora's impact also on New York, along with Florida.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Oryxslayer on December 21, 2017, 10:49:06 am
I doubt the NY migration will have much of an effect, probably the greatest impacts will be forcing the lost seat to be upstate and perhaps giving Velazquez an actual HVAP seat. FL movement will probably lock down their second gain, and perhaps direct both seat towards the I-4, rather then one 1-4 and one Miami metro seat.

The Houston hurricane is perhaps the most interesting. While those with flood insurance were probably secure, a bunch of housing in the region is now covered in mold and other flood related issues. It wouldn't take much to push Texas below their third seat, giving it to Montana. The questions is, will the losses from Houston move the needle for one year enough to temporarily slow the rapid growth of the state, 


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Nyvin on December 21, 2017, 10:55:15 am
Montana gaining a second seat really could be a good outcome for democrats,  western Montana has some pretty liberal areas and is actually trending Democratic in some cases.   If the state is split in two that seat just might become competitive.  


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Brittain33 on December 21, 2017, 12:13:54 pm
Interesting that a Puerto Rican in-migration can't move the needle further in Florida, but a hurricane-driven bust in Texas *could* cost the third seat if sizable enough.

I believe these estimates are supposed to be from July, 2017. So they would not take into account the Hurricanes. Like Muon said, it will be interesting if the Puerto Rican hurricane diaspora's impact also on New York, along with Florida.


Yeah. Never mind, I misread Jim's spreadsheet as saying Florida needed 3m additional people to get a third seat, but obviously that can't be true.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Singletxguyforfun on December 21, 2017, 12:47:55 pm
Montana gaining a second seat really could be a good outcome for democrats,  western Montana has some pretty liberal areas and is actually trending Democratic is cases.   If the state is split in two that seat just might become competitive. 

Drawing a hook from Missoula along the Canadian border and connecting it with East Montana would result in 2 roughly R+11 districts. It'd be interesting to see what they would do


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 23, 2017, 07:00:26 am
Montana gaining a second seat really could be a good outcome for democrats,  western Montana has some pretty liberal areas and is actually trending Democratic is cases.   If the state is split in two that seat just might become competitive. 

Drawing a hook from Missoula along the Canadian border and connecting it with East Montana would result in 2 roughly R+11 districts. It'd be interesting to see what they would do

Montana has a redistricting commission. It drew two congressional districts in 1980. In the early 1990s when the loss of the 2nd seat was being litigated, the legislature ordered them to draw two districts. They apparently did so, but the final official report only had one district.

You could probably use the 1980 district boundaries, and then adjust them a bit each decade. Great Falls and Billings have probably had enough growth to keep the two districts pretty much in balance, and Silver Bow (Butte) has been in decline.

Maps of historical district boundaries (https://github.com/JeffreyBLewis/congressional-district-boundaries)

The numbers in the map names indicate the Congresses they were in effect. The First Congress began in 1789 (and under modern system would have been elected in 1788). The 51st Congress was elected in 1888, and the 101st in 1988.

Montana gained a second representative in 1912, but did not create two districts until 1918. Those districts were frozen until 'Reynolds v Sims' i.e. 66th (1918) through 89th (1964). It is quite possible that these districts were never equal population, since it appears that geography was more significant, following the Rockies.

90 through 92 (1966-1970) was the first equal-population map, and the boundary had to move eastward.

93 through 97 (1972-1980) and the line went further east, wrapping around Great Falls.

98 through 98 (1982) I'm not sure what changed or not changed. Perhaps there was litigation, and the districts had to made even more equal.

99 (1984) through 102 (1990) The boundary moved back west.

103 (1992) through 112 (2010) This is the single district map.

Perhaps there would have been a need for a larger change, and Gallatin (Bozeman) would put in the east, forcing the northern boundary back to the east around Great Falls.

In 1992, the Democratic and Republican representatives, and the Democrat (Pat Williams) won. Williams did not seek re-election in 1996, and the House seat has been Republican ever since.

With the two universities, the state capital, and Butte, the western district might be at least competitive for Democrats.

Historical Shapefiles (http://cdmaps.polisci.ucla.edu/)

The animation on the first page is pretty cool.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 23, 2017, 07:49:14 am
Interesting that a Puerto Rican in-migration can't move the needle further in Florida, but a hurricane-driven bust in Texas *could* cost the third seat if sizable enough.
Florida's increase was only enough for a 2nd district, and that after recovery from the housing bubble took hold. Interstate migration has slowed down, and Florida must constantly be replenishing the retirees who move there in their 60s, and die within a few decades. There is more growth if you get younger migrants who are young enough to reproduce.

People who moved because their houses flooded, moved to Dallas and San Antonio and Austin, and did not leave the state. As long as oil holds at $60 there will be jobs in Houston. If you have a job and had flood insurance, you can live in an apartment or hotel, while your house is repaired or a new one is built. If you didn't have flood insurance, but have a job, you are still better off, than moving to where you don't have a job. And getting a job in San Francisco and renting a house in Stockton doesn't have a lot of appeal.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 23, 2017, 07:56:34 am
The most annoying thing about the estimates is that they change prior year(s) estimates (which i understand), but don't give you an easy way to see those changes.
On the estimates pages and also the American Fact Finder you can get previous vintages of estimates.

I think the changes are hard to visualize. If the 2016 and 2017 estimates  are the same, but the 2017 estimate is that there was an increase, then the 2016 estimate was revised downward. But that wouldn't be because they had missed a block of people dying or moving, but they overestimated some changes. So the growth curve did not change, but was modified. Perhaps an animation might work.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 23, 2017, 12:45:57 pm
An alternate projection could use just the last two years of estimates to determine the rate of growth for the rest of the decade. That model gives an extra seat to MT at the expense of one from CA.
This would be interesting because it illustrates a paradox in the apportionment method. California would have gained in population share while losing in representation share.

The last two decades there has been an inordinate number of states with fractions under 0.5, that got rounded upward. This benefited larger states, because they can spread their deficit among a large number of districts. So even though California had a bit over 52/435 of the population, they got a 53rd seat. But now the anomaly of states with fractions under 0.5 is disappearing, and though California will be closer to 53/435 of the population they could lose a district.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: politicallefty on December 24, 2017, 04:43:38 am
I've been watching the census estimates throughout the decade and I've seen California move around a bit. To those that pay attention more closely, what are the odds or what will it take for the creation of CA-54?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Minnesota Mike on December 24, 2017, 09:43:26 am
I've been watching the census estimates throughout the decade and I've seen California move around a bit. To those that pay attention more closely, what are the odds or what will it take for the creation of CA-54?

Losing a seat is more likely than gaining one. 

 


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 30, 2017, 05:59:12 pm
I've been watching the census estimates throughout the decade and I've seen California move around a bit. To those that pay attention more closely, what are the odds or what will it take for the creation of CA-54?
In general terms, California would have to increase from 53/435 of the total population to 54/435 of the population. This means that California would have to increase at 54/53 - 1 or 1.89% faster than the country as a whole. But California is such a large share of the population (almost 1/8), that an 8% increase in California would produce a 1% increase in the total population, even if all the other states were static.

The USA as whole will increase about 7.7% over the decade, and based on projecting the first seven years estimates forward for 10 years, California will grow at 8.5%. But the growth rate in California has dropped the past two years.

In the first five years of the decade, California increased by 345K. 347K, 328K, 354K, and 331K; but in the last two years has only increased by 264K and 240K.

California needed 2.857M increase just to tread water. If the increase for the first five years had been sustained, California would have gained 3.410M, and the surplus of 553K would have gone a long way towards populating another congressional district.

But if we project the growth from the first seven years, then California would only grow 3.156M and the surplus would only be 299K. But if we project the last year's growth over the final three years, California would only have a 2.929M increase and California would just be treading water.

The Census Bureau also estimates the components of change, births, deaths, international migration, and domestic migration. Births and deaths are easy to estimate since most are officially recorded. This is not true for migration. You don't have to tell anyone you are moving, and you might not even know that you are changing residence. You might take a summer vacation, decide you like the location, and find a job.

Births have declined slightly (4%) over the seven years. This might represent a decline in the fertility rate (rate at which women in child-bearing ages have children), or a decline in the number of women of child-bearing ages, or both.

Deaths have increased by about 15% seven years. This is mostly due to aging baby boomers. The oldest baby boomers have aged from 65 to 72 during the first seven years. About 2% of 72-YO die, while only 1% of 65-YO will die.

The combination of the two has meant a decrease in the natural increase (births minus deaths) of about 21%, from 271K to 214K.

International migration has held steady, and actually increased the past three years.

Domestic net migration has increased sharply the last three years. Between 2010 and 2015, 3.2 million Californians left the state, and 2.9 million people moved to the state, for a net outflow of 300K. A lot of these are the same people. It may be exciting to live near the beach, but if the reality is that you have to commute from Barstow or Bakersfield to Los Angeles, you are too tired to go surfing on weekends. Or if you are divorced, you might move back home.

To make a big change in the net, you only need small increases in the inflow and outflow. A 5% decrease in inflow, and 5% increase in outflow, doubles the net flow.

I really don't know the reasons for the change. It could be lower inflows from people who realize that a higher salary does not make California livable if you can't afford housing or face a supercommute. Or perhaps it is retirees, whose home equity has recovered enough since 2008 that they can sell and move to a location where their Social Security and pension will go further.

Western states of WA, OR, ID, NV, MT. UT, and AZ have had their highest domestic inflows in the past two years. It isn't quite true for Colorado, in part because Colorado has had robust inflow throughout the decade. There is also strong inflow along the South Atlantic coastal states from North Carolina to Florida. And there have been small upticks in places like MN, AR, TN, DE, NH, and ME. So there has been an increase in outflow to nearby states.

A more obscure effect is rounding. Imagine that you polled 1000 persons, and 434 said Good, 353 said Bad, and 213 said Otherwise.

So you write an article that says 43% Good, 35% Bad, 21% Otherwise (* percentages do not total 100 because of rounding)

Or perhaps the results were 436 Good, 357 Bad, and 207 Otherwise. This is reported as 44% Good, 36% Bad, and 21% Otherwise. In this case, the percentages add to 101.

It is not because the pollster in one case didn't interview enough people, and in the second case polled too many, it is the effect of rounding error. In other cases, the rounding errors cancel, and the percentages will add to 100 (434 Good, 358 Bad, 208 Otherwise, rounds to 43, 36, 21).

The same thing can happen with the apportionment of representatives, except there are 50 states and 435 representatives. It would be embarrassing for C-SPAN to have vote totals showing *Numbers do not total 435 due to rounding.

One might expect that if you represented each states representation as decimal fraction (e.g. 52.368) 25 of the fractions would be less than 0.500 and 25 would be greater than 0.500, While this is the statistical expectation*, it won't always be true. It is somewhat like flipping a coin 50 times. The most likely outcome is 25 heads and 25 tails, but it can be more or less. It is possible, though extremely improbable that all 50 fractions would be less than 0.5, or all 50 would be more than 0.5.

And even then the total of the fractions might not sum to 25. It is possible for example that the 25 fractions less than 0.5, average 0.4, and sum to 10, while the 25 fractions greater than 0.5 average 0.8 and sum to 20, giving a sum of fractions of 30. If the fractions sum to 30, we have to give an extra seat to 30 states, but only 25 would have fractions greater than 0.5 and "deserve" an extra seat. We would have to give the other five seats to the "least undeserving".

It happens that when "extra" seats are given out, that larger states like California are favored.

On the other hand, it is also possible that the total of the fractions is less than 25, even when there are 25 states with a fraction greater than 0.5. In that case, we don't have enough extra seats to hand out. When this occurs, larger states like California are disfavored.

As it turns out in 2000 and 2010, there were more extra seats to be handed out than there were states clearly deserving them. One of those was California, which received a 53rd seat when it was still closer to 52 than 53. In the earlier part of this decade, California was approaching actually having 53/435 of the population, but with the recent uptick in domestic outflow, could drop back closer to 52.5 or 52.6. And the distribution of fractions appears to be trending back towards the ordinary, and it might be that California could be apportioned 52 seats, even while its population share increased.

*Not exactly, but within a quibble.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 31, 2017, 05:08:36 pm
This is a closer look at the states of interest.

State               2010    2020   10-20  20  Ch.   Need     Act    Rate    Need
Alabama            6.737   6.431  -0.307   6  -1      54     132   0.27%   0.67%
Arizona            8.999   9.502   0.503  10  +1     -60     877   1.29%   0.99%
California        52.369  52.791   0.422  53   =    -547    3185   0.82%   0.33%
Colorado           7.087   7.644   0.557   8  +1    -157     814   1.51%   0.51%
Florida           26.435  28.562   2.127  29  +2    -223    3074   1.53%   1.15%
Georgia           13.627  14.010   0.383  14   =     378    1038   1.02%   2.30%
Illinois          18.043  16.705  -1.337  17  -1    -259     -39  -0.03%  -0.77%
Michigan          13.902  13.054  -0.848  13  -1     344     109   0.11%   1.35%
Minnesota          7.472   7.436  -0.036   7  -1      50     380   0.69%   1.01%
Montana            1.478   1.489   0.011   1   =       9      85   0.83%   1.13%
New York          27.244  26.154  -1.090  26  -1     269     653   0.33%   0.82%
North Carolina    13.413  13.805   0.392  14  +1    -317    1033   1.03%  -0.08%
Ohio              16.224  15.288  -0.936  15  -1     164     169   0.15%   0.65%
Oregon             5.408   5.593   0.185   6  +1    -105     436   1.08%   0.17%
Pennsylvania      17.862  16.775  -1.087  17  -1    -313     143   0.11%  -0.78%
Rhode Island       1.562   1.474  -0.088   1  -1      21      10   0.09%   0.81%
Texas             35.350  38.649   3.299  39  +3    -351    4459   1.65%   1.21%
Virginia          11.258  11.309   0.051  11   =     148     654   0.79%   1.41%
West Virginia      2.652   2.405  -0.247   2  -1      75     -51  -0.28%   1.21%


Alabama has only added 89K the first seven years, and is projected to add 43K more, but they would need another 54K beyond that to keep the seventh seat, which would require a better than doubling of the growth rate. It is not going to happen.

Arizona appears to be on the edge, but it really isn't. If an annual growth rate of 1.29% decreased to 0.99%, it could miss out. But the growth rate has been increasing, and was 1.56% last year.

Growth in California has dropped off significantly in the last few years. The projection is now whether California will keep its 53rd seat (it will), not whether it will gain a 54th.

Growth in Colorado has been steady to increasing a bit. To miss out on the 8th seat would mean a total collapse in the growth rate from 1.51 to 0.51%.

Florida has increased its growth rate so that is now pretty solid for a second seat. To miss out, it would have to drop down to 1.15% per year. Last year it was at 1.59%. But Florida is a long way from adding a 3rd seat.

Georgia is matching North Carolina, but it got its 14th seat in 2010 while North Carolina missed out.

Illinois is losing population, but only slightly. To lose a second seat would require a mass exodus. Since Illinois is losing at more than one district per decade (1.337) it would be a prime candidate to lose two districts next decade.

For Michigan to keep its 14th seat would require going from tepid growth to people pouring in.

Minnesota continues to drift away from keeping its 8th seat. Minnesota is projected to gain 7.2% this decade, but the country as a whole is gaining 7.7%. Minnesota has averages a gain of 0.69% this decade. Last year was a good year at 0.93%, but this is still short of the 1.01% it will need to catch up. The states that Minnesota is chasing are Arizona and Florida, and they are unlikely to make it easy.

Montana is expected to add 85K this decade, but need 9K extra. When you are a small as Montana, 9K represents an extra year's growth. Montana did gain 1.14% this year, which is a bit better than what is needed. For the decade, Montana is growing 0.9% faster than the country for the decade. At that rate it takes decades if not centuries to gain a seat. Montana may also suffer a bit from lowered activity in the Williston Basin.

The growth rate for New York has sharply dropped during this decade. While the compounded rate for the decade is calculated at 0.33%, the estimate for 2016 to 2017 was 0.07%. While some of this decline may be attributed to Puerto Ricans retiring to the island, there must be many other factors at work, including the decline of people moving into cities. Puerto Ricans returning to the mainland will want to live with relatives. Some who had moved back to Puerto Rico may have done so because their children had moved elsewhere.

North Carolina had barely missed out on its 14th seat and may have already had received it by the time of the July 2010 estimate base.

Ohio is only projected to grow at 1.5% for the decade, enough to cause it to lose a full seat.

Oregon was dawdling along just below the level needed for a sixth seat until 2013, when net domestic inflow increased dramatically to give it a boost. This must be tied to more people moving north from California, and the number moving south remaining steady or declining.

Pennsylvania will only gain 1.1% for the decade, and will lose a seat.

Rhode Island is only gaining 0.9% for the decade, and will be passed by Montana. Rhode Island is more certain of losing its seat, than Montana gaining one (at least one of these must happen).

Texas is on pace to gain three seats. A 17.7% over the decade, which is 10% faster than the national rate, results in a 10% increase in representation (10% of 36 is 3.6). The only reason that Texas is not gaining a fourth seat is that it got a favorable rounding in 2013. Unemployment is at 3.8%, job growth in percentage term was 2nd in the country, and oil prices are at the highest level since 2014.

Virginia was somewhat close to gaining a seat in the early part of the decade, but since then domestic migration has reversed to an outflow. An 8.2% increase is just slightly ahead of the US rate.

West Virginia is one of three states losing population (Illinois and Vermont are the others), and will lose 2.8% of its population. West Virginia is the only state with a natural population decrease (more deaths than births), a result of an aging population, and potential parents leaving the state, or holding off having babies in uncertain times.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: politicallefty on January 01, 2018, 08:24:28 am
In general terms, California would have to increase from 53/435 of the total population to 54/435 of the population. This means that California would have to increase at 54/53 - 1 or 1.89% faster than the country as a whole. But California is such a large share of the population (almost 1/8), that an 8% increase in California would produce a 1% increase in the total population, even if all the other states were static.

The USA as whole will increase about 7.7% over the decade, and based on projecting the first seven years estimates forward for 10 years, California will grow at 8.5%. But the growth rate in California has dropped the past two years.

In the first five years of the decade, California increased by 345K. 347K, 328K, 354K, and 331K; but in the last two years has only increased by 264K and 240K.

California needed 2.857M increase just to tread water. If the increase for the first five years had been sustained, California would have gained 3.410M, and the surplus of 553K would have gone a long way towards populating another congressional district.

I appreciate your answer. I did read it all. The reason I asked is because I recall looking at Census estimates maybe 2 years ago and it seemed like California was on track for a 54th seat and now suddenly it could actually lose a seat. I realize that bigger states are more prone to the potential of gaining or losing a certain number of seats (i.e. muon noting that CA-53 would be seat 433 and CA-54 would be seat 440).

Do you have or know of a spreadsheet where one could input population numbers to determine the overall seat apportionment?

One thing I do wonder about is if certain states might make their own efforts to ensure the accuracy of the overall count.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Southern Speaker Punxsutawney Phil on January 01, 2018, 08:42:53 am
So it's quite likely both MT and RI have just 1 CD?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Oryxslayer on January 01, 2018, 12:39:12 pm
This is a closer look at the states of interest.


Excellent analysis as always, the only comment I would make is on NY. You actually already did a congressional district evaluation a while ago, and we found that ot was the Upstate CDs dropping pop like a stone. I recall the downstate Cds were a wash (some overpopulated, others underpopulated) whereas the upstate CDs were all between .98 and .92 of a CD in their respective year. It rather is not Puerto Ricans moving, but rather the usual Rust Velt decline we see across the great lakes area.

So it's quite likely both MT and RI have just 1 CD?

What MT is wishing for is radical change from the Hurricanes. Present growth rates are, as jimrtex has shown, are pretty much locked in. TX will probably experience a small slowdown next year as marginal number of families leave the Gulf Coast for other states (The majority stayed in the state), and as the construction market in the region freezes building new homes to repair and clean up the old damaged ones. Probably won't cause a significant downturn, but might be enough - and MT hopes, that they miss CD #3.

The east coast will also go through a shakeup as Puerto Ricans move to the mainland. The majority will no doubt head to NY and FL, locking in CD #2  fr the Sunshine state, and ensuring the cut CD in NY is upstate - probably NY 22 due to its central location. Some however will hed to areas with Puerto Rican communities like Reading PA.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Minnesota Mike on January 01, 2018, 12:44:43 pm
So it's quite likely both MT and RI have just 1 CD?

RI will almost certainly lose a seat but MT will be right on the threshold of gaining a seat. Right now the projection using short term trends has them gaining a seat, the projection using long term trends has them staying at one seat (FWIW I prefer using short term trends).

BTW Congress uses a different method of apportioning seats ( the HuntingtonĖHill method) than jimrtex does (The Vinton or Hamilton method) that can produce slightly different results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on January 02, 2018, 11:40:41 am
So it's quite likely both MT and RI have just 1 CD?

RI will almost certainly lose a seat but MT will be right on the threshold of gaining a seat. Right now the projection using short term trends has them gaining a seat, the projection using long term trends has them staying at one seat (FWIW I prefer using short term trends).

BTW Congress uses a different method of apportioning seats ( the HuntingtonĖHill method) than jimrtex does (The Vinton or Hamilton method) that can produce slightly different results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment
I use Huntington-Hill. My use of "raw" may have misled you. I used a slightly cooked version.

The divisor methods don't nominally use a quota. We just divide state populations by the successive divisors and rank the quotients.

The divisors for Huntington-Hill are:

sqrt(n*(n+1) = 1.414, 2.449, 3.464, ... 52.498, ...

In 2010, California had a population 37,254,518 (disregarding the overseas population).

For California's 53 seat, we divide the state population by sqrt(52*53) = 52.498

37254518 / 52.498 = 709642.051

If 709642.051 is among the 435 largest quotients then California gets a 53rd seat which it did. But we notice that the quotients near the 435th seat are about equal to the quota for the USA population divided by 435 = 708,408. But for reasons, I'll explain later, I'll divide by 711,428 (Q' adjusted quota).

We divide every state's population by 711,428.

q' = P / Q'

P'(California) = 52.366

We can then divide by the divisors, so 52.366 / 52.498 = 0.997. Values close to one represent states just below or above the 435th seat. We still have to rank these values, to determine which are rounded up or not. If we were doing independent rounding, we could simply look at the value, and since it is less than 1, round down. But if we did independent rounding, we could not guarantee 435 representatives.

Dividing by a positive constant does not change the relationship for ranking purposes:

if a > b and c > 0 then a/c > b/c

For Webster's method, a state with population p is entitled to r representatives, where
Q = PUSA/N, where PUSA is the total population of the 50 states, and N is the number of representatives (435 in this case).

p/Q = r

We can look at the value of R, and say that a state should have r representatives, but that is only true if we are apportioning fractional representatives. But it nonetheless correct for the raw share of the population. If a state has 27.235 / 435 of the population, it should have 27.235 representatives, except for the silly notion that representatives must be whole persons.

For Huntington-Hill

p/Q = sqrt((r-1/2)*(r+1/2))

To simplify our expression, we will use q = p/Q where q is a quotient.

q = sqrt(r-1/2)*(r+1/2))

Squaring both sides and multiplying the two terms under the radical.

q2 = r2 - 1/4

Solving for r,

r = sqrt(q2 +1/4)

This is the raw entitlement under Huntington-Hill. For example, a state with sqrt(2)/435 of the total population is entitled to 1.5 representatives.  1.5 = sqrt(2 + 1/4)

But if we do this for all states, and sum them up, we will end up with 436.841 representatives. But we can adjust our quota, so that it is Q' = PUSA/(435*(435/436.841). This will yield 435.015 representatives. Adjusting to 435/436.856 produces the expected 435 representatives.

So the "raw" numbers

r = sqrt(q'2 +1/4)

Where q' = p/Q'

And Q' is the adjusted quota.

For 2010, it is 711,428. The adjusted quota is dependent on the overall distribution of populations, but it can be calculated easily and converges quite quickly. The adjustment is increasing slightly

436.856/435 for 2010
436.873/435 for 2017 estimate.
436.881/435 for 2020 projected.

This increase indicates a greater small state bias. Not unexpected considering that the 2nd and 3rd most populous states are fast gainers, and the most populous state is an average gainer.

Among states with 3 or fewer representatives:

AK, SD, WY, VT, HI, RI, NH, ME, NM, NE, and WV are losing population share.
MT is staying even
DE, ID, ND* are gaining population share, but ND is quite iffy, and DE is moderate.

While the difference is 0.43%, the cost to California is 0.43% * 52.5 = 0.23 representatives.

Anyhow, the raw numbers provide an estimate of how many representatives a state should have if independent rounding were done and the distribution is based on Huntington-Hill. It is particularly useful for seeing temporal trends (e.g New Jersey is losing about 1/2 a representative per decade).

I do use it as an estimate of the number of seats a state should have. If a state is entitled to n.xxx representatives (as represented by a mixed decimal fraction), then it should have either n or n+1 (with a minimum of one). Summing the values of n, I can calculate the number of guaranteed seats without rounding. For 2020 projections this is 412 seats, leaving 23 seats (435-412) to be apportioned by rounding. I then divide the projected population of each state by the divisor for the next seat; sqrt(n*(n+1)) and assign the 23 final seats based on the largest quotients. This does not determine the 413th-435th seats assigned, but rather that a state will be in the top 435.

Note that the divisor methods do not not guarantee an apportionment of between n and n+1 seats. It may be outside that range, for example n-1 or n+2. This is known as a quota violation, and is a known flaw of Huntington-Hill and other divisor methods. This requires an unusual (rare) distribution of fractions, and modeling for the US indicates that it will be quite rare for the USA, because of the large number (50) of entities getting seats.

It may be quite common when there are only a few entities, and one is relatively quite large. An example is the British House of Commons, where there are only four apportionment entities (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), and England has 80%+ of the population.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on January 02, 2018, 11:50:38 am
Interesting that a Puerto Rican in-migration can't move the needle further in Florida, but a hurricane-driven bust in Texas *could* cost the third seat if sizable enough.

I believe these estimates are supposed to be from July, 2017. So they would not take into account the Hurricanes. Like Muon said, it will be interesting if the Puerto Rican hurricane diaspora's impact also on New York, along with Florida.


Interstate migration estimates for 2016 show that a very large share of Puerto Rican migration flow is to Florida (40%). Texas was second, slightly ahead of New York and Pennsylvania.

Florida is solidly gaining its 2nd seat, up from early in the decade when it was projected to only gain one. But it is a long way off from a third seat.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Minnesota Mike on January 02, 2018, 12:44:24 pm
So it's quite likely both MT and RI have just 1 CD?

RI will almost certainly lose a seat but MT will be right on the threshold of gaining a seat. Right now the projection using short term trends has them gaining a seat, the projection using long term trends has them staying at one seat (FWIW I prefer using short term trends).

BTW Congress uses a different method of apportioning seats ( the HuntingtonĖHill method) than jimrtex does (The Vinton or Hamilton method) that can produce slightly different results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment
I use Huntington-Hill. My use of "raw" may have misled you. I used a slightly cooked version.

The divisor methods don't nominally use a quota. We just divide state populations by the successive divisors and rank the quotients.

The divisors for Huntington-Hill are:

sqrt(n*(n+1) = 1.414, 2.449, 3.464, ... 52.498, ...

In 2010, California had a population 37,254,518 (disregarding the overseas population).

For California's 53 seat, we divide the state population by sqrt(52*53) = 52.498

37254518 / 52.498 = 709642.051

If 709642.051 is among the 435 largest quotients then California gets a 53rd seat which it did. But we notice that the quotients near the 435th seat are about equal to the quota for the USA population divided by 435 = 708,408. But for reasons, I'll explain later, I'll divide by 711,428 (Q' adjusted quota).

We divide every state's population by 711,428.

q' = P / Q'

P'(California) = 52.366

We can then divide by the divisors, so 52.366 / 52.498 = 0.997. Values close to one represent states just below or above the 435th seat. We still have to rank these values, to determine which are rounded up or not. If we were doing independent rounding, we could simply look at the value, and since it is less than 1, round down. But if we did independent rounding, we could not guarantee 435 representatives.

Dividing by a positive constant does not change the relationship for ranking purposes:

if a > b and c > 0 then a/c > b/c

For Webster's method, a state with population p is entitled to r representatives, where
Q = PUSA/N, where PUSA is the total population of the 50 states, and N is the number of representatives (435 in this case).

p/Q = r

We can look at the value of R, and say that a state should have r representatives, but that is only true if we are apportioning fractional representatives. But it nonetheless correct for the raw share of the population. If a state has 27.235 / 435 of the population, it should have 27.235 representatives, except for the silly notion that representatives must be whole persons.

For Huntington-Hill

p/Q = sqrt((r-1/2)*(r+1/2))

To simplify our expression, we will use q = p/Q where q is a quotient.

q = sqrt(r-1/2)*(r+1/2))

Squaring both sides and multiplying the two terms under the radical.

q2 = r2 - 1/4

Solving for r,

r = sqrt(q2 +1/4)

This is the raw entitlement under Huntington-Hill. For example, a state with sqrt(2)/435 of the total population is entitled to 1.5 representatives.  1.5 = sqrt(2 + 1/4)

But if we do this for all states, and sum them up, we will end up with 436.841 representatives. But we can adjust our quota, so that it is Q' = PUSA/(435*(435/436.841). This will yield 435.015 representatives. Adjusting to 435/436.856 produces the expected 435 representatives.

So the "raw" numbers

r = sqrt(q'2 +1/4)

Where q' = p/Q'

And Q' is the adjusted quota.

For 2010, it is 711,428. The adjusted quota is dependent on the overall distribution of populations, but it can be calculated easily and converges quite quickly. The adjustment is increasing slightly

436.856/435 for 2010
436.873/435 for 2017 estimate.
436.881/435 for 2020 projected.

This increase indicates a greater small state bias. Not unexpected considering that the 2nd and 3rd most populous states are fast gainers, and the most populous state is an average gainer.

Among states with 3 or fewer representatives:

AK, SD, WY, VT, HI, RI, NH, ME, NM, NE, and WV are losing population share.
MT is staying even
DE, ID, ND* are gaining population share, but ND is quite iffy, and DE is moderate.

While the difference is 0.43%, the cost to California is 0.43% * 52.5 = 0.23 representatives.

Anyhow, the raw numbers provide an estimate of how many representatives a state should have if independent rounding were done and the distribution is based on Huntington-Hill. It is particularly useful for seeing temporal trends (e.g New Jersey is losing about 1/2 a representative per decade).

I do use it as an estimate of the number of seats a state should have. If a state is entitled to n.xxx representatives (as represented by a mixed decimal fraction), then it should have either n or n+1 (with a minimum of one). Summing the values of n, I can calculate the number of guaranteed seats without rounding. For 2020 projections this is 412 seats, leaving 23 seats (435-412) to be apportioned by rounding. I then divide the projected population of each state by the divisor for the next seat; sqrt(n*(n+1)) and assign the 23 final seats based on the largest quotients. This does not determine the 413th-435th seats assigned, but rather that a state will be in the top 435.

Note that the divisor methods do not not guarantee an apportionment of between n and n+1 seats. It may be outside that range, for example n-1 or n+2. This is known as a quota violation, and is a known flaw of Huntington-Hill and other divisor methods. This requires an unusual (rare) distribution of fractions, and modeling for the US indicates that it will be quite rare for the USA, because of the large number (50) of entities getting seats.

It may be quite common when there are only a few entities, and one is relatively quite large. An example is the British House of Commons, where there are only four apportionment entities (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), and England has 80%+ of the population.

Got it.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on January 02, 2018, 08:41:15 pm
In general terms, California would have to increase from 53/435 of the total population to 54/435 of the population. This means that California would have to increase at 54/53 - 1 or 1.89% faster than the country as a whole. But California is such a large share of the population (almost 1/8), that an 8% increase in California would produce a 1% increase in the total population, even if all the other states were static.

The USA as whole will increase about 7.7% over the decade, and based on projecting the first seven years estimates forward for 10 years, California will grow at 8.5%. But the growth rate in California has dropped the past two years.

In the first five years of the decade, California increased by 345K. 347K, 328K, 354K, and 331K; but in the last two years has only increased by 264K and 240K.

California needed 2.857M increase just to tread water. If the increase for the first five years had been sustained, California would have gained 3.410M, and the surplus of 553K would have gone a long way towards populating another congressional district.

I appreciate your answer. I did read it all. The reason I asked is because I recall looking at Census estimates maybe 2 years ago and it seemed like California was on track for a 54th seat and now suddenly it could actually lose a seat. I realize that bigger states are more prone to the potential of gaining or losing a certain number of seats (i.e. muon noting that CA-53 would be seat 433 and CA-54 would be seat 440).

Do you have or know of a spreadsheet where one could input population numbers to determine the overall seat apportionment?

One thing I do wonder about is if certain states might make their own efforts to ensure the accuracy of the overall count.
These are based on the actual estimates for each year (July) for 2010 through 2017, and projected forward to 2020.

Year   Estimate  Projection
2010   52.594   52.781
2011   52.689   53.389
2012   52.778   53.426
2013   52.858   53.416
2014   52.947   53.431
2015   52.999   53.370
2016   52.968   53.195
2017   52.914   53.037
2018   52.860   52.918
2019   52.752   52.766
2020   52.590   52.590

In July 2010, California was estimated to have 52.594/435 of the US population. This was up from the 52.589 from the Census. Projected forward for the remainder of the decade this would be projected to reach 52.781 in 2020 (the first estimate was only for one quarter). Through about 2014, the increase in share was about 0.090/435 per year, or about 0.900/435 per decade, enough to likely gain the 54th seat, or put it in the realm of possibility.

The population share increase in 2015 declined to 0.052 in 2016, and the projected 2020 population declined. In 2016 and 2017, California's population share declined. It was growing slightly slower than the country as whole (0.1%). But the projected share for 2020 was greater than the estimate for 2017 which could only happen if the short term trend reversed itself.

Imagine you are on a roller coaster. You are going up the first rise, and have risen 400 feet in four seconds. You project that after 10 seconds you will rise 1000 feet.

You are entering the crest of the rise, and are at 450 feet after five seconds. You quickly calculate 450/5 * 10 = 900 feet after 10 seconds (you can't reach your smartphone and people are screaming, so you don't realize your assumption that the increase is constant and not slowing is wrong).

After you have begun to drop you are at 350 feet after seven seconds, and calculate 350/7 * 10 equals 500 feet after 10 seconds. You don't realize that you are projecting an increase because the projection is decreasing.

That is what is happening in California.

The projected estimates for 2018, 2019, and 2020 assume that the 2016-2017 decline will be repeated, which would get you back to the share in 2010 (i.e. California grew slightly faster than the USA in the first half of the decade, and slightly slower in the second half).

This might not be accurate. The growth rate began to decline in 2015, turned negative in 2016, and became even stronger in 2017. The net domestic outflow which is triggering the decline in share appears to be accelerating.

California had a massive influx of population after WWII, caused by people moving west (and exposure to more of the country during the war). Good economic times, and pent-up demand caused the baby boom. The boomers are now reaching retirement age. Social security is portable, and California has extreme housing costs. If you own a home, now is a good time to cash out (tax free) and move to Arizona/Nevada/Utah/Idaho.

It may also be too expensive for middle or low income persons to live in California. If you live in Kansas and are making $10/hour at Walmart, moving to California and making $15/hour is not an upgrade.

It is also possible that there is chain migration of aliens from California to other states. Many immigrants first move to live with relatives, even if they are somewhat distant. If you don't speak English, living with a second cousin-once removed-in-law, will provide support. If all your relatives live in California, you will locate in California. But over time, people may find jobs elsewhere, and with a bit of English, you might be able to find work in Phoenix or Las Vegas or Salt Lake, and recognize a small community that speaks your native language.

Also, the question that the Census Bureau asks is whether a person had a different residence one year ago. This is not the same as a citizenship question. Someone stationed in Germany with their family who is transferred to the United States, will be living in a new residence, and show up as an international transfer.

In 2016 top domestic interstate inflows were:

Florida 605K
Texas 532K
California 515K
North Carolina 331K
Georgia 305K
Arizona 273K
Virginia 264K
New York 261K
Washington 257K
Pennsylvania 252K
Colorado 223K
Illinois 204K

In 2016 domestic interstate outflows were:

California 658K
New York 450K
Texas 444K
Florida 433K
Illinois 346K
Virginia 275K
Georgia 258K
Pennsylvania 257K
North Carolina 256K
New Jersey 227K
Ohio 212K

Once migration is established it may become two-way. People move to a different state, get homesick, divorced, lose a job, and move home. A couple retires to Florida, after the husband dies, and the widow breaks her hip, she moves back to New York to live with her daughter (23 years later).

In 2016, California had 1173K domestic migrants (in and out), but only 143K net outflow. Small changes in inflow or outflow can have big changes in the net.

If we look at the ratio of inflow to outflow in 2016:

Arizona 1.42
Florida 1.40
Washington 1.34
Nevada 1.33
Oregon 1.30
North Carolina 1.29
South Carolina 1.29
Idaho 1.28
Utah 1.25
Alabama 1.22
Texas 1.20
Montana 1.20

New York 0.58
Illinois 0.59
New Jersey 0.64
Connecticut 0.67
Alaska 0.74
California 0.78
North Dakota 0.79

So California had 4 persons moving in, for every 5 moving out.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Brittain33 on January 02, 2018, 09:07:36 pm
Alabama has inflow?!


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on January 03, 2018, 02:00:59 am
Do you have or know of a spreadsheet where one could input population numbers to determine the overall seat apportionment?

Column A(2:51): State Names
Column B(2:51): Populations (leave out DC and PR, unless you want to experiment)
A52: Cell with number of representatives, set to 435, but you can vary.
B52: Quota =SUM(B2:B51)/A52
Column C(2:51): Estimate. =B2/$B$52, etc.
Column D(2:51): Minimum number of seats. =MAX(INT(C2),1), etc, ensures all states get one representative, and avoids division by zero.
D52: Minimum seats = SUM(D2:D51)
Column E(2:51): Divisor for next seat:

Huntington-Hill: =SQRT(D2*(D2+1)), etc. (Geometric mean of n and n+1)
Webster's = D2 + 0.5 (Arithmetic mean of n and n+1)
Dean's = D2*(D2+1)*2/(D2+D2+1)  (Harmonic mean)
Jefferson's = D2+1
Adams's = D2

Webster's is same as St.Lague, Jefferson's the same ad D'Hondt

Column F(2:F51): Quotient = B2/E2, etc. May also use C2/E2, etc.
Column G(2:G51): Quotient Rank = RANK(F2,F$2:F$51), etc.
G52 extra seats to apportion A52-D52

Column H(2:H51):= D2 + IF(G2 <= $G$52, 1, 0), etc. add one for largest quotients.
H52 total apportionment = SUM(H2:H51), should match A52



Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on January 03, 2018, 12:13:02 pm
Alabama has inflow?!
I don't know.

The population estimates include estimates of components of change (births, deaths, domestic net migration, international net migration).

Some years this was positive, others negative. Over 7 years, the net was 1153 persons. 2017 had the biggest inflow, but only 3K.

The other number is from the 2016 ACS, and estimates the state-to--state flows. The margin-of-error is quite large 122,220 +/- 9,811 into Alabama, 99,892 +/- 7,271 out of Alabama (90% confidence levels). If you take the smallest differentials 112,409 to 107,163 is a ratio of 105%.

For previous years the ratio would have been 1.13, 0.96, 1.07, 0.96, 1.09. 1.10, which are pretty consistent with not much flow.

Based on the 5-year ACS, the 122K is an outlier (or alternatively, the other 4 years were on the low side.  105, 104, 108, 114, 122 could represent an upward trend, an exaggerated upward trend, or an outlier in the 5th year.

The Census Bureau reports a lot more data about inward flows, since the question asked is whether the person lived in a different residence 1-year ago, and if not where you lived. This gets reported as: same house, same county, same state, not in the US.

Some counties with high interstate movers as percentage of population are Dale and Russell, which are likely tied to Fort Rucker and Fort Benning. Russell will get "interstate" movers who simply crossed the state line from Columbus.

Others include Lee and Tuscaloosa. The Census Bureau considers college students living in dorms to be residing at that location, and the same would be true for students living off campus. Freshmen would report that they had moved in the last year. Upper-classmen might, depending on how they interpreted the question. There may be procedural differences as well. Group quarters at college campuses are only surveyed in January-April, and September-December. The Census Bureau really has no way of knowing whether an apartment is occupied by a seasonal student, or a permanent resident.

There may be biases introduced. If a student does not complete college, they are somewhat likely to return to their hometown. If they are living at their parent's home, Mom when she fills out the census form may not remember that Johnny was "residing" at Auburn 12 months previously.

And the skipping of the summer months may have a bias. Let's say those who would have been surveyed in July were shifted to September/October; August to November/December; May to January/February; and June to March/April. Those who would have been surveyed in July and August, will be surveyed after they have arrived on campus. Those who would have left by May and June, will be surveyed before they have left.

This sort of shifting would also happen for Alabamians who go out of state, but the student flow might be towards Alabama. Where a parent attended school may influence the choice of school for their children. If you graduated from Auburn and lived in Atlanta, you might be willing to pay out-of-state tuition to Auburn, particularly if you viewed Athens as too liberal, and if your child wanted to go to Clemson, you might not only refuse to pay their tuition, you would probably disinherit them. There are likely more Alabama and Auburn graduates in Atlanta, than UGA grads in Birmingham.

Other counties with high domestic inflows are Lauderdale, on the state boundary, and probably with more jobs than adjacent areas of Tennessee or Mississippi; Madison, where Huntsville will actually attract college-educated persons; and Baldwin, next to Pensacola, and actually has a coastline, which would be attractive to retirees. Far southern Alabama may be attractive to retirees who want a warm climate with low housing costs.

If you take the states north from Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and Kansas, only ME, NH, DE, SD, and ND had domestic inflows cumulative over the the estimate period. Of the remaining states in the southeast and west, only MS, LA, NM, WY, AK, and HI had domestic outflows. Alabama barely makes it into the positive side because it is in the southeast, and better off than Mississippi and Louisiana.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Kevinstat on January 04, 2018, 07:58:45 pm
Do you have or know of a spreadsheet where one could input population numbers to determine the overall seat apportionment?

Column A(2:51): State Names
Column B(2:51): Populations (leave out DC and PR, unless you want to experiment)
A52: Cell with number of representatives, set to 435, but you can vary.
B52: Quota =SUM(B2:B51)/A52
Column C(2:51): Estimate. =B2/$B$52, etc.
Column D(2:51): Minimum number of seats. =MAX(INT(C2),1), etc, ensures all states get one representative, and avoids division by zero.
D52: Minimum seats = SUM(D2:D51)
Column E(2:51): Divisor for next seat:

Huntington-Hill: =SQRT(D2*(D2+1)), etc. (Geometric mean of n and n+1)
Webster's = D2 + 0.5 (Arithmetic mean of n and n+1)
Dean's = D2*(D2+1)*2/(D2+D2+1)  (Harmonic mean)
Jefferson's = D2+1
Adams's = D2

Webster's is same as St.Lague, Jefferson's the same ad D'Hondt

Column F(2:F51): Quotient = B2/E2, etc. May also use C2/E2, etc.
Column G(2:G51): Quotient Rank = RANK(F2,F$2:F$51), etc.
G52 extra seats to apportion A52-D52

Column H(2:H51):= D2 + IF(G2 <= $G$52, 1, 0), etc. add one for largest quotients.
H52 total apportionment = SUM(H2:H51), should match A52


I just lost a whole lot of what I had composed here online, but your method caps the number of seats each state has between its integer "floor" and its integer "ceiling" (or just the "ceiling" for a state with a fractional quota of less than 1, which is correct of course), while these methods, when interpreted as divisor methods rather than fixed ratio methods some of them started out as, don't.  I was starting to explain the virtues of each when my web browser closed down for me for some reason.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on January 05, 2018, 06:46:25 am
Do you have or know of a spreadsheet where one could input population numbers to determine the overall seat apportionment?

Column A(2:51): State Names
Column B(2:51): Populations (leave out DC and PR, unless you want to experiment)
A52: Cell with number of representatives, set to 435, but you can vary.
B52: Quota =SUM(B2:B51)/A52
Column C(2:51): Estimate. =B2/$B$52, etc.
Column D(2:51): Minimum number of seats. =MAX(INT(C2),1), etc, ensures all states get one representative, and avoids division by zero.
D52: Minimum seats = SUM(D2:D51)
Column E(2:51): Divisor for next seat:

Huntington-Hill: =SQRT(D2*(D2+1)), etc. (Geometric mean of n and n+1)
Webster's = D2 + 0.5 (Arithmetic mean of n and n+1)
Dean's = D2*(D2+1)*2/(D2+D2+1)  (Harmonic mean)
Jefferson's = D2+1
Adams's = D2

Webster's is same as St.Lague, Jefferson's the same ad D'Hondt

Column F(2:F51): Quotient = B2/E2, etc. May also use C2/E2, etc.
Column G(2:G51): Quotient Rank = RANK(F2,F$2:F$51), etc.
G52 extra seats to apportion A52-D52

Column H(2:H51):= D2 + IF(G2 <= $G$52, 1, 0), etc. add one for largest quotients.
H52 total apportionment = SUM(H2:H51), should match A52


I just lost a whole lot of what I had composed here online, but your method caps the number of seats each state has between its integer "floor" and its integer "ceiling" (or just the "ceiling" for a state with a fractional quota of less than 1, which is correct of course), while these methods, when interpreted as divisor methods rather than fixed ratio methods some of them started out as, don't.  I was starting to explain the virtues of each when my web browser closed down for me for some reason.

I forgot a caveat and a limitation.

The short cut I used assumes there will not be quota violations, where a state would not be apportioned either n or n+1 districts when:

n/435 <= Pstate / PUSA < (n+1)/435

This is estimated to be about a 1/1600 occurrence for the USA (the probability is based on the distribution of state populations, that is effectively random, and can only be simulated). For other uses, such as the apportionment of the British Parliament it is quite likely.

While the shortcut could be regarded as a defect in my implementation, the fact that a quota violation could occur, should be considered a defect of the divisor methods.

The limitation of my method is that it does not identify all the seats near the 435th seat. California should be apportioned roughly every 8th seat. While its quotients will be quite regular and periodic, other states will have different periods, so the rankings will not be periodic. My method will identify the ranking for California's 53rd seat, but not its 54th or 52nd, etc. And some of the rankings of other states will be in error because of this (but not, barring quota violations, whether or not they will be apportioned a particular number of seats).

To generate a full ranking with a spreadsheet requires more of a brute force approach. For example, one could generate, say the first 63 divisors, and calculate the quotients for all 50 states for each divisor. This would produce the top 500 or so rankings.

500/435 * 53 = 60.92 is an estimate of California's representation in a 500 member House. 63 is a fudge of 60.92, to make sure that California's rankings in the top 500 are generated. This method would also produce a lot of extraneous results quotients (e.g that for Wyoming's 63rd seat).


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on January 06, 2018, 03:18:45 pm
If it was desired that 100% of districts be within 5% of the mean, this could be done with a House of 3031. The final piece is Vermont six seats being underpopulated to above 95% of the average of  109,328 persons. CA would have 368 seats, TX 269, FL 201. NY, PA, IL, OH would each have 100+; 15 others (down to CO and MN) would have 50+; 13 others (down to KS) would have 20+; 9 others (down to MT, RI) would have 10+. The final six would be DE 9, SD 8, ND 7, AK 7, VT 6, and WY 5. DC would have 7 electoral votes. 3031 + 50x2 + 7 = 3138 electoral votes. A speculators might want to acquire 3138.com.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: #Kavanaugh For Prison on January 06, 2018, 03:21:56 pm
If it was desired that 100% of districts be within 5% of the mean, this could be done with a House of 3031. The final piece is Vermont six seats being underpopulated to above 95% of the average of  109,328 persons. CA would have 368 seats, TX 269, FL 201. NY, PA, IL, OH would each have 100+; 15 others (down to CO and MN) would have 50+; 13 others (down to KS) would have 20+; 9 others (down to MT, RI) would have 10+. The final six would be DE 9, SD 8, ND 7, AK 7, VT 6, and WY 5. DC would have 7 electoral votes. 3031 + 50x2 + 7 = 3138 electoral votes. A speculators might want to acquire 3138.com.

That is a real website; its a Chinese Chess website.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on January 06, 2018, 07:01:24 pm
If it was desired that 100% of districts be within 5% of the mean, this could be done with a House of 3031. The final piece is Vermont six seats being underpopulated to above 95% of the average of  109,328 persons. CA would have 368 seats, TX 269, FL 201. NY, PA, IL, OH would each have 100+; 15 others (down to CO and MN) would have 50+; 13 others (down to KS) would have 20+; 9 others (down to MT, RI) would have 10+. The final six would be DE 9, SD 8, ND 7, AK 7, VT 6, and WY 5. DC would have 7 electoral votes. 3031 + 50x2 + 7 = 3138 electoral votes. A speculators might want to acquire 3138.com.

That is a real website; its a Chinese Chess website.
It appears to be a game development company. If only other companies had similar press releases:

"Volkswagen is not a liar..."

"Enron - Some friends and relatives are worried about their initial investment..."




Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Kevinstat on January 06, 2018, 11:29:22 pm
Do you have or know of a spreadsheet where one could input population numbers to determine the overall seat apportionment?

Column A(2:51): State Names
Column B(2:51): Populations (leave out DC and PR, unless you want to experiment)
A52: Cell with number of representatives, set to 435, but you can vary.
B52: Quota =SUM(B2:B51)/A52
Column C(2:51): Estimate. =B2/$B$52, etc.
Column D(2:51): Minimum number of seats. =MAX(INT(C2),1), etc, ensures all states get one representative, and avoids division by zero.
D52: Minimum seats = SUM(D2:D51)
Column E(2:51): Divisor for next seat:

Huntington-Hill: =SQRT(D2*(D2+1)), etc. (Geometric mean of n and n+1)
Webster's = D2 + 0.5 (Arithmetic mean of n and n+1)
Dean's = D2*(D2+1)*2/(D2+D2+1)  (Harmonic mean)
Jefferson's = D2+1
Adams's = D2

Webster's is same as St.Lague, Jefferson's the same ad D'Hondt

Column F(2:F51): Quotient = B2/E2, etc. May also use C2/E2, etc.
Column G(2:G51): Quotient Rank = RANK(F2,F$2:F$51), etc.
G52 extra seats to apportion A52-D52

Column H(2:H51):= D2 + IF(G2 <= $G$52, 1, 0), etc. add one for largest quotients.
H52 total apportionment = SUM(H2:H51), should match A52


I just lost a whole lot of what I had composed here online, but your method caps the number of seats each state has between its integer "floor" and its integer "ceiling" (or just the "ceiling" for a state with a fractional quota of less than 1, which is correct of course), while these methods, when interpreted as divisor methods rather than fixed ratio methods some of them started out as, don't.  I was starting to explain the virtues of each when my web browser closed down for me for some reason.

I forgot a caveat and a limitation.

The short cut I used assumes there will not be quota violations, where a state would not be apportioned either n or n+1 districts when:

n/435 <= Pstate / PUSA < (n+1)/435

This is estimated to be about a 1/1600 occurrence for the USA (the probability is based on the distribution of state populations, that is effectively random, and can only be simulated). For other uses, such as the apportionment of the British Parliament it is quite likely.

While the shortcut could be regarded as a defect in my implementation, the fact that a quota violation could occur, should be considered a defect of the divisor methods.

The limitation of my method is that it does not identify all the seats near the 435th seat. California should be apportioned roughly every 8th seat. While its quotients will be quite regular and periodic, other states will have different periods, so the rankings will not be periodic. My method will identify the ranking for California's 53rd seat, but not its 54th or 52nd, etc. And some of the rankings of other states will be in error because of this (but not, barring quota violations, whether or not they will be apportioned a particular number of seats).

To generate a full ranking with a spreadsheet requires more of a brute force approach. For example, one could generate, say the first 63 divisors, and calculate the quotients for all 50 states for each divisor. This would produce the top 500 or so rankings.

500/435 * 53 = 60.92 is an estimate of California's representation in a 500 member House. 63 is a fudge of 60.92, to make sure that California's rankings in the top 500 are generated. This method would also produce a lot of extraneous results quotients (e.g that for Wyoming's 63rd seat).
California, with 52.53/435 of the United States's apportionment population as of and according to the 2010 census, would have had 55 seats under Jefferson's method and 50 seats under Adams's.  Texas and New York must also have had quota violations in one or both of those methods as the difference in the apportionment between the them is 3 for Texas and 2 for New York (it would be 2 for Florida if not for the guarantee of 1 seat for each state, which gives Vermont and Wyoming seats that would otherwise go to Florida and Washington).


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on January 08, 2018, 01:51:29 pm
Do you have or know of a spreadsheet where one could input population numbers to determine the overall seat apportionment?

Column A(2:51): State Names
Column B(2:51): Populations (leave out DC and PR, unless you want to experiment)
A52: Cell with number of representatives, set to 435, but you can vary.
B52: Quota =SUM(B2:B51)/A52
Column C(2:51): Estimate. =B2/$B$52, etc.
Column D(2:51): Minimum number of seats. =MAX(INT(C2),1), etc, ensures all states get one representative, and avoids division by zero.
D52: Minimum seats = SUM(D2:D51)
Column E(2:51): Divisor for next seat:

Huntington-Hill: =SQRT(D2*(D2+1)), etc. (Geometric mean of n and n+1)
Webster's = D2 + 0.5 (Arithmetic mean of n and n+1)
Dean's = D2*(D2+1)*2/(D2+D2+1)  (Harmonic mean)
Jefferson's = D2+1
Adams's = D2

Webster's is same as St.Lague, Jefferson's the same ad D'Hondt

Column F(2:F51): Quotient = B2/E2, etc. May also use C2/E2, etc.
Column G(2:G51): Quotient Rank = RANK(F2,F$2:F$51), etc.
G52 extra seats to apportion A52-D52

Column H(2:H51):= D2 + IF(G2 <= $G$52, 1, 0), etc. add one for largest quotients.
H52 total apportionment = SUM(H2:H51), should match A52


I just lost a whole lot of what I had composed here online, but your method caps the number of seats each state has between its integer "floor" and its integer "ceiling" (or just the "ceiling" for a state with a fractional quota of less than 1, which is correct of course), while these methods, when interpreted as divisor methods rather than fixed ratio methods some of them started out as, don't.  I was starting to explain the virtues of each when my web browser closed down for me for some reason.

I forgot a caveat and a limitation.

The short cut I used assumes there will not be quota violations, where a state would not be apportioned either n or n+1 districts when:

n/435 <= Pstate / PUSA < (n+1)/435

This is estimated to be about a 1/1600 occurrence for the USA (the probability is based on the distribution of state populations, that is effectively random, and can only be simulated). For other uses, such as the apportionment of the British Parliament it is quite likely.

While the shortcut could be regarded as a defect in my implementation, the fact that a quota violation could occur, should be considered a defect of the divisor methods.

The limitation of my method is that it does not identify all the seats near the 435th seat. California should be apportioned roughly every 8th seat. While its quotients will be quite regular and periodic, other states will have different periods, so the rankings will not be periodic. My method will identify the ranking for California's 53rd seat, but not its 54th or 52nd, etc. And some of the rankings of other states will be in error because of this (but not, barring quota violations, whether or not they will be apportioned a particular number of seats).

To generate a full ranking with a spreadsheet requires more of a brute force approach. For example, one could generate, say the first 63 divisors, and calculate the quotients for all 50 states for each divisor. This would produce the top 500 or so rankings.

500/435 * 53 = 60.92 is an estimate of California's representation in a 500 member House. 63 is a fudge of 60.92, to make sure that California's rankings in the top 500 are generated. This method would also produce a lot of extraneous results quotients (e.g that for Wyoming's 63rd seat).
California, with 52.53/435 of the United States's apportionment population as of and according to the 2010 census, would have had 55 seats under Jefferson's method and 50 seats under Adams's.  Texas and New York must also have had quota violations in one or both of those methods as the difference in the apportionment between the them is 3 for Texas and 2 for New York (it would be 2 for Florida if not for the guarantee of 1 seat for each state, which gives Vermont and Wyoming seats that would otherwise go to Florida and Washington).

I messed up. Jefferson's method would give two extra seats to California, and one extra to TX, NY, IL, OH, NC, and NJ; and take one from WA, MN, SC, WV, NE, ME, NH, RI; compared to Huntington-Hill (based on 2010 population).

Huntington-Hill, Webster's, and Dean's method often give the same result. After Congress failed to make an apportionment in 1920, they came up with the current procedure of using a divisor method, and fixing the size of the House, such that Congress could do what it does best, do nothing. But they did not make a decision between Huntington-Hill and Webster's methods. Under the 1930 apportionment they gave the same results. In 1940, there was a different result, with Arkansas gaining a seventh representative at the expense of Michigan. Since Arkansas was a reliable Democratic state at the time, Congress adopted Huntington-Hill on a party line vote (except Democrats from Michigan) and Huntington-Hill has been used ever since.

Huntington-Hill is estimated to have quota violations quite rarely (perhaps once in 1600 apportionments over 16000 years for USA-like population distributions), and I had conflated this to include Jefferson and Adams methods.

Perhaps contributing to this was a recollection of the 1790 apportionment. The initial apportionment based on Webster's method was vetoed, by President Washington, the first ever presidential veto. He did so on the basis of the advice of Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, who pointed out that some States would have more than one representative per 30,000 persons.

Quote from: US Constitution Article I
... The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; ...

The Constitution is ambiguous. One reading is that the total number of representatives for the United States may not be greater than one per 30,000 - this was the interpretation by Congress. The other was that of Jefferson, which was adopted by Washington, that the limit was on a per state basis. Congress was unwilling to challenge George Washington, who was revered, on so important a subject as the interpretation of the Constitution.

But what they did was to use Jefferson's method, but chose a quota so that it would produce only minimal changes from Webster's method (one representative from Delaware to Virginia).

For my short cut method to work, an estimate of the number of representative to which a state is entitled must be made.

Let w = Pstate/quota, where quota = PUSA/435

Then for Webster's: est = w

For Huntington-Hill: est = sqrt( w2 + 1/4 )

For Dean's: est = ( w + sqrt ( w2 + 1) ) / 2

For Jefferson's: est = w - 1/2

For Adam's: est = w + 1/2

But for all nethod's other than Webster's the estimates would sum to something other than 435.

So we need to adjust the quota. This can be done in an iterative manner:

Where quota1 is the quota from above, and estusa is the total representation for the USA based on a particular quota.

quotan+1 = quotan * estusa(quotan) /435

Convergence is quite fast for Huntington-Hill with estusa ~= 435.000 after two iterations. About 4 iterations are needed for Jefferson's and Adam's methods.

For the 2010 Census (disregarding overseas population) the quota for Webster's method is 708,405; for Huntington-Hill is 711,428; and for Jefferson's method 669,906. Calculate the estimates using these adjusted quotas to to in the form n.xxx. The state will get n or n+1 seats by that method.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Cokeland Saxton on January 29, 2018, 09:47:21 am
If nobody has posted the 2017 estimates yet, I got u fam.

DC - 601,723 --> 693,972; +15.33%
1. TX - 25,145,561 --> 28,304,596; +12.56%
2. ND - 672,591 --> 755,393; +12.31%
3. UT - 2,763,885 --> 3,101,833; +12.23%
4. FL - 18,801,310 -->20,984,400; +11.61%
5. CO - 5,029,196 --> 5,607,154; +11.49%
6. NV - 2,700,551 --> 2,998,039; +11.02%
7. WA - 6,724,540 --> 7,405,743; +10.13%
8. AZ - 6,392,017 --> 7,016,270; +9.77%
9. ID   - 1,567,582 --> 1,716,943; +9.53%
10. SC - 4,625,364 --> 5,024,369; +8.63%
11. OR - 3,831,074 --> 4,142,776; +8.14%
12. NC - 9,535,483 --> 10,273,419; +7.74%
13. GA - 9,687,653 --> 10,429,379; +7.66%
14. DE - 897,934 --> 961,939; +7.13%
15. SD - 814,180 --> 869,666; +6.81%
16. MT - 989,415 --> 1,050,493; +6.17%
17. CA - 37,253,956 --> 39,536,653; +6.13%
18. VA - 8,001,024 --> 8,470,020; +5.86%
19. TN - 6,346,105 --> 6,715,984; +5.83%
50 States + DC - 308,745,538 --> 325,719,178; +5.50%
20. MN - 5,303,925 --> 5,576,606; +5.14%
21. NE - 1,826,341 --> 1,920,076; +5.13%
22. HI - 1,360,301 --> 1,427,538; +4.94%
23. MD - 5,773,552 --> 6,052,177; +4.83%
24. OK - 3,751,351 --> 3,930,864; +4.79%
25. MA - 6,547,629 --> 6,859,819; +4.77%
26. AK - 710,231 --> 739,795; +4.16%
27. LA - 4,533,372 --> 4,684,333; +3.33%
28. IA - 3,046,355 --> 3,145,711; +3.26%
29. AR - 2,915,918 --> 3,004,279; +3.03%
30. IN - 6,483,802 --> 6,666,818; +2.82%
31. WY - 563,626 --> 579,315; +2.78%
32. KY - 4,339,367 --> 4,454,189; +2.65%
33. NY - 19,378,102 -> 19,849,399; +2.43%
34. NJ - 8,791,894 --> 9,005,644; +2.43%
35. KS - 2,853,118 --> 2,913,123; +2.10%
36. MO - 5,988,927 --> 6,113,532; +2.08%
37. NH - 1,316,470 --> 1,342,795; +2.00%
38. AL - 4,779,736 --> 4,874,747; +1.99%
39. WI - 5,686,986 --> 5,795,483; +1.91%
40. NM - 2,059,179 --> 2,088,070; +1.40%
41. OH - 11,536,504 --> 11,658,609; +1.06%
42. PA - 12,702,379 --> 12,805,537; +0.81%
43. MI - 9,883,640 --> 9,962,311; +0.80%
44. RI - 1,052,567 --> 1,059,639; +0.67%
45. ME - 1,328,361 --> 1,335,907; +0.57%
46. MS - 2,967,297 --> 2,984,100; +0.57%
47. CT - 3,574,097 --> 3,588,184; +0.39%
48. IL - 12,830,632 --> 12,802,023; −0.22%
49. VT - 625,741 --> 623,657; −0.33%
50. WV - 1,852,994 --> 1,815,857; −2.00%


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Arch on January 30, 2018, 12:21:25 am
If nobody has posted the 2017 estimates yet, I got u fam.

DC - 601,723 --> 693,972; +15.33%
1. TX - 25,145,561 --> 28,304,596; +12.56%
2. ND - 672,591 --> 755,393; +12.31%
3. UT - 2,763,885 --> 3,101,833; +12.23%
4. FL - 18,801,310 -->20,984,400; +11.61%
5. CO - 5,029,196 --> 5,607,154; +11.49%
6. NV - 2,700,551 --> 2,998,039; +11.02%
7. WA - 6,724,540 --> 7,405,743; +10.13%
8. AZ - 6,392,017 --> 7,016,270; +9.77%
9. ID   - 1,567,582 --> 1,716,943; +9.53%
10. SC - 4,625,364 --> 5,024,369; +8.63%
11. OR - 3,831,074 --> 4,142,776; +8.14%
12. NC - 9,535,483 --> 10,273,419; +7.74%
13. GA - 9,687,653 --> 10,429,379; +7.66%
14. DE - 897,934 --> 961,939; +7.13%
15. SD - 814,180 --> 869,666; +6.81%
16. MT - 989,415 --> 1,050,493; +6.17%
17. CA - 37,253,956 --> 39,536,653; +6.13%
18. VA - 8,001,024 --> 8,470,020; +5.86%
19. TN - 6,346,105 --> 6,715,984; +5.83%
50 States + DC - 308,745,538 --> 325,719,178; +5.50%
20. MN - 5,303,925 --> 5,576,606; +5.14%
21. NE - 1,826,341 --> 1,920,076; +5.13%
22. HI - 1,360,301 --> 1,427,538; +4.94%
23. MD - 5,773,552 --> 6,052,177; +4.83%
24. OK - 3,751,351 --> 3,930,864; +4.79%
25. MA - 6,547,629 --> 6,859,819; +4.77%
26. AK - 710,231 --> 739,795; +4.16%
27. LA - 4,533,372 --> 4,684,333; +3.33%
28. IA - 3,046,355 --> 3,145,711; +3.26%
29. AR - 2,915,918 --> 3,004,279; +3.03%
30. IN - 6,483,802 --> 6,666,818; +2.82%
31. WY - 563,626 --> 579,315; +2.78%
32. KY - 4,339,367 --> 4,454,189; +2.65%
33. NY - 19,378,102 -> 19,849,399; +2.43%
34. NJ - 8,791,894 --> 9,005,644; +2.43%
35. KS - 2,853,118 --> 2,913,123; +2.10%
36. MO - 5,988,927 --> 6,113,532; +2.08%
37. NH - 1,316,470 --> 1,342,795; +2.00%
38. AL - 4,779,736 --> 4,874,747; +1.99%
39. WI - 5,686,986 --> 5,795,483; +1.91%
40. NM - 2,059,179 --> 2,088,070; +1.40%
41. OH - 11,536,504 --> 11,658,609; +1.06%
42. PA - 12,702,379 --> 12,805,537; +0.81%
43. MI - 9,883,640 --> 9,962,311; +0.80%
44. RI - 1,052,567 --> 1,059,639; +0.67%
45. ME - 1,328,361 --> 1,335,907; +0.57%
46. MS - 2,967,297 --> 2,984,100; +0.57%
47. CT - 3,574,097 --> 3,588,184; +0.39%
48. IL - 12,830,632 --> 12,802,023; −0.22%
49. VT - 625,741 --> 623,657; −0.33%
50. WV - 1,852,994 --> 1,815,857; −2.00%

Puerto Rico?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Cokeland Saxton on January 30, 2018, 08:05:52 am
I just did the 50 states, DC, and the US as a whole. But here's Puerto Rico and the rest of the territories:

Guam - 159,358 --> 162,742; +2.12%
American Samoa - 55,519 --> 54,194; -2.39%
Northern Mariana Islands - 53,833 --> 52,263; -2.92%
US Virgin Islands - 106,405 --> 102,951; -3.25%
Puerto Rico - 3,725,789 --> 3,337,177; -10.43%


RIP Puerto Rico


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: ○∙◄☻•tπ[╪AV┼cVÍ└ on January 30, 2018, 08:07:55 am
I just did the 50 states, DC, and the US as a whole. But here's Puerto Rico and the rest of the territories:

Guam - 159,358 --> 162,742; +2.12%
American Samoa - 55,519 --> 54,194; -2.39%
Northern Mariana Islands - 53,833 --> 52,263; -2.92%
US Virgin Islands - 106,405 --> 102,951; -3.25%
Puerto Rico - 3,725,789 --> 3,337,177; -10.43%


RIP Puerto Rico

And that's pre Hurricane Maria.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Cokeland Saxton on January 30, 2018, 02:22:27 pm
That is exactly why I said RIP


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Arch on February 02, 2018, 02:08:32 am
I just did the 50 states, DC, and the US as a whole. But here's Puerto Rico and the rest of the territories:

Guam - 159,358 --> 162,742; +2.12%
American Samoa - 55,519 --> 54,194; -2.39%
Northern Mariana Islands - 53,833 --> 52,263; -2.92%
US Virgin Islands - 106,405 --> 102,951; -3.25%
Puerto Rico - 3,725,789 --> 3,337,177; -10.43%


RIP Puerto Rico

And that's pre Hurricane Maria.

Sigh... yeah, as I expected. The population right now should be around 2.7 million or so, another 20% drop that's unaccounted for (in terms of months).


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Young Conservative on February 03, 2018, 02:14:21 pm
1. TX - 25,145,561 --> 28,304,596; +12.56%
2. ND - 672,591 --> 755,393; +12.31%
3. UT - 2,763,885 --> 3,101,833; +12.23%
4. FL - 18,801,310 -->20,984,400; +11.61%
5. CO - 5,029,196 --> 5,607,154; +11.49%
6. NV - 2,700,551 --> 2,998,039; +11.02%
7. WA - 6,724,540 --> 7,405,743; +10.13%
8. AZ - 6,392,017 --> 7,016,270; +9.77%
9. ID   - 1,567,582 --> 1,716,943; +9.53%
10. SC - 4,625,364 --> 5,024,369; +8.63%
11. OR - 3,831,074 --> 4,142,776; +8.14%
12. NC - 9,535,483 --> 10,273,419; +7.74%
13. GA - 9,687,653 --> 10,429,379; +7.66%
14. DE - 897,934 --> 961,939; +7.13%
15. SD - 814,180 --> 869,666; +6.81%
16. MT - 989,415 --> 1,050,493; +6.17%
17. CA - 37,253,956 --> 39,536,653; +6.13%
18. VA - 8,001,024 --> 8,470,020; +5.86%
19. TN - 6,346,105 --> 6,715,984; +5.83%

50 States + DC - 308,745,538 --> 325,719,178; +5.50%



All the states growing faster than the US as a whole, by partisan lean.

12/19 Republican.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: DINGO Joe on February 03, 2018, 02:20:39 pm
1. TX - 25,145,561 --> 28,304,596; +12.56%
2. ND - 672,591 --> 755,393; +12.31%
3. UT - 2,763,885 --> 3,101,833; +12.23%
4. FL - 18,801,310 -->20,984,400; +11.61%
5. CO - 5,029,196 --> 5,607,154; +11.49%
6. NV - 2,700,551 --> 2,998,039; +11.02%
7. WA - 6,724,540 --> 7,405,743; +10.13%
8. AZ - 6,392,017 --> 7,016,270; +9.77%
9. ID   - 1,567,582 --> 1,716,943; +9.53%
10. SC - 4,625,364 --> 5,024,369; +8.63%
11. OR - 3,831,074 --> 4,142,776; +8.14%
12. NC - 9,535,483 --> 10,273,419; +7.74%
13. GA - 9,687,653 --> 10,429,379; +7.66%
14. DE - 897,934 --> 961,939; +7.13%
15. SD - 814,180 --> 869,666; +6.81%
16. MT - 989,415 --> 1,050,493; +6.17%
17. CA - 37,253,956 --> 39,536,653; +6.13%
18. VA - 8,001,024 --> 8,470,020; +5.86%
19. TN - 6,346,105 --> 6,715,984; +5.83%

50 States + DC - 308,745,538 --> 325,719,178; +5.50%



All the states growing faster than the US as a whole, by partisan lean.

12/19 Republican.

Outside of Utah, and maybe Idaho, the only way states can grow fast is through immigration, so D can flip them all.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Nyvin on February 03, 2018, 07:32:27 pm
1. TX - 25,145,561 --> 28,304,596; +12.56%
2. ND - 672,591 --> 755,393; +12.31%
3. UT - 2,763,885 --> 3,101,833; +12.23%
4. FL - 18,801,310 -->20,984,400; +11.61%
5. CO - 5,029,196 --> 5,607,154; +11.49%
6. NV - 2,700,551 --> 2,998,039; +11.02%
7. WA - 6,724,540 --> 7,405,743; +10.13%
8. AZ - 6,392,017 --> 7,016,270; +9.77%
9. ID   - 1,567,582 --> 1,716,943; +9.53%
10. SC - 4,625,364 --> 5,024,369; +8.63%
11. OR - 3,831,074 --> 4,142,776; +8.14%
12. NC - 9,535,483 --> 10,273,419; +7.74%
13. GA - 9,687,653 --> 10,429,379; +7.66%
14. DE - 897,934 --> 961,939; +7.13%
15. SD - 814,180 --> 869,666; +6.81%
16. MT - 989,415 --> 1,050,493; +6.17%
17. CA - 37,253,956 --> 39,536,653; +6.13%
18. VA - 8,001,024 --> 8,470,020; +5.86%
19. TN - 6,346,105 --> 6,715,984; +5.83%

50 States + DC - 308,745,538 --> 325,719,178; +5.50%



All the states growing faster than the US as a whole, by partisan lean.

12/19 Republican.

Showing partisan trend from 2012 to 2016 for those states would be more useful.

Places like Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Texas are Republican "now" (barely) but that's certainly not a guarantee for the future.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Cokeland Saxton on February 28, 2018, 01:32:43 pm
county level estimates from 2017 will be out in a couple weeks. What should we expect to see?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: krazen1211 on March 03, 2018, 03:44:44 pm
1. TX - 25,145,561 --> 28,304,596; +12.56%
2. ND - 672,591 --> 755,393; +12.31%
3. UT - 2,763,885 --> 3,101,833; +12.23%
4. FL - 18,801,310 -->20,984,400; +11.61%
5. CO - 5,029,196 --> 5,607,154; +11.49%
6. NV - 2,700,551 --> 2,998,039; +11.02%
7. WA - 6,724,540 --> 7,405,743; +10.13%
8. AZ - 6,392,017 --> 7,016,270; +9.77%
9. ID   - 1,567,582 --> 1,716,943; +9.53%
10. SC - 4,625,364 --> 5,024,369; +8.63%
11. OR - 3,831,074 --> 4,142,776; +8.14%
12. NC - 9,535,483 --> 10,273,419; +7.74%
13. GA - 9,687,653 --> 10,429,379; +7.66%
14. DE - 897,934 --> 961,939; +7.13%
15. SD - 814,180 --> 869,666; +6.81%
16. MT - 989,415 --> 1,050,493; +6.17%
17. CA - 37,253,956 --> 39,536,653; +6.13%
18. VA - 8,001,024 --> 8,470,020; +5.86%
19. TN - 6,346,105 --> 6,715,984; +5.83%

50 States + DC - 308,745,538 --> 325,719,178; +5.50%



All the states growing faster than the US as a whole, by partisan lean.

12/19 Republican.

Trump won 30/51 (DC) states. Big growth in favor of the GOP. Trump was +500k votes in Florida compared to Romney.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: #Kavanaugh For Prison on March 05, 2018, 12:59:31 pm
1. TX - 25,145,561 --> 28,304,596; +12.56%
2. ND - 672,591 --> 755,393; +12.31%
3. UT - 2,763,885 --> 3,101,833; +12.23%
4. FL - 18,801,310 -->20,984,400; +11.61%
5. CO - 5,029,196 --> 5,607,154; +11.49%
6. NV - 2,700,551 --> 2,998,039; +11.02%
7. WA - 6,724,540 --> 7,405,743; +10.13%
8. AZ - 6,392,017 --> 7,016,270; +9.77%
9. ID   - 1,567,582 --> 1,716,943; +9.53%
10. SC - 4,625,364 --> 5,024,369; +8.63%
11. OR - 3,831,074 --> 4,142,776; +8.14%
12. NC - 9,535,483 --> 10,273,419; +7.74%
13. GA - 9,687,653 --> 10,429,379; +7.66%
14. DE - 897,934 --> 961,939; +7.13%
15. SD - 814,180 --> 869,666; +6.81%
16. MT - 989,415 --> 1,050,493; +6.17%
17. CA - 37,253,956 --> 39,536,653; +6.13%
18. VA - 8,001,024 --> 8,470,020; +5.86%
19. TN - 6,346,105 --> 6,715,984; +5.83%

50 States + DC - 308,745,538 --> 325,719,178; +5.50%



All the states growing faster than the US as a whole, by partisan lean.

12/19 Republican.

Trump won 30/51 (DC) states. Big growth in favor of the GOP. Trump was +500k votes in Florida compared to Romney.

Florida 2012 R: 49.03%
Florida 2016 R: 48.60%


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Cokeland Saxton on March 06, 2018, 08:28:33 am
the +500k was like because Florida's population was higher in 2016 than in 2012 :P


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cvparty on March 06, 2018, 09:05:30 am
the +500k was like because Florida's population was higher in 2016 than in 2012 :P
ye the population increased like 1,300,000


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: krazen1211 on March 06, 2018, 10:29:16 pm
the +500k was like because Florida's population was higher in 2016 than in 2012 :P

The Dem party gained half that. Big swing towards the GOP.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: KingSweden on March 06, 2018, 10:56:11 pm
Krazen is bad at trolling AND math. Who knew.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: KingSweden on March 12, 2018, 11:24:00 am
Any predictions for the census county estimates?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on March 12, 2018, 04:08:16 pm
Any predictions for the census county estimates?

The state of Alaska released its own estimates, and Mat-Su Borough was the only county equivalent there that was significantly growing. I suspect that Census will find the same. Alaskaís full report is here: http://labor.alaska.gov/trends/mar18.pdf

I also think the Western ND oil counties will show very slow growth or a population decline.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: KingSweden on March 13, 2018, 10:05:36 am
Any predictions for the census county estimates?

The state of Alaska released its own estimates, and Mat-Su Borough was the only county equivalent there that was significantly growing. I suspect that Census will find the same. Alaskaís full report is here: http://labor.alaska.gov/trends/mar18.pdf

I also think the Western ND oil counties will show very slow growth or a population decline.

On that last point, I suspect you are right


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Gass3268 on March 13, 2018, 10:52:40 am
Are they late? They usually are almost always released in the morning.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on March 13, 2018, 12:15:45 pm
Are they late? They usually are almost always released in the morning.

The national projections were released today: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/popproj/2017-summary-tables.html

 The county estimates will be released to the public on March 22.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on March 21, 2018, 06:33:43 pm
County estimates come out tomorrow morning, likely around 10AM Eastern. Any guesses on what they will show?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: KingSweden on March 21, 2018, 06:51:26 pm
County estimates come out tomorrow morning, likely around 10AM Eastern. Any guesses on what they will show?

Iím thinking Texas counties still leading the way, and breakneck growth % wise in King (WA), Ada (ID) and the Atlanta counties


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on March 21, 2018, 07:02:59 pm
County estimates come out tomorrow morning, likely around 10AM Eastern. Any guesses on what they will show?

Iím thinking Texas counties still leading the way, and breakneck growth % wise in King (WA), Ada (ID) and the Atlanta counties

Maricopa, AZ actually had the largest numerical increase last year. Will that continue? Or will it be another county this year?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: KingSweden on March 21, 2018, 07:08:54 pm
County estimates come out tomorrow morning, likely around 10AM Eastern. Any guesses on what they will show?

Iím thinking Texas counties still leading the way, and breakneck growth % wise in King (WA), Ada (ID) and the Atlanta counties

Maricopa, AZ actually had the largest numerical increase last year. Will that continue? Or will it be another county this year?

That honestly wouldnít surprise me but who knows. I could see it slowing with lessened Latino in migration


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on March 21, 2018, 11:30:57 pm
We're starting to get a preview of tomorrow's census release from newspaper websites (https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-nevada/us-census-bureau-clark-county-added-2nd-most-new-residents-in-2017/). Census' official release is here (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/popest-metro-county.html). Data will come in the morning.

The 2016-17 winners and losers:

The Largest-Gaining Counties (Total Population):

1. Maricopa County, Arizona, up 73,650 to 4,307,033, 1.7 percent increase.
2. Clark County, Nevada, up 47,355 to 2,204,079, 2.2 percent.
3. Riverside County, California, up 36,744 to 2,423,266, 1.5 percent
4. Harris County, Texas, up 35,939 to 4,652,980, 0.8 percent.
5. Tarrant County, Texas, up 32,729 to 2,054,475, 1.6 percent.
6. King County, Washington, up 32,687 to 2,188,649, 1.5 percent.
7. Bexar County, Texas, up 30,831 to 1,958,578, 1.6 percent.
8. Dallas County, Texas, up 30,686 to 2,618,148, 1.2 percent.
9. Denton County, Texas, up 27,911 to 836,210, 3.5 percent.
10. Collin County, Texas, up 27,150 to 969,603, 2.9 percent.

Fastest-Growing Counties (Percentage Increase):

1. Falls Church city, VA 5.2%
2. Comal County, TX 5.1%
3. Wasatch County, UT 5.0%
4. Hays County, TX 5.0%
5. Kendall County, TX 4.9%
6. Walton County, FL 4.5%
7. Tooele County, UT 4.4%
8. Morgan County, UT 4.4%
9. Lumpkin County, GA 4.3%
10. Osceola County, FL 4.2%

Biggest total population drops (http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2018/03/cuyahoga_county_no_3_nationall.html)

1. Cook County (Chicago): down 20,093 to 5,211,263.
2. Baltimore city: down 5,310 to 611,648.
3. Cuyahoga County: down 4,940 to 1,248,514.
4. St. Louis city: down 4,518 to 308,626.
5. Allegheny County (Pittsburgh): down 4,505 to 1,223,048.
6. Honolulu County, Hawaii: down 4,111 to 988,650.
7. Milwaukee County, Wisconsin: down 3,284 to 952,085.
8. Anchorage County, Alaska: down 3,020 to 294,356.
9. Wayne County (Detroit), Michigan: down 2,982 to 1,753,616.
10. Kanawha County (Charleston), West Virginia: down 2,804 to 183,293.

Largest-Gaining Metro Areas (Total Population):
1. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX +146,238
2. Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX +94,417
3. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA +89,013
4. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ +88,772
5. Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV +65,908
6. Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA +64,386
7. Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA +57,017
8. Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL +56,498
9. Austin-Round Rock, TX +55,269
10. Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL +54,874

Fastest-Growing Metros (Percentage Increase):

1. St. George, Utah, 4 percent to 165,662.
2. Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, S.C. and N.C., 3.7 percent to 447,793.
3. Greeley, Colo., 3.5 percent to 294,243.
4. Bend-Redmond, Ore., 3.4 percent to 180,675.
5. Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, 2.9 percent to 153,144.
6. Lakeland-Winter Haven, Fla., 2.9 percent to 667,018.
7. Boise City, Idaho, 2.8 percent to 690,810.
8. Provo-Orem, Utah, 2.7 percent to 601,478.
9. Austin-Round Rock, Texas, 2.7 percent to 2,060,558.
10. The Villages, Fla., 2.5 percent to 125,165.

Interactive map from Cleveland.com (http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2018/03/cuyahoga_county_no_3_nationall.html)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Nyvin on March 22, 2018, 09:00:05 am
Has all the data been released yet?  I just see the top 10 figures they posted, not the excel sheets or maps they usually put out.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: KingSweden on March 22, 2018, 09:54:27 am
Canít wait to dive into these numbers


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: DINGO Joe on March 22, 2018, 10:05:49 am
Has all the data been released yet?  I just see the top 10 figures they posted, not the excel sheets or maps they usually put out.

Go to the press kits link and there is a path to get to the estimates from there


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Nyvin on March 22, 2018, 02:11:13 pm
A lot of rural areas seem to be making a comeback,  the declines are nowhere near as widespread as previous years.   Some long-term declines remained, like in Appalachia, Mississippi Delta, or northern Maine, but elsewhere things got better.

The entire Chicago metro lost population,  including Dupage, Lake IL, and Lake IN.

Only Coos County in NH lost population, all others gained,  Carrol growing the fastest (weird!)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on March 22, 2018, 03:58:38 pm
As of the July 2017 estimates:

87 counties now have population sufficient for a congressional district (1/435 of the national population). This is up from 83 in 2010. The new giants are Cobb and DeKalb in Georgia, and Denton and Fort Bend in Texas. None have dropped, though Monroe in New York is perilously close.

53 of the giants are gaining at a faster rate than the country as a whole, 34 are losing ground.

6 are losing in absolute numbers: New Haven, CT; Wayne, MI; St. Louis (County), MO; Suffolk, NY; Cuyahoga, OH; and Allegheny, PA.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Beet on March 22, 2018, 04:09:57 pm
The Houston metro was growing faster than Dallas earlier in the decade. Now it's reversed. This is all pre-Harvey too. With the Amazon 2nd headquarters likely to move to Dallas with Houston not even on the contender list, and Huntsville being selected for Blue Origin, I wonder if Houston is f---ed. In 30 years with all electric cars, people won't need oil anymore.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗 on March 22, 2018, 04:15:44 pm
Off topic, but it's interesting going back to the first few pages of this thread and seeing Krazen actually posting somewhat intelligent, thoughtful comments. what happened between then and now?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: KingSweden on March 22, 2018, 04:26:21 pm
Off topic, but it's interesting going back to the first few pages of this thread and seeing Krazen actually posting somewhat intelligent, thoughtful comments. what happened between then and now?

Absolutely outstanding cocaine


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Oryxslayer on March 22, 2018, 04:32:21 pm
Off topic, but it's interesting going back to the first few pages of this thread and seeing Krazen actually posting somewhat intelligent, thoughtful comments. what happened between then and now?

When I first got here I read all the old 2010 redistricting threads. There, Krazen was an insightful and pleasantly constant presence from the right. It's like a complete 180 if you go and read them.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on March 22, 2018, 07:13:03 pm
As of the July 2017 estimates:

87 counties now have population sufficient for a congressional district (1/435 of the national population). This is up from 83 in 2010. The new giants are Cobb and DeKalb in Georgia, and Denton and Fort Bend in Texas. None have dropped, though Monroe in New York is perilously close.

53 of the giants are gaining at a faster rate than the country as a whole, 34 are losing ground.

6 are losing in absolute numbers: New Haven, CT; Wayne, MI; St. Louis (County), MO; Suffolk, NY; Cuyahoga, OH; and Allegheny, PA.
18 are gaining at more than twice the national rate: Maricopa, AZ; Hollsborough, FL; Orange, FL; Palm Beach, FL; Fulton, GA; Gwinnett, GA; Clark, NV; Mecklenburg, NC; Wake, NC; Bexar, TX; Collin, TX; Denton, TX; Fort Bend, TX; Harris, TX; Tarrant, TX; Travis, TX; King, WA; and Snohomish, WA.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on March 22, 2018, 07:33:30 pm
22 counties have gained more than 1/10 of a congressional district since 2010:

Harris, TX 0.450
Maricopa, AZ 0.376
King, WA 0.203
Bexar, TX 0.201
Fort Bend, TX 0.197
Travis, TX 0.196
Tarrant, TX 0.196
Clark, NV 0.195
Collin, TX 0.193
Orange, FL 0.188
Denton, TX 0.182
Wake, NC 0.163
Dallas, TX 0.161
Miami-Dade, FL 0.159
Riverside, CA 0.152
Hillsborough, FL 0.150
Mecklenburg, NC 0.141
Williamson, TX 0.136
Broward, FL 0.123
Montgomery, TX 0.121
Lee, FL 0.116
Palm Beach, FL 0.105

5 counties have lost more than 1/10 of a district since 2010.

Cook, IL -0.359
Los Angeles, CA -0.259
Wayne, MI -0.223
Cuyahoga, OH -0.136
Suffolk, NY -0.110


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: henster on March 22, 2018, 07:47:11 pm
The Houston metro was growing faster than Dallas earlier in the decade. Now it's reversed. This is all pre-Harvey too. With the Amazon 2nd headquarters likely to move to Dallas with Houston not even on the contender list, and Huntsville being selected for Blue Origin, I wonder if Houston is f---ed. In 30 years with all electric cars, people won't need oil anymore.

Since when is Amazon HQ2 likely to be in Dallas, I thought the DMV area was the most likely location?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Gass3268 on March 23, 2018, 07:19:37 am
(
Img
)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on March 23, 2018, 01:03:12 pm
http://www.citypopulation.de/USA.html

... has updated with the new 2017 data for states, counties, metros, cities/towns and clickable maps !


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Jimmie on March 23, 2018, 06:21:45 pm
Technology will mitigate this but 2020 may be the last census in which the sun belt gains significantly from the north due to climate change and natural disasters.



Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: #Kavanaugh For Prison on March 25, 2018, 11:59:08 am
()

I threw 2017 estimates into an apportionment calculator and displayed the changes. Note that the total seats calculated was 436, one more than the total.

Alternatively, if we were to decide to have an increase in the House size such that no state would lose a seat, the House would have 447 seats, and this would be the changes:

()


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Singletxguyforfun on March 25, 2018, 12:05:16 pm
()

I threw 2017 estimates into an apportionment calculator and displayed the changes. Note that the total seats calculated was 436, one more than the total.

Alternatively, if we were to decide to have an increase in the House size such that no state would lose a seat, the House would have 447 seats, and this would be the changes:

()

How would Rhode Island keep its seat? Doesnít Montana have more people than RI now?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: #Kavanaugh For Prison on March 25, 2018, 12:11:26 pm
()

I threw 2017 estimates into an apportionment calculator and displayed the changes. Note that the total seats calculated was 436, one more than the total.

Alternatively, if we were to decide to have an increase in the House size such that no state would lose a seat, the House would have 447 seats, and this would be the changes:

()

How would Rhode Island keep its seat? Doesnít Montana have more people than RI now?

Rhode Island: 1,059,639
Montana     : 1,050,493


about 9000 people difference as of 2017.

Probably going to switch in 2018/2019.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Cokeland Saxton on March 25, 2018, 01:42:11 pm
This is probably the most likely scenario:
()


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on March 25, 2018, 01:42:15 pm
()

I threw 2017 estimates into an apportionment calculator and displayed the changes. Note that the total seats calculated was 436, one more than the total.


Why the increase to 436, unless it's to give one to DC?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: #Kavanaugh For Prison on March 25, 2018, 02:35:26 pm
()

I threw 2017 estimates into an apportionment calculator and displayed the changes. Note that the total seats calculated was 436, one more than the total.


Why the increase to 436, unless it's to give one to DC?

The apportionment calculator is weird. Sometimes, it has either a few more representatives apportioned than it is supposed to have, or a few less. So the increase was a result of imperfect calculator math.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on March 25, 2018, 05:14:37 pm
()

I threw 2017 estimates into an apportionment calculator and displayed the changes. Note that the total seats calculated was 436, one more than the total.


Why the increase to 436, unless it's to give one to DC?

The extra seat is NY (-1).


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Torie on March 28, 2018, 11:30:10 am
I see that the growth of NYC has come to a grinding halt, with a 7,272 increase from 7-1-16 to 7-1-17 (with the formally relatively dynamic Brooklyn having lost 2,088, perhaps as the worst ratio of income to housing prices in the nation begins to bite). Every county in the state now has a substantially stagnant population. The NYC metro area as defined by Jimrtex drops from 17.92 seats to 17.88 seats as a projection to 2020.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tintrlvr on March 28, 2018, 03:18:48 pm
I see that the growth of NYC has come to a grinding halt, with a 7,272 increase from 7-1-16 to 7-1-17 (with the formally relatively dynamic Brooklyn having lost 2,088, perhaps as the worst ratio of income to housing prices in the nation begins to bite). Every county in the state now has a substantially stagnant population. The NYC metro area as defined by Jimrtex drops from 17.92 seats to 17.88 seats as a projection to 2020.

"Brooklyn" being dynamic was always false. There are large areas of Brooklyn that are nothing like the stereotypes.

All of the population loss in going to be in poor areas in the east and southeast of Brooklyn that remain very inexpensive and certainly not dynamic. The expensive, dynamic parts of Brooklyn in the north and northeast will still have seen gains (perhaps slower ones, but probably not - new construction continues apace in the boom areas of Downtown Brooklyn, Williamsburg, etc. and is the main driver of population growth). The middle-class areas in the south and southwest will probably also have seen some gains, as elderly people living alone are replaced by recent immigrants and ultra-Orthodox Jews, in both cases, with children.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: The Mikado on March 28, 2018, 03:42:37 pm
TX's new House map is going to be insane. TX-26 and TX-24 will have to be much smaller physically with the way the area northwest of Dallas is growing.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Cokeland Saxton on March 28, 2018, 06:49:46 pm
The districts in Miami Metro, FL will likely be squished even smaller too, if the state gains two seats. The Miami metro is growing substantially, as is the Orlando metro. Hillsborough County (part of Tampa metro) too.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Kevinstat on May 05, 2018, 09:35:54 am
Does anyone know when this month the City and Town (incorporated places and I believe all census-designated "county subdivisions", which are generally the same thing in New England) estimates for July 1, 2017 will be released?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Torie on May 05, 2018, 10:07:27 am
You probably already knew this, but sometime this month (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/about/schedule.html). Last year, it was May 23 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=166668.msg5663149#msg5663149).


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on May 05, 2018, 05:38:08 pm
Does anyone know when this month the City and Town (incorporated places and I believe all census-designated "county subdivisions", which are generally the same thing in New England) estimates for July 1, 2017 will be released?
It is incorporated places and (some) minor civil divisions. Technically, estimates are made for the "estimates universe county subdivisions" which means the county subdivisions that the Census Bureau makes estimates for.

In practice these are the minor civil divisions in 20 of the 21 states in the Northeast and Midwest divisions (all except Iowa). These are the areas where minor civil divisions (towns and townships) typically have functioning governments.

There are another eight states where there are minor civil divisions recognized by the Census Bureau (and delineated by the state). In some cases, these are used because there are advantages when applying for federal grants.

In another 20 states, the Census Bureau has defined Census County Divisions, which permits the census bureau to present some data at a level equivalent to MCD in other states. Through 1950, the Census Bureau treated all counties as having MCD, though these were often temporary such as election precincts, or electoral districts. CCD are a way to provide statistical consistency from decade to decade, but in practical terms are useless.

In Alaska, the Census Bureau has defined Census Areas and Census Subareas in areas of the state with no local government (the Unorganized Borough). These serve as county equivalents and county subdivisions.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: DINGO Joe on May 06, 2018, 12:20:06 am
You probably already knew this, but sometime this month (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/about/schedule.html). Last year, it was May 23 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=166668.msg5663149#msg5663149).

It looks like the 24th

https://www.calendarwiz.com/calendars/calendar.php?crd=cens1sample&PHPSESSID=1376188eb446e0e6b8ec05b90f763b0f&jsenabled=1&winH=424


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Kevinstat on May 06, 2018, 08:45:58 am
In practice these are the minor civil divisions in 20 of the 21 states in the Northeast and Midwest divisions (all except Iowa). These are the areas where minor civil divisions (towns and townships) typically have functioning governments.

There are another eight states where there are minor civil divisions recognized by the Census Bureau (and delineated by the state). In some cases, these are used because there are advantages when applying for federal grants.

In another 20 states, the Census Bureau has defined Census County Divisions, which permits the census bureau to present some data at a level equivalent to MCD in other states. Through 1950, the Census Bureau treated all counties as having MCD, though these were often temporary such as election precincts, or electoral districts. CCD are a way to provide statistical consistency from decade to decade, but in practical terms are useless.

In Alaska, the Census Bureau has defined Census Areas and Census Subareas in areas of the state with no local government (the Unorganized Borough). These serve as county equivalents and county subdivisions.
20 + 8 + 20 + 1 (Alaska) = 49.  Is Iowa in with the 8 or the 20, and if so was it included in your tally?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on May 06, 2018, 01:26:22 pm
You probably already knew this, but sometime this month (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/about/schedule.html). Last year, it was May 23 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=166668.msg5663149#msg5663149).

It looks like the 24th

https://www.calendarwiz.com/calendars/calendar.php?crd=cens1sample&PHPSESSID=1376188eb446e0e6b8ec05b90f763b0f&jsenabled=1&winH=424

It's almost always the Thursday before Memorial Day weekend. That usually gives me the weekend to make my population change map. Now that I'm a little more adept with QGIS, I might have a quicker turnaround.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on May 06, 2018, 08:32:22 pm
In practice these are the minor civil divisions in 20 of the 21 states in the Northeast and Midwest divisions (all except Iowa). These are the areas where minor civil divisions (towns and townships) typically have functioning governments.

There are another eight states where there are minor civil divisions recognized by the Census Bureau (and delineated by the state). In some cases, these are used because there are advantages when applying for federal grants.

In another 20 states, the Census Bureau has defined Census County Divisions, which permits the census bureau to present some data at a level equivalent to MCD in other states. Through 1950, the Census Bureau treated all counties as having MCD, though these were often temporary such as election precincts, or electoral districts. CCD are a way to provide statistical consistency from decade to decade, but in practical terms are useless.

In Alaska, the Census Bureau has defined Census Areas and Census Subareas in areas of the state with no local government (the Unorganized Borough). These serve as county equivalents and county subdivisions.
20 + 8 + 20 + 1 (Alaska) = 49.  Is Iowa in with the 8 or the 20, and if so was it included in your tally?
Iowa is not with the 8 or the 20.

Northeast (9) + Midwest (12) + Southeast (8) = Minor Civil Division (29)
Southeast (8) + West (12) = Census County Division (20)
Wesr (1, Alaska) = Census Subarea (1)

Census Estimates: Northeast(9) + Midwest (11, all bu Iowa) = Estimates (20)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: (CT) The Free North on May 12, 2018, 06:46:04 pm
Technology will mitigate this but 2020 may be the last census in which the sun belt gains significantly from the north due to climate change and natural disasters.



This might be the dumbest thing i've read all year.



Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Jimmie on May 13, 2018, 03:03:18 am
Technology will mitigate this but 2020 may be the last census in which the sun belt gains significantly from the north due to climate change and natural disasters.



This might be the dumbest thing i've read all year.



Lol


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Brittain33 on May 14, 2018, 02:08:59 am
Technology will mitigate this but 2020 may be the last census in which the sun belt gains significantly from the north due to climate change and natural disasters.



This might be the dumbest thing i've read all year.



In what year do you predict that climate change and sea level rise will turn on Miami and the rest of south Florida? It is only a matter of time, and Miami Beach is already starting to have problems. The end will start not with a major disaster, but with a collapse in real estate when banks refuse to write mortgages on properties.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: #Kavanaugh For Prison on May 15, 2018, 03:52:10 pm
()

Posting a map of the next 24 seats that would have been awarded in 2010 apportionment if the House size was larger because why not?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Torie on May 18, 2018, 05:32:54 am
May 24 is the date (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/estimates-advisory.html) that the masses get to see the locality population estimates.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on May 19, 2018, 08:48:19 pm
May 24 is the date (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/estimates-advisory.html) that the masses get to see the locality population estimates.

12:01AM, to be exact. Last year, I think we had to wait until the morning, around 10AM for the actual data. We still might have to this year.

I probably should start updating my shapefiles so I can update the pop estimate maps. The 2016 series is still available on Carto here, for now:
https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/2179fb11-c942-4958-b0e8-147324cb395a/public_map (2016 estimate vs the 2010 Estimates Base).

The 2016 series won't be around after Thursday. I'm going to have to nuke it to make space in my Carto account for the 2017 maps.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on May 23, 2018, 06:22:32 pm
A little under 5 hours until we start getting reports about the fastest-growing incorporated places. Any last guesses as to what was the fastest-growing city with over 10,000 people last year? Will Williston, ND make the list of the biggest percentage losers?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on May 23, 2018, 11:15:03 pm
The list of the fastest-growing cities is out.

The top 10 % gainers (50K+ pop):
1. Frisco, Texas 8.2%
2. New Braunfels, Texas 8.0%
3. Pflugerville, TX 6.5%
4. Ankeny, IA 6.4%
5. Buckeye, AZ 5.9%
6. Georgetown, Texas 5.4%
7. Castle Rock, Colorado 5.1%
8. Franklin, Tennessee 4.9%
9. McKinney, Texas 4.8%
10. Meridian, Idaho 4.7%

The top numerical gainers were San Antonio, Phoenix, Dallas, Fort Worth and Los Angeles.

Fort Worth passed Indianapolis to become the 15th largest city.

More here: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/estimates-cities.html

As expected, full data won't be available until morning, supposedly before 10AM.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Seattle on May 24, 2018, 12:28:47 am
And Seattle (+17,500)! Probably one more year of frenzied growth and then both numeric and percentage growth will nosedive like once white hot Austin, Denver, and DC. I guess percentage growth already is.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Brittain33 on May 24, 2018, 11:40:57 am
Random interesting fact: Youngstown, Ohio recorded a gain for the first time since the early days of the Baby Boom.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on May 24, 2018, 04:28:22 pm
Here's the first set of this year's interactive maps:

2016-2017 Percentage Change in Incorporated Places & County Remainders (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/56f61e01-7dd8-40f1-bc79-12fd82415387/public_map)
2010 Estimates Base - 2017 Percentage Change in Incorporated Places & County Remainders (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/e9a41c64-c834-4ae6-b09a-a0dd5fa52199/public_map) (takes into account annexations and the like)
2010 Census - 2017 Percentage Change in Incorporated Places & County Remainders (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/ebd57bde-f085-4376-8dbc-7b8951f24390/public_map)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Cokeland Saxton on May 24, 2018, 07:48:21 pm
Charlotte, NC will probably pass Indianapolis next year:

Charlotte: 731,424 (census)/735,688 (est. base 2010) --> 842,051 (2016) --> 859,035 (2017)
Indianapolis: 820,445 (census)/820,443 (est. base 2010) --> 855,164 (2016) -->863,002 (2017)

Charlotte gained 16,984 (+2.02%) last year vs. Indianapolis's gain of just 7,838 (+0.92%).

Although we can't predict what will happen exactly, if both cities maintain their 16-17 growth rate:

Charlotte 2018: 876,662
Indianapolis 2018: 870,911

So unless something crazy happens, Indianapolis will most likely drop to #17 in for 2018.

On a different note, my hometown of Elkhart, IN (52,558 in 2017) started growing again after getting screwed by a housing shortage. :D

Also, Austin, TX's growth slowed dramatically, wow.

Other random facts that occurred last year:

Chicago gained about 12k
The unthinkable happened: Detroit grew
Salt Lake city Joined the 200k club
Denver hit 700k
Cincinnati is back over 300k
Akron grew

That's enough for now.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on May 24, 2018, 10:47:18 pm
Charlotte, NC will probably pass Indianapolis next year:

Charlotte: 731,424 (census)/735,688 (est. base 2010) --> 842,051 (2016) --> 859,035 (2017)
Indianapolis: 820,445 (census)/820,443 (est. base 2010) --> 855,164 (2016) -->863,002 (2017)

Charlotte gained 16,984 (+2.02%) last year vs. Indianapolis's gain of just 7,838 (+0.92%).

Although we can't predict what will happen exactly, if both cities maintain their 16-17 growth rate:

Charlotte 2018: 876,662
Indianapolis 2018: 870,911

So unless something crazy happens, Indianapolis will most likely drop to #17 in for 2018.

On a different note, my hometown of Elkhart, IN (52,558 in 2017) started growing again after getting screwed by a housing shortage. :D

Also, Austin, TX's growth slowed dramatically, wow.

Other random facts that occurred last year:

Chicago gained about 12k
The unthinkable happened: Detroit grew
Salt Lake city Joined the 200k club
Denver hit 700k
Cincinnati is back over 300k
Akron grew

That's enough for now.

I think Detroit grew because Census back-upgraded its prior year estimates, as it's been known to do. Detroit's population actually fell from this year's 2017 to 2016 estimates.

Indianapolis fell behind Fort Worth this year to end up out of the top 15.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: KingSweden on May 24, 2018, 11:19:14 pm
In a few years Columbus will be bigger than SF


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Cokeland Saxton on May 25, 2018, 08:54:01 am
In a few years Columbus will be bigger than SF
Maybe as soon as the next census. The gap has closed by about half since last year.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: DINGO Joe on May 25, 2018, 10:34:33 am
Very competitive race to be the largest city in WV as  Charleston and Huntington both continue to run into reverse.  Charleston continues to lead 47900 to 47100 but Charleston lost 800 vs a 500 loss for Huntington last year. 


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: DINGO Joe on May 28, 2018, 12:44:52 pm
Something I just figured out, if a state or federal prison opens in a county after the 2010 census, then it doesn't get incorporated into census estimates for the rest of the decade.  It's easy to see the demographic impact prisons have on small counties like Gilmer and Summers, WV and Bland, VA and since those prisons existed in the 2010 Census they're captured going forward, but for prisons opened in McDowell WV and Grayson VA after the 2010 census they never show up in Census estimates or American Community Survey data until I guess the Official 2020 Census.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Storebought on May 28, 2018, 01:09:29 pm
When do you think San Antonio will replace Philadelphia as the sixth largest city? It has to be within months.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tintrlvr on May 28, 2018, 01:25:30 pm
Charlotte, NC will probably pass Indianapolis next year:

Charlotte: 731,424 (census)/735,688 (est. base 2010) --> 842,051 (2016) --> 859,035 (2017)
Indianapolis: 820,445 (census)/820,443 (est. base 2010) --> 855,164 (2016) -->863,002 (2017)

Charlotte gained 16,984 (+2.02%) last year vs. Indianapolis's gain of just 7,838 (+0.92%).

Although we can't predict what will happen exactly, if both cities maintain their 16-17 growth rate:

Charlotte 2018: 876,662
Indianapolis 2018: 870,911

So unless something crazy happens, Indianapolis will most likely drop to #17 in for 2018.

On a different note, my hometown of Elkhart, IN (52,558 in 2017) started growing again after getting screwed by a housing shortage. :D

Also, Austin, TX's growth slowed dramatically, wow.

Other random facts that occurred last year:

Chicago gained about 12k
The unthinkable happened: Detroit grew
Salt Lake city Joined the 200k club
Denver hit 700k
Cincinnati is back over 300k
Akron grew

That's enough for now.

I think Detroit grew because Census back-upgraded its prior year estimates, as it's been known to do. Detroit's population actually fell from this year's 2017 to 2016 estimates.

Indianapolis fell behind Fort Worth this year to end up out of the top 15.

Which has quite a history in particular in connection with Detroit, as constant revisions upward to the estimates at the request of local government were proven to be completely unfounded when the population collapsed at the 2010 Census compared to the 2009 ACS estimates. 2020 will probably be similar, if less extreme, and show a continued substantial decline.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on May 28, 2018, 02:42:43 pm
Something I just figured out, if a state or federal prison opens in a county after the 2010 census, then it doesn't get incorporated into census estimates for the rest of the decade.  It's easy to see the demographic impact prisons have on small counties like Gilmer and Summers, WV and Bland, VA and since those prisons existed in the 2010 Census they're captured going forward, but for prisons opened in McDowell WV and Grayson VA after the 2010 census they never show up in Census estimates or American Community Survey data until I guess the Official 2020 Census.

I think that they do. The new unit in Grayson VA opened in September 2013. The estimates are as of July 1. There were population drops before 2014, and after 2014 that makes it look constant.

In a rural area, a prison might not attract workers into the county, since they can easily commute.

Census 2010   15533
Estimate 2010   15498
Estimate 2011   15366
Estimate 2012   15143
Estimate 2013   15131
Estimate 2014   15921
Estimate 2015   15953
Estimate 2016   15869
Estimate 2017   15665


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Cokeland Saxton on May 28, 2018, 02:44:38 pm
When do you think San Antonio will replace Philadelphia as the sixth largest city? It has to be within months.
It might actually be a few years. There is about a 69k gap between Philly and SA in 2017 vs. a 75.4k gap in 2016 and a 198.6k gap in the 2010 census.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: DINGO Joe on May 29, 2018, 01:22:35 am
Something I just figured out, if a state or federal prison opens in a county after the 2010 census, then it doesn't get incorporated into census estimates for the rest of the decade.  It's easy to see the demographic impact prisons have on small counties like Gilmer and Summers, WV and Bland, VA and since those prisons existed in the 2010 Census they're captured going forward, but for prisons opened in McDowell WV and Grayson VA after the 2010 census they never show up in Census estimates or American Community Survey data until I guess the Official 2020 Census.

I think that they do. The new unit in Grayson VA opened in September 2013. The estimates are as of July 1. There were population drops before 2014, and after 2014 that makes it look constant.

In a rural area, a prison might not attract workers into the county, since they can easily commute.

Census 2010   15533
Estimate 2010   15498
Estimate 2011   15366
Estimate 2012   15143
Estimate 2013   15131
Estimate 2014   15921
Estimate 2015   15953
Estimate 2016   15869
Estimate 2017   15665


Well, I've been using American Fact Finder, specifically via this link

https://business.wvu.edu/centers/bureau-of-business-and-economic-research/data/population-data

And then under the annual estimates of WV counties, I'll click on option 3 or 4 which gives me year by year table with gender or race options.  To look at another states counties I'll just use the add geographies button.  The population estimates for Grayson don't match the ones you have listed and as far as gender is concerned there not the sudden addition of 1000 males at any point.  Same for McDowell.

Also, if I use US census quickfacts it gives me a 2016 estimate of 15107 for Grayson and a 15665 estimate for 2017 (which is an odd increase)

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/graysoncountyvirginia,blandcountyvirginia,gilmercountywestvirginia,mcdowellcountywestvirginia,WV,US/RHI225216

Why are our databases not matching?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: DINGO Joe on May 29, 2018, 09:29:22 am
I guess it's possible that the Census did a complete revision for Grayson with this year's estimate and it will all show up when the Gender and Race data are released in June.  Still don't see any indication that the Fed prison in McDowell that opened in the fall of 2010 was ever acknowledged.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on June 01, 2018, 08:27:55 pm
Something I just figured out, if a state or federal prison opens in a county after the 2010 census, then it doesn't get incorporated into census estimates for the rest of the decade.  It's easy to see the demographic impact prisons have on small counties like Gilmer and Summers, WV and Bland, VA and since those prisons existed in the 2010 Census they're captured going forward, but for prisons opened in McDowell WV and Grayson VA after the 2010 census they never show up in Census estimates or American Community Survey data until I guess the Official 2020 Census.

I think that they do. The new unit in Grayson VA opened in September 2013. The estimates are as of July 1. There were population drops before 2014, and after 2014 that makes it look constant.

In a rural area, a prison might not attract workers into the county, since they can easily commute.

Census 2010   15533
Estimate 2010   15498
Estimate 2011   15366
Estimate 2012   15143
Estimate 2013   15131
Estimate 2014   15921
Estimate 2015   15953
Estimate 2016   15869
Estimate 2017   15665


Well, I've been using American Fact Finder, specifically via this link

https://business.wvu.edu/centers/bureau-of-business-and-economic-research/data/population-data

And then under the annual estimates of WV counties, I'll click on option 3 or 4 which gives me year by year table with gender or race options.  To look at another states counties I'll just use the add geographies button.  The population estimates for Grayson don't match the ones you have listed and as far as gender is concerned there not the sudden addition of 1000 males at any point.  Same for McDowell.

Also, if I use US census quickfacts it gives me a 2016 estimate of 15107 for Grayson and a 15665 estimate for 2017 (which is an odd increase)

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/graysoncountyvirginia,blandcountyvirginia,gilmercountywestvirginia,mcdowellcountywestvirginia,WV,US/RHI225216

Why are our databases not matching?

For Grayson, the 2015 and 2017 estimates (but not the 2016 vintage) show the step up in 2014.

The components of change are issued each year. They include births and deaths, which have reasonable reporting - but may be misattributed based on place of birth or death being in a different county. Migration is inferred based on Social Security and IRS records. But these don't work for prison populations, since inmates may not have tax liabilities. And while they might show up as moving into a different county after release, it won't show up in the prison county.

I don't know how they handle estimates for institutional population. Probably not that well because it would require a lot of individualized handling (you can's simply feed the IRS and Social Security data into the estimates).

The ACS for Grayson does show an increase in group quarters. The ACS is based on a sample over 5-years. Housing units are assigned to 5 groups so that no household will be surveyed twice in a 5-year period. Each year, roughly one in six housing units for that year's group will be selected randomly, and assigned to one month. Over a five-year period, about 1/6 pf housing units will be surveyed, sufficient for statistically meaningful estimates for block groups. The next year, they throw out the results from the first year, and add in the results for the next year.

When the Census Bureau becomes aware of new housing units they are added in.

For group quarters, they survey chunks of 15 residents. Let's say a prison has 600 inmates, then it will have 40 chunks of 15 (the chunk of 15 does not correspond to any individual inmate or cell). The 40 chunks would be assigned to the 5 year groups (8 per year). Then the number of chunks to be surveyed each year would be determined and assigned to a month. When they make a survey, they get a list of inmates, and randomly select 15.

Under the best of circumstances the ACS will lag population growth since it assumes that there is no change over time, and there were zero population for some of the years in the average.

For McDowell, and the Federal Correctional Institution there has been a definite increase in the group quarters population, and it also shows up in one census tract and city data for Welch (the prison is inside the city limits)..

For Grayson, it only shows up for 2015 and 2016. The 2016 has the correct census tract. It is possible that the Census Bureau was not aware of the prison. This might have to be relayed through some state bureaucracies. River North did not open until fall of 2013. It would not be surprising if a prison opened with lots of guards and few inmates. Rookie guards would not be able to handle the ordinary number of inmates, and you might not want to move a full prison population. If an average sentence is five years (made up number), you could just let the prison fill with new offenders over time.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: DINGO Joe on June 03, 2018, 02:16:48 pm
Well, to make things more complicated a state prison opened up in Welch in the late 2000s.  At this point there should be about 1700 federal and state prisoners in McDowell County and yes they all should be in Welch.  In fact, the population at the Federal Prison reached as high as 1660 before sentencing reform brought it down to around 1250 today. 


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: danny on June 03, 2018, 07:06:33 pm
These yearly estimates don't seem to even account all of the regular housing. for example based on this article (https://forward.com/news/357030/how-the-hasids-won-the-battle-of-bloomingburg-and-everyone-else-lost/), Bloomingburg, NY must have about doubled in population, but the census bureau shows no change.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on June 04, 2018, 04:26:42 am
These yearly estimates don't seem to even account all of the regular housing. for example based on this article (https://forward.com/news/357030/how-the-hasids-won-the-battle-of-bloomingburg-and-everyone-else-lost/), Bloomingburg, NY must have about doubled in population, but the census bureau shows no change.
It is not clear that this actually happened. Google Earth photo from 2016 shows a lot of what looks like empty buildings.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tintrlvr on June 16, 2018, 03:43:34 pm
These yearly estimates don't seem to even account all of the regular housing. for example based on this article (https://forward.com/news/357030/how-the-hasids-won-the-battle-of-bloomingburg-and-everyone-else-lost/), Bloomingburg, NY must have about doubled in population, but the census bureau shows no change.

Yes, the estimates are notoriously bad at tracking new housing development, as well as abandonment of existing housing, especially when it's outside of historical patterns. They shouldn't really be taken all that seriously at a micro level as a result.

Edit: Although that development seems to be outside of Bloomingburg village proper when you look at Google Maps. Though the Census says Mamakating town, where it is located, has *lost* population, which seems deeply unlikely.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: #Kavanaugh For Prison on August 22, 2018, 07:38:14 pm
So I just calculated the likely changes in 2020 apportionment:

()


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: #Kavanaugh For Prison on August 22, 2018, 07:45:55 pm
Just for fun, this is what would happen if they non-retroactively reinstated the no states can lose a seat rule for 2020:

()

It increases the House size by 18.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: #Kavanaugh For Prison on August 22, 2018, 07:55:06 pm
For reference, this is my state by state population projection:

CA   40402290
TX   29502646
FL   21811223
NY   20028164
PA   12844485
IL   12790817
OH   11704839
GA   10710330
NC   10553235
MI   09991966
NJ   09086699
VA   08647908
WA   07664128
AZ   07252945
MA   06978168
TN   06856211
IN   06736115
MO   06160797
MD   06157766
WI   05836522
CO   05826331
MN   05680037
SC   05175709
AL   04910634
LA   04741554
KY   04497752
OR   04261009
OK   03998861
CT   03593521
UT   03230019
IA   03183203
NV   03110826
AR   03037752
MS   02990168
KS   02935879
NM   02099018
NE   01955636
WV   01801766
ID   01773571
HI   01453042
NH   01352784
ME   01338769
MT   01073661
RI   01062178
DE   00986216
SD   00890706
ND   00786803
AK   00751002
VT   00622867
WY   00585213


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on August 23, 2018, 04:35:10 am
Just for fun, this is what would happen if they non-retroactively reinstated the no states can lose a seat rule for 2020:

()

It increases the House size by 18.

Wouldn't this lead to extreme increases in the size of the House if repeated in the future?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on August 23, 2018, 04:11:34 pm
Probably not so extreme as one thinks, and the House chamber could accommodate 600 based on discussions I had when visiting there 20 years ago.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on August 25, 2018, 01:36:14 am
Probably not so extreme as one thinks, and the House chamber could accommodate 600 based on discussions I had when visiting there 20 years ago.

Iowa has gone from 11 to 4, North Dakota from 3 to 1, and Vermont from 6 to 1.

In general the increase would be proportional to the rate of gain of the US minus the growth rate of the slowest growing (fastest declining) state. So perhaps 45 to 50 per decade.

If the proposed rule had first been applied in 2010, what would the size of the House been in 2010, and what would it be in 2020 if the procedure had been retained?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on August 25, 2018, 09:50:49 am
Probably not so extreme as one thinks, and the House chamber could accommodate 600 based on discussions I had when visiting there 20 years ago.

Iowa has gone from 11 to 4, North Dakota from 3 to 1, and Vermont from 6 to 1.

In general the increase would be proportional to the rate of gain of the US minus the growth rate of the slowest growing (fastest declining) state. So perhaps 45 to 50 per decade.

If the proposed rule had first been applied in 2010, what would the size of the House been in 2010, and what would it be in 2020 if the procedure had been retained?


We had a thread last May on this topic on another board where we went back to the 1929 decision to fix the size at 435. I made a series of maps (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=290129.msg6186768#msg6186768) based on the rule that the size was the minimum needed so that no state lost a seat.

1920: 435
1930: 537 +23.4% (the Great Migration to the northern cities fueled this increase)
1940: 586 +9.1%
1950: 642 +9.6% (the 1947 act included the provision that states that lost population could lose seats)
1960: 737 +14.8%
1970: 797 +8.1%
1980: 885 +11.0%
1990: 971 +9.7%
2000: 1068 +10.0%
2010: 1140 +6.7%



Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: VirginiŠ on October 01, 2018, 02:19:02 pm
DailyKos post about changes in CDs:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/30/1799118/-Which-congressional-districts-are-growing-or-shrinking-the-fastest


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Cokeland Saxton on October 25, 2018, 02:18:34 pm
The release date is not yet in stone, but the national and state-level projections for 2018 will be out in a couple months. What do you guys think the US population will be?

My guess is 327,999,212


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Storr on October 25, 2018, 06:24:46 pm
For reference, this is my state by state population projection:

CA   40402290
TX   29502646
FL   21811223
NY   20028164
PA   12844485
IL   12790817
OH   11704839
GA   10710330
NC   10553235
MI   09991966
NJ   09086699
VA   08647908
WA   07664128
AZ   07252945
MA   06978168
TN   06856211
IN   06736115
MO   06160797
MD   06157766
WI   05836522
CO   05826331
MN   05680037
SC   05175709
AL   04910634
LA   04741554
KY   04497752
OR   04261009
OK   03998861
CT   03593521
UT   03230019
IA   03183203
NV   03110826
AR   03037752
MS   02990168
KS   02935879
NM   02099018
NE   01955636
WV   01801766
ID   01773571
HI   01453042
NH   01352784
ME   01338769
MT   01073661
RI   01062178
DE   00986216
SD   00890706
ND   00786803
AK   00751002
VT   00622867
WY   00585213


Delaware is getting oh so close to 1,000,000!


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Cokeland Saxton on October 31, 2018, 02:10:48 pm
My predictions:

California will hit 40 million (only a few hundred k away)

Nevada will hit 3 million (already right there) and pass Arkansas to become the 32nd most populous state.

Utah will pass Iowa to become the 30th most populous state

Montana will pass Rhode Island to become the 43rd most populous state



Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: DINGO Joe on December 19, 2018, 11:44:21 am
US Estimate for 2018 is 327,167,434 which is only 1.4 million above last years estimate, but they decreased the 2017 estimate by 600.000 creating a 2.0 million yoy increase.

Not surprising given the declining number of births and steady increase in deaths as boomers age.  8 states lost population--IL, NY, CN, WV, LA, MS, WY, AK maybe more if try to adjust for 2017 original estimates

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-national-total.html


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: DINGO Joe on December 19, 2018, 12:17:05 pm
Nevada is listed in the press release as having the largest % increase yoy (along with Idaho)--2.1%, adding 62,000 people.  However, the 2017 estimate was reduced by 26,000 meaning the increase is actually only 36,000 above the original 2017 estimate.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Nyvin on December 19, 2018, 12:51:25 pm
US Estimate for 2018 is 327,167,434 which is only 1.4 million above last years estimate, but they decreased the 2017 estimate by 600.000 creating a 2.0 million yoy increase.

Not surprising given the declining number of births and steady increase in deaths as boomers age.  8 states lost population--IL, NY, CN, WV, LA, MS, WY, AK maybe more if try to adjust for 2017 original estimates

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-national-total.html


Didn't Hawaii also lose population?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: DINGO Joe on December 19, 2018, 01:06:02 pm
US Estimate for 2018 is 327,167,434 which is only 1.4 million above last years estimate, but they decreased the 2017 estimate by 600.000 creating a 2.0 million yoy increase.

Not surprising given the declining number of births and steady increase in deaths as boomers age.  8 states lost population--IL, NY, CN, WV, LA, MS, WY, AK maybe more if try to adjust for 2017 original estimates

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-national-total.html


Didn't Hawaii also lose population?

Yeah, put Hawaii on the list.  Kansas also lost population vs original 2017 estimate but with the tweak to 2017 it lost it last year and gained a little this year, subject to future tweaks.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 19, 2018, 01:13:26 pm
Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2018 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 8 and a quarter year 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.

AL -1
AZ +1
CA -1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
MT +1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

Compared to last year (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=166668.msg5968174#msg5968174), CA loses one and MT gains one. That is what my model based on the two years from 2015-2017 projected, so it appears that that short-term trend has continued enough to influence the whole decade. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are IL-17, FL-29, TX-39, NY-26, and MT-2 (#435).
The next five in line are CA53, AL-7, MN-8, OH-15, and VA-12.

The alternate projection based on just the prior two years of estimates to determine the rate of growth matches the full decade projection now.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: #Kavanaugh For Prison on December 19, 2018, 01:19:41 pm
We ought to add 270 members to the US House.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 19, 2018, 01:49:33 pm
Here's what the 2024 EV map would be like based on my 2020 projections with colors to indicate changes from this decade.

()


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Starpaul20 on December 19, 2018, 01:57:42 pm
Like I did last year, I decided to see what a Wyoming Rule house size would look like with the new population estimates. The house membership would expand to 565 seats, an increase of 130 over its current size:

()
(States in red gain 1 seat, blue gains 2 seats, green gains 3 seats, yellow gains 4 seats, orange gains 5 or more and gray means no change)
Relative to last year, (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=166668.msg5968395#msg5968395) the house would increase 4 seats, with California, Texas, Florida, Indiana and Utah(!!!) gaining a seat each, and New Jersey (%&*#&!!) losing one.

For comparison, here's what a Wyoming Rule house size looks like with the 2010 census results (547 seats):
()


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: #Kavanaugh For Prison on December 19, 2018, 03:57:28 pm
We should have a 705 member US House or something like that.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: #Kavanaugh For Prison on December 19, 2018, 04:13:19 pm
So I just calculated the likely changes in 2020 apportionment:

()


My calculations based on these 2018 estimates still suggest that we are on track for this map.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: #Kavanaugh For Prison on December 19, 2018, 04:24:29 pm
Just for fun, this is what would happen if they non-retroactively reinstated the no states can lose a seat rule for 2020:

()

It increases the House size by 18.


This map changes quite a bit, however, including the consideration of how much the size changes:

()

The size would increase by 22.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 19, 2018, 04:25:56 pm
So I just calculated the likely changes in 2020 apportionment:

()


My calculations based on these 2018 estimates still suggest that we are on track for this map.

That's where I was two years ago, and reported the same last year. However I saw MT pick up a little more increase over the last two years and now it looks to be on track to beat CA for the last seat.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: #Kavanaugh For Prison on December 19, 2018, 04:33:03 pm
So I just calculated the likely changes in 2020 apportionment:

()


My calculations based on these 2018 estimates still suggest that we are on track for this map.

That's where I was two years ago, and reported the same last year. However I saw MT pick up a little more increase over the last two years and now it looks to be on track to beat CA for the last seat.

Based on my 2018 estimate calculations:

California has 40,045,459 people
Montana has 1,077,768 people

CA-53 value: 762,805
MT-02 value: 762,097

CA-53 is still slightly ahead.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Cokeland Saxton on December 19, 2018, 05:58:14 pm
The estimates are out today!

The fastest growing states this year are, according to the Census Bureau:

By percent:

1. Nevada - up 2.1% to 3,034,392
2. Idaho - up 2.1% to 1,754,208
3. Utah - up 1.9% to 3,161,105
4. Arizona - up 1.7% to 7,171,646
5. Florida - up 1.5% to 21,299,325
6. Washington - up 1.5% to 7,535,591
7. Colorado - up 1.4% to 5,695,564
8. Texas - up 1.3% to 28,701,845
9. South Carolina - up 1.3% to 5,084,127
10. North Carolina - up 1.1% to 10,383,260

Numeric:

1. Texas - up 379,128 to 28,701,845
2. Florida - up 322,513 to 21,299,325
3. California - up 157,696 to 39,557,045
4. Arizona   - up 122,770 to 7,171,646
5. North Carolina - up 112,820 to 10,383,620
6. Washington - up 110,159 to 7,535,591
7. Georgia - up 106,420 to 10,519,475
8. Colorado - up 79,662 to 5,695,564
9. South Carolina - up 62,908 to 5,084,127
10. Nevada - up 61,987 to 3,034,392


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 19, 2018, 06:00:25 pm
So I just calculated the likely changes in 2020 apportionment:

()


My calculations based on these 2018 estimates still suggest that we are on track for this map.

That's where I was two years ago, and reported the same last year. However I saw MT pick up a little more increase over the last two years and now it looks to be on track to beat CA for the last seat.

Based on my 2018 estimate calculations:

California has 40,045,459 people
Montana has 1,077,768 people

CA-53 value: 762,805
MT-02 value: 762,097

CA-53 is still slightly ahead.

You didn't say your method of estimating for 2020. I assume a compounding growth rate averaged either over the full decade or the final 2 years. That growth rate is applied to the apportionment population which is what the Census will use in 2020. The apportionment population is higher than the residential population (the estimate) due to overseas military personnel.

If I project using the entire decade CA has a 2020 apportionment pop of 40.158 M (39.956 M using a 2-year basis; CA's growth rate has slowed considerably the last couple of years).

If I project using the entire decade MT has a 2020 apportionment pop of 1.084 M (1.087 M using a 2-year basis).

The priority value for seat N is a state of population P is P/sqrt(N(N-1)).
The priority value for CA-53 is 765.0 K (761.1 K with the two year basis).
The priority value for MT-02 is 766.4 K (768.6 K with the two year basis).

Either way MT wins, and the short term trend favors MT extending its lead on CA.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: #Kavanaugh For Prison on December 19, 2018, 06:02:32 pm
I used a linear growth rate estimation based on changes across the whole decade.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Cokeland Saxton on December 19, 2018, 06:07:45 pm
The estimates are out today!

The fastest growing states this year are, according to the Census Bureau:

By percent:

1. Nevada - up 2.1% to 3,034,392
2. Idaho - up 2.1% to 1,754,208
3. Utah - up 1.9% to 3,161,105
4. Arizona - up 1.7% to 7,171,646
5. Florida - up 1.5% to 21,299,325
6. Washington - up 1.5% to 7,535,591
7. Colorado - up 1.4% to 5,695,564
8. Texas - up 1.3% to 28,701,845
9. South Carolina - up 1.3% to 5,084,127
10. North Carolina - up 1.1% to 10,383,260

Numeric:

1. Texas - up 379,128 to 28,701,845
2. Florida - up 322,513 to 21,299,325
3. California - up 157,696 to 39,557,045
4. Arizona   - up 122,770 to 7,171,646
5. North Carolina - up 112,820 to 10,383,620
6. Washington - up 110,159 to 7,535,591
7. Georgia - up 106,420 to 10,519,475
8. Colorado - up 79,662 to 5,695,564
9. South Carolina - up 62,908 to 5,084,127
10. Nevada - up 61,987 to 3,034,392


Also please note that in some of these cases, the 2017 was changed significantly, as is the case with California, whose 2018 estimate is up only 20k over the original 2017 estimate.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 19, 2018, 06:11:43 pm
I used a linear growth rate estimation based on changes across the whole decade.

If that's the case you should add the overseas military personnel times the same growth rate to the state populations since the 2020 Census will. MT has about double the participation rate of CA in overseas military - 0.5% compared to 0.24% for CA. When I took the military population out of my projection CA was back on top using the whole decade. However, even without the military adjustment MT still wins using a short term 2 or 3 year average for projection.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: #Kavanaugh For Prison on December 19, 2018, 07:34:10 pm
I used a linear growth rate estimation based on changes across the whole decade.

If that's the case you should add the overseas military personnel times the same growth rate to the state populations since the 2020 Census will. MT has about double the participation rate of CA in overseas military - 0.5% compared to 0.24% for CA. When I took the military population out of my projection CA was back on top using the whole decade. However, even without the military adjustment MT still wins using a short term 2 or 3 year average for projection.

I have no idea where that data exists.

I thought they were already pre-placed into the census data compilations.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 19, 2018, 10:46:16 pm
The 10 states that had the highest domestic migration surpluses (= intra-US movements between the states) between 2017 and 2018:

FL +133K
AZ +83K
TX +83K
NC +67K
SC +51K
NV +48K
WA +47K
CO +43K
GA +42K
TN +40K

... and the biggest net losses:

NY -180K
CA -156K
PR -123K
IL -114K
NJ -51K
LA -28K
MA -26K
MD -25K
CT -22K
PA -21K
MI -17K

Puerto Rico lost 4% of its population last year (a record) and that was not only because of out-migration (-123K people), but also because a -7K death surplus. A loss of 130K people in total.

Since the Census 2000, more than 1 million Puerto Ricans have left the island - or about 1/4 of the population ...


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Cokeland Saxton on December 19, 2018, 11:19:05 pm
Much of that was from Hurricane Maria


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 19, 2018, 11:20:29 pm
I used a linear growth rate estimation based on changes across the whole decade.

If that's the case you should add the overseas military personnel times the same growth rate to the state populations since the 2020 Census will. MT has about double the participation rate of CA in overseas military - 0.5% compared to 0.24% for CA. When I took the military population out of my projection CA was back on top using the whole decade. However, even without the military adjustment MT still wins using a short term 2 or 3 year average for projection.

I have no idea where that data exists.

I thought they were already pre-placed into the census data compilations.

The Census only puts out residential estimates. The residential data is used for grant funding and redistricting, but not for apportionment. There have been SCOTUS cases about who should be counted for apportionment. For instance in Utah vs Evans I (2001) the state argued that their Mormon missionaries should be counted for apportionment which would have given UT a seat at the expense of NC, but they lost.

The data is available through the American Fact Finder tool which has the apportionment data set. However, it's not estimated through the decade so a proper model has to make its own estimate to project to the next apportionment.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: The Mikado on December 20, 2018, 12:59:09 am
Imagine how physically tiny NV-01 is going to be in the next set of maps.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Brittain33 on December 20, 2018, 08:24:42 am
Imagine how physically tiny NV-01 is going to be in the next set of maps.

Is Las Vegas getting more densely populated?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Singletxguyforfun on December 20, 2018, 08:33:01 am
How is MA losing population? I see new obnoxiously tacky looking condos go up every time I drive through Boston


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Thatkat04 on December 20, 2018, 09:03:40 am
How is MA losing population? I see new obnoxiously tacky looking condos go up every time I drive through Boston

It's not. It's the fastest growing state in the northeast.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Brittain33 on December 20, 2018, 10:12:04 am
How is MA losing population? I see new obnoxiously tacky looking condos go up every time I drive through Boston

It's funny, I can think of at least three specific neighborhoods near highways you're referring to unless it's a general observation:

  • NorthPoint in Cambridge
  • South End against I-93
  • Chelsea on Rt. 1

Anyway, yeah, MA is the fastest-growing state in the northeast other than possibly Delaware.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 20, 2018, 10:12:54 am
How is MA losing population? I see new obnoxiously tacky looking condos go up every time I drive through Boston

It's not. It's the fastest growing state in the northeast.

MA is growing at 0.6%/year over the decade. That's almost as fast as the nation as a whole.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: ilikeverin on December 20, 2018, 10:26:57 am
The last five awarded are IL-17, FL-29, TX-39, NY-26, and MT-2 (#435).
The next five in line are CA53, AL-7, MN-8, OH-15, and VA-12.

Wow, that seems new!  I thought MN was definitely doomed.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 20, 2018, 11:57:15 am
The last five awarded are IL-17, FL-29, TX-39, NY-26, and MT-2 (#435).
The next five in line are CA53, AL-7, MN-8, OH-15, and VA-12.

Wow, that seems new!  I thought MN was definitely doomed.

MN is now the fastest growing state in the upper Midwest/Great Lakes region. They've paced the national average for the decade and are slightly ahead of it over the last two years. If they keep up their current pace of the last year or two they have a definite shot at holding their 8th seat.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Cokeland Saxton on December 20, 2018, 02:45:35 pm
Imagine how physically tiny NV-01 is going to be in the next set of maps.

Is Las Vegas getting more densely populated?

Clark County is the fastest-growing county in Nevada since 2010, and with 2.2 million people, contains nearly 3/4 of the state's population, and that percentage continues to increase.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: DINGO Joe on December 20, 2018, 03:19:12 pm
Colorado has added about 660,000 people this decade or more than the actual population of Wyoming (577,000).


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 21, 2018, 02:02:24 am
Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2018 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 8 and a quarter year 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.

AL -1
AZ +1
CA -1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
MT +1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

Compared to last year (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=166668.msg5968174#msg5968174), CA loses one and MT gains one. That is what my model based on the two years from 2015-2017 projected, so it appears that that short-term trend has continued enough to influence the whole decade. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are IL-17, FL-29, TX-39, NY-26, and MT-2 (#435).
The next five in line are CA53, AL-7, MN-8, OH-15, and VA-12.

The alternate projection based on just the prior two years of estimates to determine the rate of growth matches the full decade projection now.

Based on resident population, projected exponentially for the last 1.75 years, I have California narrowly keeping its 53rd seat, and Montana staying at one seat. But an additional 1000 population for Montana or -30K for California would swap the two.

The exponential projection is quite optimistic for California. Growth in California was quite flat for the first half of the decade through 2015 at 327K per year. The last three years have been 256K, 190K, and 158K. That is, the second derivative has been negative. The exponential growth projection would add 506K over the next 1.75 years. Taking 7/8 of the 2016-2018 increase would only add 305K. Not only is California not going to meet the exponential projection it will miss it badly.

We will likely miss the California Paradox where California's share of population is increasing, while its share of representation is decreasing. Currently, California is slightly above the USA growth rate (projected at 7.3% for the decade), but will likely fall below the national rate by 2020.

So this will give Montana the 435th seat. Montana's growth is not robust, but will increase by about 9.0% during the decade. Montana's growth rate is volatile, subject to energy prices. Expansion of the Williston Basin into Montana depends on sustained higher oil prices, along with a way to transport the oil. Regina is the closest population center to Williston, but Billings is the closest domestic center. Both Billings and Bismarck benefit from rentals to the Williston Basin.

A negative for Montana is it's COLD. But Montana is not going to drop much below its current rate of growth in the next 1.75 years. It could be on the cusp between one and two seats for decades to come. After losing the 2nd seat at the 1990 census, Montana has been just short of gaining it back - at times missing simply because of the timing of the census.

The only realistic contender for the 435th seat is Minnesota. But while its growth has increased a bit the last few years, it should still be short of holding on to its 8th district. Exponentially projected growth would give Minnesota 68K more persons, about 32K short of the needed population. Linear growth based on 2016-2018 would net 77K. This would still leave Minnesota 23K short.  It would really need to pop its growth for the next two year, and the increase for 2018 was actually less than 2017.



Realized changes for 2018, were for Arizona to gain its 10th district, and Rhode Island to lose its 2nd. Montana surpassed Rhode Island in population during the year.

Quite likely changes by 2020 are for Florida to gain its 28th and Texas 39th, at the expense of Alabama to 6 and Ohio to 15.

The final change if it happens is Montana 2nd at the expense of California to 52.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 21, 2018, 03:58:37 am
I used a linear growth rate estimation based on changes across the whole decade.

If that's the case you should add the overseas military personnel times the same growth rate to the state populations since the 2020 Census will. MT has about double the participation rate of CA in overseas military - 0.5% compared to 0.24% for CA. When I took the military population out of my projection CA was back on top using the whole decade. However, even without the military adjustment MT still wins using a short term 2 or 3 year average for projection.
Most of the overseas population is military personnel and their dependents.

The Census Bureau's rationalization is that military personnel are not living overseas by choice. The real reason is that the Census can easily get records from other federal agencies.

The US government requires that overseas civilian citizens be able to vote in their state of last residence. It is pretty hypocritical to require that they be able to vote for representatives, while not including them in the determination of the number of representatives they may vote for.

The US should maintain voter registration for civilian overseas and all military personnel (this would avoid providing information about location of military personnel to states). Overseas voters should be able to vote at embassies, consulates, other population centers, and military bases.

An overseas voter could go to a federal voting center, prove his identity. The voting center would contact the state of (last) residence and generate a ballot. The voter would vote, and the results would be sent back to the state.

With these registration records, the Census Bureau could contact civilians living overseas and determine the number of associated dependents.

In 2010, about 1,000,000 of 1,048,000 were associated with the military (95%+). About 400,000 were military and 600,000 were dependents.

Since 2010 overseas military has declined by about half. OTOH, there has been little decline in numbers stationed in countries that are suitable for dependents: Japan, Germany, Korea, Italy, UK, Spain and Belgium (countries with more than 1K military personnel).

The DOD administrative records include 3 potential states: home of record - which is generally where someone resided prior to (re)enlistment; legal address - where someone pays state taxes (tends to be heavy on Texas, Florida, Washington, Alaska, Wyoming, and Tennessee which have no income taxes, but have military bases which can be used to establish legal residency); and last duty session.

If available, the Census Bureau uses the home of record, perhaps reasoning that was the last place that was under control of the service member - and likely to produce less distortion of the apportionment population.

If we assume that the distribution of home states has not changed, and that the overseas military has declined by 50%, but not in locations where dependents can live. That means we could take (800/1050)/1.073  which would be ratio of overseas population to resident population in 2020 to that in 2010.

Then for each state take the 2010 ratio of overseas/resident population and multiply by this factor and multiply this by the 2020 projected resident population.

This assumes that factors that lead to enlistment do not vary over time, but the number who do enlist is proportional to the resident population of a state.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 21, 2018, 04:00:34 am
Imagine how physically tiny NV-01 is going to be in the next set of maps.
It is kind of like the two districts in the Northern Territory of Australia. One does not get out of Darwin.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Brittain33 on December 21, 2018, 08:08:08 am
Imagine how physically tiny NV-01 is going to be in the next set of maps.

Is Las Vegas getting more densely populated?

Clark County is the fastest-growing county in Nevada since 2010, and with 2.2 million people, contains nearly 3/4 of the state's population, and that percentage continues to increase.

Sure, but since NV-1 consists of fully built-out land and its population is going to have to go up, either the city has gotten more densely populated *or* NV-4 and NV-3 are going to shrink in size while NV-1 stays the same or gets a little bigger.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 21, 2018, 01:16:56 pm
19 states are gaining ground relative to the USA:

Western states (all but AK, HI, NM, and WY): AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NV, OR, UT, WA
Central tier: ND, SD, TX
South Atlantic (DE to FL, except MD): DE, FL, GA, NC, SC, VA
Tennessee: TN

These states can gain representation. The other 32 states are losing ground relative to the USA and can lose representation.

The following table is based on exponentially projected 2020 resident population. Above the line it shows the relative quotient for 2020 gainers: AZ(10), CO(8), FL(29), NC(14), OR(6), and TX(39). They will have notched these gains by 2020, and will be moving away from the line. The other states are growing slower than the national average and are at risk of losing additional seats. States like MA and NE are just below the national average in growth, and are potentially decades away from change. It is more likely that there will be a change in trends.

Pretty certain losses for 2030 are CT, IL, NJ, NY(2), PA, and WI. Possible losers are IL(2), IN, MI, and OH. These are based on comparing margin for 2020 and growth rates from 2010 to 2020 relative to the national growth rate of 7.3.

States below the line that lost a seat are AL(6), IL(17), MI(13), MN(7), NY(26), OH(15), PA(17), RI(1), WV(2). These states have notched a loss for 2020, and will be dropping further. With the exception of MN, they won't be making up lost ground.

Other states are growing faster than the national average and have the possibility of gaining seats. Fairly certain gainers for 2030 are FL(2), ID, TX(3), UT, and WA. Possible gainers are AZ, CO, FL(3), GA, NV, TX(4), VA.

Because there are more possible gainers than possible losers, there is a greater chance that the potential losses will occur (more eager contenders to grab the seat away from the sluggards). But it is likely that all the potential gainers will not be realized (too much competition).

Special cases are CA, MN, and MT, which have growth rates near to the national average AND are close to the threshold. They can ping pong back and forth. The MN growth rate is increasing a bit, which could turn it into a gainer by 2030, while CA growth rate is slowing substantially which could turn it into a loser. It likely will already lose its 53rd due to the slowdown, and could lose additional seats. California loses/gains seats for roughly every 2% difference from the national rate. A 5.3% increase vs. a national rate of 7.3% would cost another seat. The MT economy is too resource dependent, and has no major cities to sustain growth (compared to say Boise, Des Moines, or Omaha).


NY 23 1.092
PA 15 1.085
MO  7 1.078
MA  8 1.078
IL 15 1.076 ?
KY  5 1.076
MD  7 1.068
OH 14 1.060 ?
MI 12 1.051 ?
NY 24 1.047 x
CT  4 1.047 x
NE  2 1.044
IN  8 1.040 ?
NC 14 1.027(+)
CO  8 1.024(+)
WI  7 1.023 x
OR  6 1.022(+)
PA 16 1.019 x
NJ 11 1.019 x
CA 51 1.015
AZ 10 1.015(+)
IL 16 1.011 x
NY 25 1.006 x
FL 29 1.006(++)
TX 39 1.005(+++)
CA 52 0.9999
--------------------------------------------------
MT  2 0.9992
MN  7 0.994(-)
AL  6 0.993(-)
OH 15 0.991(-)
VA 12 0.984 ?
CA 54 0.981
RI  1 0.980(-)
TX 40 0.979 x
MI 13 0.973(-)
FL 30 0.971 x
NY 26 0.968(-)
GA 15 0.968 ?
WA 11 0.964 x
ID  3 0.961 x
PA 17 0.961(-)
WV  2 0.961(-)
TX 41 0.955 x
UT  5 0.953 x
IL 17 0.953(-)
TN 10 0.948
NC 15 0.946
FL 31 0.940 x
TX 42 0.932
AZ 11 0.918 ?
NV  4 0.911 ?
DE  2 0.910
TX 43 0.910 ?
FL 32 0.910 ?
SC  8 0.908
VA 13 0.905
GA 16 0.905
CO  9 0.903 ?

States that are losing ground relative to the USA, but are at least 10% above losing a seat.
AR(4), HI(2), IA(4), KS(4), LA(6), ME(2), MS(4), NM(3), OK(5). They won't lose the seat by 2030.

States that are losing ground relative to the USA, and already have the minimum number of seats.

AK(1),  VT(1), and WY(1).

States that are gaining ground relative to the USA, but are at least 10% below gaining a seat, and won't gain a seat by 2030 (barring oil going above $100 per barrel).

ND(1) and SD(1)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Thatkat04 on December 22, 2018, 08:39:23 pm
So question, was New Jersey adjusted down? In 2017, the population was past 9 million but this 2018 Census states the population is 8.9 million while at the same time showing NJ with population growth of 0.22% from last year. Not that it matters all that much since the twelfth district is safe in 2020 but its just kind of bothering me.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/nj/IPE120217


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Cokeland Saxton on December 22, 2018, 08:50:11 pm
Yes, New Jersey's was adjusted down, just like New York's was adjusted down by like a quarter million.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Hardline Remainer on December 23, 2018, 02:32:07 am
We will likely miss the California Paradox where California's share of population is increasing, while its share of representation is decreasing. Currently, California is slightly above the USA growth rate (projected at 7.3% for the decade), but will likely fall below the national rate by 2020.
That may be true, but this decrease is very artificial. California is an economic powerhouse, it's quality of life is second to none, and polling indicates millions of Americans would move here if they could. This slowdown is occurring EXCLUSIVELY because of artificial zoning laws keeping LA and the Bay Area from building the 250,000+ new units of housing per year market conditions would indicate. Fortunately, legislators are finally catching on to this, and seem very likely to pass growth-friendly legislation this cycle, while local authorities are streamlining the permital process. I firmly expect that within five years, California's population growth rate will be between 0.8 and 1.2 percent per year, and California should gain one or two seats in 2030, putting us at 54 congressional districts. One only needs to look at the demographic profile of those moving in and out of the state to see that the only reason Nevada, Texas, and Arizona are growing so fast is because California isn't building enough homes. 2030, prepare for a 45 million person California.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 24, 2018, 01:56:07 am
So question, was New Jersey adjusted down? In 2017, the population was past 9 million but this 2018 Census states the population is 8.9 million while at the same time showing NJ with population growth of 0.22% from last year. Not that it matters all that much since the twelfth district is safe in 2020 but its just kind of bothering me.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/nj/IPE120217
Census estimates are based on estimates of demographic changes due to births, deaths, in-migration, and out-migration.

Birth and death estimates are based on birth and death data from the National Heath Sevice (NHS). This lags the estimate date by 1-1/2 years (for the July 1, 2018 estimate is based on data for calendar year 2016). The 2018 estimate is based on a projection of the earlier data.

The estimate made for 2017 did not have 2016 data, so the death and birth data was based on projection from earlier data. But in 2018, we can correct the 2017 estimate. Even with accurate birth and death records, place of residence may be misleading. A widow from Florida who moved to live with he daughter in North Carolina, before she died, will show up as a North Carolinian dying, and a Floridian getting a year older (since no death or move was recorded). Some mothers move after giving birth. If their husband was in Afghanistan, she may have move to be nearer her parents home during the pregnancy, rather than being alone near some military base.

Domestic migration is estimated based on IRS, Medicare, and SSA records - which can apparently be anonymized enough such that you can find where a taxpayer has changed residence, and the number of exemptions and perhaps the age. Since this does not cover those who don't file, they project this to the total population This could be fairly current, since most taxpayers have filed by July 1. It got really complicated for international migration.

METHODOLOGY FOR THE UNITED STATES POPULATION ESTIMATES: VINTAGE 2018 (PDF) (https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/technical-documentation/methodology/2010-2018/2018-natstcopr-meth.pdf)

I think they try to track the number of persons from the 2010 Census:

Let's say there are N 47 YO white males in 2010.

X% die,
Y% move to another state.
Z% move to another country.
W% move from another country.

Then for 2011 they have an estimated number of 48 YO white males, etc.

To try to make sense of the estimates, I compared the 2018 vintage annual components of change with the 2017 vintage annual components of change for New York.

The changes in birth and deaths appear just to be noise. But there was a dramatic decrease in the net inflow of international migration, which goes back most of the decade. That is, the Census Bureau now believes that they had been overestimating net international migration. This is close to a 200K difference over the decade.

I don't know the source of the error. Perhaps they were using the ACS and could not find the immigrants. Perhaps there have been people leaving the US. These are hard to detect, because the US government doesn't care if you leave. They, in theory, care if you enter the country.

Of course it is is possible that the ACS does a particularly poor job of counting persons who are illegally in the country, and avoid anything they believe might result in detection.

If there has been a change in methodology with respect to international migration, this would have a particularly profound effect on the estimates for New York and California.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Snowguy716 on December 24, 2018, 03:02:58 pm
The 10 states that had the highest domestic migration surpluses (= intra-US movements between the states) between 2017 and 2018:

FL +133K
AZ +83K
TX +83K
NC +67K
SC +51K
NV +48K
WA +47K
CO +43K
GA +42K
TN +40K

... and the biggest net losses:

NY -180K
CA -156K
PR -123K
IL -114K
NJ -51K
LA -28K
MA -26K
MD -25K
CT -22K
PA -21K
MI -17K

Puerto Rico lost 4% of its population last year (a record) and that was not only because of out-migration (-123K people), but also because a -7K death surplus. A loss of 130K people in total.

Since the Census 2000, more than 1 million Puerto Ricans have left the island - or about 1/4 of the population ...
Please cite your original source.  Paraphrasing data still needs a citation.  I suspect you are possesive of your data sources.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on December 24, 2018, 03:08:12 pm
The 10 states that had the highest domestic migration surpluses (= intra-US movements between the states) between 2017 and 2018:

FL +133K
AZ +83K
TX +83K
NC +67K
SC +51K
NV +48K
WA +47K
CO +43K
GA +42K
TN +40K

... and the biggest net losses:

NY -180K
CA -156K
PR -123K
IL -114K
NJ -51K
LA -28K
MA -26K
MD -25K
CT -22K
PA -21K
MI -17K

Puerto Rico lost 4% of its population last year (a record) and that was not only because of out-migration (-123K people), but also because a -7K death surplus. A loss of 130K people in total.

Since the Census 2000, more than 1 million Puerto Ricans have left the island - or about 1/4 of the population ...
Please cite your original source.  Paraphrasing data still needs a citation.  I suspect you are possesive of your data sources.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-kits/2018/pop-estimates-national-state.html

Table 5, sorted by "domestic".


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Snowguy716 on December 24, 2018, 08:08:43 pm
The 10 states that had the highest domestic migration surpluses (= intra-US movements between the states) between 2017 and 2018:

FL +133K
AZ +83K
TX +83K
NC +67K
SC +51K
NV +48K
WA +47K
CO +43K
GA +42K
TN +40K

... and the biggest net losses:

NY -180K
CA -156K
PR -123K
IL -114K
NJ -51K
LA -28K
MA -26K
MD -25K
CT -22K
PA -21K
MI -17K

Puerto Rico lost 4% of its population last year (a record) and that was not only because of out-migration (-123K people), but also because a -7K death surplus. A loss of 130K people in total.

Since the Census 2000, more than 1 million Puerto Ricans have left the island - or about 1/4 of the population ...
Please cite your original source.  Paraphrasing data still needs a citation.  I suspect you are possesive of your data sources.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-kits/2018/pop-estimates-national-state.html

Table 5, sorted by "domestic".
Thank you!


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Jimmie on December 24, 2018, 08:17:09 pm
Time to institute my plan in Illinois.

Pritzker is intituting the legal marijuana but I doubt he will institute my other plan.

Abolish all property taxes in the state of Illinois and all sales taxes in opportunity zones in Cook County and parts of downstate.

Edit: Also  I would nuke all public sector unions.

That should solve most of the mess in the state is causing people to leave.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: #Kavanaugh For Prison on December 24, 2018, 08:40:15 pm
Time to institute my plan in Illinois.

Pritzker is intituting the legal marijuana but I doubt he will institute my other plan.

Abolish all property taxes in the state of Illinois and all sales taxes in opportunity zones in Cook County and parts of downstate.

Edit: Also  I would nuke all public sector unions.

That should solve most of the mess in the state is causing people to leave.

()


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Vern on December 26, 2018, 05:31:03 pm
NC once again grows faster than GA. Watch out GA we right on your heels!


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on December 26, 2018, 06:35:27 pm
Time to institute my plan in Illinois.

Pritzker is intituting the legal marijuana but I doubt he will institute my other plan.

Abolish all property taxes in the state of Illinois and all sales taxes in opportunity zones in Cook County and parts of downstate.

Edit: Also  I would nuke all public sector unions.

That should solve most of the mess in the state is causing people to leave.

The IL sales taxes are pretty much only assessed on purchases of physical items that disproportionately affect lower income groups. The state could earn 2 G$ or more by including services that are primarily used by upper income groups.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Jimmie on December 26, 2018, 08:13:05 pm
Time to institute my plan in Illinois.

Pritzker is intituting the legal marijuana but I doubt he will institute my other plan.

Abolish all property taxes in the state of Illinois and all sales taxes in opportunity zones in Cook County and parts of downstate.

Edit: Also  I would nuke all public sector unions.

That should solve most of the mess in the state is causing people to leave.

The IL sales taxes are pretty much only assessed on purchases of physical items that disproportionately affect lower income groups. The state could earn 2 G$ or more by including services that are primarily used by upper income groups.

We should get together and make a budget plan for Illinois that is fair!


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Snowguy716 on December 26, 2018, 11:08:01 pm
Illinois is a big, hot mess.  But I am confident it will do just fine in the long run.

As a good Chicagoan might say "yeah we're hayfe way between a raaaahck an a haaaaahrd place but we've sitch-uh-wated ourselves exeaaactly half way tuh minimize the deaaaahmage"


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 27, 2018, 08:05:09 am
Puerto Rico lost 4% of its population last year (a record) and that was not only because of out-migration (-123K people), but also because a -7K death surplus. A loss of 130K people in total.

Since the Census 2000, more than 1 million Puerto Ricans have left the island - or about 1/4 of the population ...
It was more a 7K birth deficit. Annual births have declined from 41K to 24K during the decade.

I suspect those who leave may be disproportionately in child-bearing ages. Yep ...

If we compare numbers in 5-year age groups from 2012 to 2017, when they would have advanced to the next age group.

20-25 in 2012, 25-30 in 2017 84.9% *** groups with largest share of births
25-30 in 2012, 30-34 in 2017 83.8% ***
30-34 in 2012, 35-39 in 2017 87.4%
35-39 in 2013, 40-44 in 2017 90.2%
...
55-59 in 2013, 60-64 in 2017 93.1%

At older ages, you see a sharp decline, but that is because of people dying before they age 5 years. This may have a small effect on those in their 50s.

There is a strong male-female differential.

25-29 in 2012, 30-34 in 2017, male 18.5% left, female 14.1% left.

In a normal population, males outnumber females until in 40s to 50s, when earlier male deaths balance the population. But here you have potential mates leaving the island.

If we look at children, there is also difference.

0-4 in 2012, 5-9 in 2017 86.9%
5-10 in 2012, 10-14 in 2017 89.3%
10-14 in 2012, 15-19 in 2017 89.2%
15-19 in 2012, 20-24 in 2017 86.6%

The youngest are more likely to be living in non-established families, and it is easier to move if you don't have an established career, a house, and the children in school. You likely have family on the mainland, whom you can use for at least temporary housing, and may know of jobs.

Older children, who are in school, and may have more difficulty in transitioning to English-based schools.  Migration matches that of those 30 years older (their parents).

The oldest group which were teenagers in 2012, has now entered adulthood and are beginning to migrate.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on December 28, 2018, 02:47:19 pm
Yes, New Jersey's was adjusted down, just like New York's was adjusted down by like a quarter million.
Looking at the components of change: birth, deaths, domestic migration, and international migration, and comparing the 2017 and 2018 vintage estimates for 2017, there was a dramatic decrease in the estimate of net international migration between 2010-2017 from 7.2 million to 6.7 million. Remember that net includes both immigration and emigration. The changes for births, deaths, and domestic migration were minimal.

The changes in international migration were extremely concentrated, with New York (-265K), California (-147K) and New Jersey (-121K) suffering the most.

MD -29
NV -23
FL -14
GA -14
CT -13
LA -13
PA -12
NC -11

There were a few gainers:

TX +36
AZ +33
MI +18
WA +18
OH +11

I suspect that the Census Bureau has refined their estimates of people leaving the US, which would reasonably be the hardest to measure, since they no longer exist in the US. Residents for census purposes include temporary residents such as those attending college or on long-term work assignments, It also includes persons who move to the USA to work and travel, with no intent to permanently reside in the USA.

Some people change their minds. They get their degree(s), find work, and perhaps a spouse, and become permanent residents, perhaps citizens. Others may return for other reasons. With jet travel and the internet it is much easier to maintain a connection with a home country.

In 2016, domestic migration into Texas was 532K, and out of Texas was 444K, but the net was only 88K. That is, the net flow was less than 1/10 of the total number of border crossers.

From the 2016 ACS, roughly 2 million persons were living in the USA, who had resided abroad a year earlier. But the Census Bureau estimates net international migration at half of that.

Mumbly. mumbly, hand wavy, the Census Bureau through 2017 reduced the net international flow from 7.2M to 6.7M. If this is due to increased estimate of out migration, this might only require an increase in the percentage of outflow by less than 10%.

The question is then why is this so concentrated in New York, New Jersey, and California.

Speculation,

New York and California by far have the most diverse immigrants. Perhaps  more people have heard of NYC or Los Angeles or San Francisco and move there as part of some fantasy, thinking they can get a job in movies or the theater, etc. It may be more a multi-year visit, than a lifetime migration.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: The Mikado on December 30, 2018, 06:46:45 pm
It has a lot to do with immigrants wanting to move places where there's a preexisting established community of their ethnic group, and almost literally every ethnic group on Earth has an enclave somewhere in NYC.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: beesley on January 12, 2019, 07:23:15 am
Are more people moving out of upstate NY, or NYC? I really can't think why you would want to move out of the latter, but anyway.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Former Senator Zaybay on January 12, 2019, 11:24:19 am
Are more people moving out of upstate NY, or NYC? I really can't think why you would want to move out of the latter, but anyway.
http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/new-york-population/

It appears to be Upstate. NYC is still growing.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Gass3268 on January 12, 2019, 12:41:54 pm
Are more people moving out of upstate NY, or NYC? I really can't think why you would want to move out of the latter, but anyway.
http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/new-york-population/

It appears to be Upstate. NYC is still growing.

If Democrats have total control in 2021 as I imagine they will, I wonder if they will try to kill two Upstate seats.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Former Senator Zaybay on January 12, 2019, 01:04:56 pm
Are more people moving out of upstate NY, or NYC? I really can't think why you would want to move out of the latter, but anyway.
http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/new-york-population/

It appears to be Upstate. NYC is still growing.

If Democrats have total control in 2021 as I imagine they will, I wonder if they will try to kill two Upstate seats.

Based on the fact that the Ds have a trifecta, and the population changes, whats most likely to happen is that Upstate loses 1 or 2 seats, with the possibility of Long Island losing one if Upstate holds. This would mean NYC and its surrounding area would hold much more substantial influence in whats left of Long Island and Upstate, to the point that losing two districts may make it much easier for the Ds to obtain near absolute control of the congressional delegation without the need for extreme gerrymandering and ugly districts.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Oryxslayer on January 12, 2019, 01:27:05 pm
Where are these thoughts of NY losing two seats coming from? It seems NY has been on track to lose 1 for 7 years or so. That seat itself has always been likely to be NY22/NY24  as Dems carve up Katko and protect Brindisi or another Dem. I mean of course Dems are going to get messy with the lines in Long Island, Staten Island, and the Hudson Valley, but that is to be expected.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Brittain33 on January 12, 2019, 01:32:36 pm
Doesn't NY have a redistricting commission for 2022?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: #Kavanaugh For Prison on January 12, 2019, 01:34:32 pm
Doesn't NY have a redistricting commission for 2022?

The commission is toothless, and can be ignored about as easily as the one in Ohio.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Former Senator Zaybay on January 12, 2019, 02:26:57 pm
Where are these thoughts of NY losing two seats coming from? It seems NY has been on track to lose 1 for 7 years or so. That seat itself has always been likely to be NY22/NY24  as Dems carve up Katko and protect Brindisi or another Dem. I mean of course Dems are going to get messy with the lines in Long Island, Staten Island, and the Hudson Valley, but that is to be expected.

With the addition of the 2018 census, the map has changed.

(
Img
)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Oryxslayer on January 12, 2019, 04:16:59 pm
Where are these thoughts of NY losing two seats coming from? It seems NY has been on track to lose 1 for 7 years or so. That seat itself has always been likely to be NY22/NY24  as Dems carve up Katko and protect Brindisi or another Dem. I mean of course Dems are going to get messy with the lines in Long Island, Staten Island, and the Hudson Valley, but that is to be expected.

With the addition of the 2018 census, the map has changed.

(
Img
)

Ah ok, the pop adjustments downward shoved the bottom out. Glancing at that map, could someone explain MN? MT and CA are constant bubble seats so that's understandable, but MN I believe lost the pop for MN08 back pre-2015. Is the state growing fast again? Or was it just shoved out of the way by NY?

Redistricting-wise, I suspect the second cut will be one of NY-18/19/20 in the Husdon Valley, or a Long Island seat with the remaining ones all getting shoved that much deeper into NY. Gives the dems a better hand, since there would now be more 'free' voters to mess with.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: muon2 on January 12, 2019, 06:56:15 pm
Where are these thoughts of NY losing two seats coming from? It seems NY has been on track to lose 1 for 7 years or so. That seat itself has always been likely to be NY22/NY24  as Dems carve up Katko and protect Brindisi or another Dem. I mean of course Dems are going to get messy with the lines in Long Island, Staten Island, and the Hudson Valley, but that is to be expected.

With the addition of the 2018 census, the map has changed.

(
Img
)

Ah ok, the pop adjustments downward shoved the bottom out. Glancing at that map, could someone explain MN? MT and CA are constant bubble seats so that's understandable, but MN I believe lost the pop for MN08 back pre-2015. Is the state growing fast again? Or was it just shoved out of the way by NY?

Redistricting-wise, I suspect the second cut will be one of NY-18/19/20 in the Husdon Valley, or a Long Island seat with the remaining ones all getting shoved that much deeper into NY. Gives the dems a better hand, since there would now be more 'free' voters to mess with.

I answered the MN question back in Dec. You can see my bubble list in the answer below. I know the owner of the company that produced that map, and we've talked about our respective projections. He uses a slightly different projection model than I do which accounts for the differences in NY and MN. We both use full decade and 3-year averages and compare the results. He has a CA/MN flip based on that which I do not.

The last five awarded are IL-17, FL-29, TX-39, NY-26, and MT-2 (#435).
The next five in line are CA53, AL-7, MN-8, OH-15, and VA-12.

Wow, that seems new!  I thought MN was definitely doomed.

MN is now the fastest growing state in the upper Midwest/Great Lakes region. They've paced the national average for the decade and are slightly ahead of it over the last two years. If they keep up their current pace of the last year or two they have a definite shot at holding their 8th seat.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Oryxslayer on January 12, 2019, 07:32:13 pm
Where are these thoughts of NY losing two seats coming from? It seems NY has been on track to lose 1 for 7 years or so. That seat itself has always been likely to be NY22/NY24  as Dems carve up Katko and protect Brindisi or another Dem. I mean of course Dems are going to get messy with the lines in Long Island, Staten Island, and the Hudson Valley, but that is to be expected.

With the addition of the 2018 census, the map has changed.

(
Img
)

Ah ok, the pop adjustments downward shoved the bottom out. Glancing at that map, could someone explain MN? MT and CA are constant bubble seats so that's understandable, but MN I believe lost the pop for MN08 back pre-2015. Is the state growing fast again? Or was it just shoved out of the way by NY?

Redistricting-wise, I suspect the second cut will be one of NY-18/19/20 in the Husdon Valley, or a Long Island seat with the remaining ones all getting shoved that much deeper into NY. Gives the dems a better hand, since there would now be more 'free' voters to mess with.

I answered the MN question back in Dec. You can see my bubble list in the answer below. I know the owner of the company that produced that map, and we've talked about our respective projections. He uses a slightly different projection model than I do which accounts for the differences in NY and MN. We both use full decade and 3-year averages and compare the results. He has a CA/MN flip based on that which I do not.

The last five awarded are IL-17, FL-29, TX-39, NY-26, and MT-2 (#435).
The next five in line are CA53, AL-7, MN-8, OH-15, and VA-12.

Wow, that seems new!  I thought MN was definitely doomed.

MN is now the fastest growing state in the upper Midwest/Great Lakes region. They've paced the national average for the decade and are slightly ahead of it over the last two years. If they keep up their current pace of the last year or two they have a definite shot at holding their 8th seat.

Thanks!


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on January 13, 2019, 01:32:17 am
Doesn't NY have a redistricting commission for 2022?

The commission is toothless, and can be ignored about as easily as the one in Ohio.

The commission is not as toothless as you think, because of the supermajority requirement to reject the commissionís map when there is single party government rule.

As for whatís losing population in New York, yes, itís largely Upstate, but IIRC, some NYC boroughs lost population in the last estimate, too. I donít think the math works to get rid of 2 Upstate seats if NY loses 2 seats. NYC will lose one, too.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: DINGO Joe on January 13, 2019, 02:49:42 am
Anybody have a handy link to how far off the final Census estimates were last decade vs the actual census in 2010 by state?  Of course with the caveat that past results don't equal future performance.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on January 13, 2019, 03:32:46 am
Anybody have a handy link to how far off the final Census estimates were last decade vs the actual census in 2010 by state?  Of course with the caveat that past results don't equal future performance.

I had them once for all states, but the charts seem to have been deleted by imageschak:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=128464.msg2755003#msg2755003


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Tender Branson on January 13, 2019, 03:46:26 am
Anybody have a handy link to how far off the final Census estimates were last decade vs the actual census in 2010 by state?  Of course with the caveat that past results don't equal future performance.

Here is the good stuff:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=128464.msg2762803#msg2762803


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on January 13, 2019, 11:54:53 pm
Where are these thoughts of NY losing two seats coming from? It seems NY has been on track to lose 1 for 7 years or so. That seat itself has always been likely to be NY22/NY24  as Dems carve up Katko and protect Brindisi or another Dem. I mean of course Dems are going to get messy with the lines in Long Island, Staten Island, and the Hudson Valley, but that is to be expected.

With the addition of the 2018 census, the map has changed.

(
Img
)
New York has had a negative second derivative for all 8 years of the decade. It reached a peak in 2015. So not only is it declining, it is declining faster. It is like it is in a dive, and the pilot has pushed the stick forward, and Captain Cuomo is no Captain "Sully".

I think EDS uses a weighted projection. But I was unable to reproduce their projection of the 2020 population, even that based on 2000-2008 estimates.

I did calculate the quotients for the states in the bubble based on the most recent estimate, and I think a more reliable projection would show, California, Minnesota, and New York in contention for the 435th seat.

If New York's decline continues to accelerate it might fall below the others. Minnesota is increasing slightly, while California is slowing down. For 2010-2014 California was growing faster than the US as a whole, while for 2014-2018 it was slower.

By 2020, Florida(+2) and Texas(+3) will have registered their gains, while Alabama and Ohio will have registered their losses.

Illinois and Virginia will just be coming into the picture, but won't see a change before the Census.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: RussFeingoldWasRobbed on January 15, 2019, 01:34:30 pm
MT-02 is now a possibility again? My how things change. I remember the days when it was so close but missed the mark.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Oryxslayer on January 15, 2019, 08:37:07 pm
MT-02 is now a possibility again? My how things change. I remember the days when it was so close but missed the mark.

It has always been like that. It and +1 or -1 for California have always been on the bubble it seems.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Vern on January 19, 2019, 08:42:22 pm
Anybody have a handy link to how far off the final Census estimates were last decade vs the actual census in 2010 by state?  Of course with the caveat that past results don't equal future performance.

Here is the good stuff:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=128464.msg2762803#msg2762803

If GA is off by that much again in 2020 then NC could pass it


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Nyvin on February 15, 2019, 10:05:12 pm
Is there any set date for the 2018 county estimates?


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Gass3268 on February 15, 2019, 10:33:07 pm
Is there any set date for the 2018 county estimates?

Generally late March.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: jimrtex on February 16, 2019, 08:22:34 pm
Is there any set date for the 2018 county estimates?
The scheduled release is April 2019.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: DINGO Joe on February 18, 2019, 10:22:07 pm
Is there any set date for the 2018 county estimates?
The scheduled release is April 2019.

I think the shutdown shoved it back quite a bit.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: #Kavanaugh For Prison on February 25, 2019, 11:06:56 pm
I heard something recently that the states of Virginia and Tennessee were shown by some form of new data to have a surprisingly large population drop, and then both states were now on track to lose a Congressional District each in 2020. Only 1 detail I am forgetting: was it a strange dream or was it something real? Can someone please tell me.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Former Senator Zaybay on February 28, 2019, 12:15:44 am
I heard something recently that the states of Virginia and Tennessee were shown by some form of new data to have a surprisingly large population drop, and then both states were now on track to lose a Congressional District each in 2020. Only 1 detail I am forgetting: was it a strange dream or was it something real? Can someone please tell me.

Dream, VA has been showing an average population growth that is higher than the nation, so its not losing a seat anytime soon.

TN, Im not sure about.

The list is already kinda finalized for what the state that can gain/lose are gonna be.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Cokeland Saxton on February 28, 2019, 12:35:23 am
I heard something recently that the states of Virginia and Tennessee were shown by some form of new data to have a surprisingly large population drop, and then both states were now on track to lose a Congressional District each in 2020. Only 1 detail I am forgetting: was it a strange dream or was it something real? Can someone please tell me.

Virginia and Tennessee are both growing a little above the national average. The last time Tennessee lost a seat was in 1970, only to gain it back in 1980.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: DINGO Joe on March 05, 2019, 05:08:04 pm
Is there any set date for the 2018 county estimates?
The scheduled release is April 2019.

I think the shutdown shoved it back quite a bit.

April 18th is the release date or the 16th if you've got embargoed media access.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Liz or Leave on April 18, 2019, 08:53:31 am
Here is a map of change (I think 17 - 18) at the county level.

(
Img
)

discuss with maps


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Nyvin on April 18, 2019, 09:44:18 am
New England as a whole is actually doing moderately well (aside from Connecticut).   Surprising to see Coos county actually return to growth (by 5 people).  

Here's a link to the tables:

https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-counties-total.html


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Annatar on April 18, 2019, 10:39:24 am
The drop in population growth nationally really seems to have hit a lot of the larger counties. Of the 10 most populous counties, all 10 had positive growth between 2010-2017 and 3 of them lost population between 2017-18. Only Maricopa is still seeing strong growth, even Harris county which grew by 1.9% p.a. in 2010-2017 grew by only 0.7% in 2017-18. Miami-Dade which grew by 1.3% p.a. in 2010-2017 grew by only 0.6%. Dallas county after growing by 1.5% p.a. in 2010-2017 slowed down to 0.6%.

As fertility continues to fall in America and deaths rise as the population ages I expect growth to slow down even further.



Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on April 18, 2019, 02:38:06 pm
The drop in population growth nationally really seems to have hit a lot of the larger counties. Of the 10 most populous counties, all 10 had positive growth between 2010-2017 and 3 of them lost population between 2017-18. Only Maricopa is still seeing strong growth, even Harris county which grew by 1.9% p.a. in 2010-2017 grew by only 0.7% in 2017-18. Miami-Dade which grew by 1.3% p.a. in 2010-2017 grew by only 0.6%. Dallas county after growing by 1.5% p.a. in 2010-2017 slowed down to 0.6%.

As fertility continues to fall in America and deaths rise as the population ages I expect growth to slow down even further.



One year trends are always subject to revision.

The exurbs look like they're growing again. Even the Los Angeles Metro lost population 2017-18 - but San Bernardino/Riverside grew.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: RINO Tom on April 18, 2019, 03:29:05 pm
Here is a map of change (I think 17 - 18) at the county level.

(
Img
)

discuss with maps

Poor Illinois :(

This is surprising, though.  I had thought that Woodford (exurb of Peoria) and Champaign were both growing, as far as Downstate counties.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: TX more competitive than OH on April 18, 2019, 03:58:01 pm
Collin County had the highest raw gain in Texas. For anyone looking at the future battleground area when Texas becomes winnable for Democrats.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: #Kavanaugh For Prison on April 18, 2019, 05:16:27 pm
Collin County had the highest raw gain in Texas. For anyone looking at the future battleground area when Texas becomes winnable for Democrats.

Tarrant County is a strong statewide bellwether most of the time (2018 was its only significant miss in a very long time). Collin County is consistently to the right of Tarrant County.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cvparty on April 18, 2019, 06:59:20 pm
Collin County had the highest raw gain in Texas. For anyone looking at the future battleground area when Texas becomes winnable for Democrats.

Tarrant County is a strong statewide bellwether most of the time (2018 was its only significant miss in a very long time). Collin County is consistently to the right of Tarrant County.
the gap is narrowing


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: henster on April 18, 2019, 08:49:55 pm
Interesting Fairfax Co. barely grew but it is really the calm before the Amazon storm in the upcoming years. Also Virginia Beach seemed to buck the suburban growth trend with it barely growing and most of the growth going to Chesapeake/Suffolk. RVA area growing at a decent clip with the usual declines in the rural areas.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: TX more competitive than OH on April 18, 2019, 09:31:53 pm
Collin County had the highest raw gain in Texas. For anyone looking at the future battleground area when Texas becomes winnable for Democrats.

Tarrant County is a strong statewide bellwether most of the time (2018 was its only significant miss in a very long time). Collin County is consistently to the right of Tarrant County.

Well I donít expect you to have a deeper level of thought, but universal swing is certainly not a thing. As we saw in 2018, Tarrant County was won by a Democrat, but that Democrat was not victorious statewide. Therefore, Tarrant County is slightly to the left of the state and will probably get a little more so. Collin is swinging very hard left at a pace more than double that of the rest of the state, so when Texas finally does turn blue, it is very likely Collin will as well.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Cokeland Saxton on April 19, 2019, 01:11:23 am
Hamilton County had the highest numerical gain in Indiana (not surprised)

And RIP Illinois, New Jersey, and New York


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Nyvin on April 19, 2019, 09:02:57 am
Hamilton County had the highest numerical gain in Indiana (not surprised)

And RIP Illinois, New Jersey, and New York

New Jersey grew last year.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Del Tachi on April 19, 2019, 09:33:33 am
Beautiful to see Nashville, Atlanta, RDU, and Charlotte on that map :)


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Cokeland Saxton on April 19, 2019, 11:46:27 am
Hamilton County had the highest numerical gain in Indiana (not surprised)

And RIP Illinois, New Jersey, and New York

New Jersey grew last year.

It's lower than the original 2017 estimate. Please do not correct me.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Skill and Chance on April 19, 2019, 02:04:10 pm
Boston really sticks out here as following a different trend than other old Northern cities. 


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Thatkat04 on April 19, 2019, 02:15:06 pm
Hamilton County had the highest numerical gain in Indiana (not surprised)

And RIP Illinois, New Jersey, and New York

New Jersey grew last year.

It's lower than the original 2017 estimate. Please do not correct me.

NJ's population got revised down, but it has yet to suffer negative population growth. So @Nyvin is right to correct you.

Edit:

The official numbers for NJ in the last 3 years are:

2016: 8,874,516
2017: 8,888,543
2018: 8,908,520

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-national-total.html#par_textimage_2011805803


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Nyvin on April 19, 2019, 04:55:14 pm
Hamilton County had the highest numerical gain in Indiana (not surprised)

And RIP Illinois, New Jersey, and New York

New Jersey grew last year.

It's lower than the original 2017 estimate. Please do not correct me.

I'll correct you if you're wrong.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Cokeland Saxton on April 20, 2019, 05:23:59 am
Hamilton County had the highest numerical gain in Indiana (not surprised)

And RIP Illinois, New Jersey, and New York

I hate being corrected. I don't care if he's right.

New Jersey grew last year.

It's lower than the original 2017 estimate. Please do not correct me.

NJ's population got revised down, but it has yet to suffer negative population growth. So @Nyvin is right to correct you.

Edit:

The official numbers for NJ in the last 3 years are:

2016: 8,874,516
2017: 8,888,543
2018: 8,908,520

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-national-total.html#par_textimage_2011805803



Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Nyvin on April 20, 2019, 08:03:09 am
Hamilton County had the highest numerical gain in Indiana (not surprised)

And RIP Illinois, New Jersey, and New York

I hate being corrected. I don't care if he's right.

New Jersey grew last year.

It's lower than the original 2017 estimate. Please do not correct me.

NJ's population got revised down, but it has yet to suffer negative population growth. So @Nyvin is right to correct you.

Edit:

The official numbers for NJ in the last 3 years are:

2016: 8,874,516
2017: 8,888,543
2018: 8,908,520

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-national-total.html#par_textimage_2011805803


Wow, you've got to be kidding me.   Rather immature I'd say.

I don't care if you don't like it,  you don't get a free pass to spew nonsense to other people because your feelings get hurt.   If you state something wrong I'm going to correct you so that other people see the truth.   

Welcome to the real world.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: Brittain33 on April 20, 2019, 08:13:04 am
Brooklyn, Queens, and Bronx all peaked in 2016 after many years of growth and have had small but significant declines since then. Immigration crackdown? I'm really surprised to see Brooklyn losing population.


Title: Re: Census population estimates 2011-2019
Post by: cinyc on April 20, 2019, 08:19:34 pm
Brooklyn, Queens, and Bronx all peaked in 2016 after many years of growth and have had small but significant declines since then. Immigration crackdown? I'm really surprised to see Brooklyn losing population.

It is due to less reported foreign immigration. Whether that is due to a different way of asking the foreign migration question in the ACS (instead of in what year did you last live outside of Brooklyn, did you live in Brooklyn last year, or something like that), illegal immigrants being less likely to fill out the ACS in the age of Trump, or an actual halt in immigration is unclear. That probably won't be answered until after the 2020 Census.