Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 23, 2019, 05:04:12 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2018 predictions for US Senate are now open!.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  Census population estimates 2011-2019
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 24 Print
Author Topic: Census population estimates 2011-2019  (Read 89113 times)
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,392


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« 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
« Last Edit: December 17, 2016, 09:52:56 pm by muon2 »Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58,296
India


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 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.
Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,392


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 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.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2012, 06:11:27 pm by krazen1211 »Logged
Skill and Chance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,315
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 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)
Logged
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,392


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 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.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,050
Marshall Islands


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 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?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,947


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 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.
Logged



Don't troll and drive!
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,050
Marshall Islands


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 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 Wink
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
« Last Edit: December 22, 2012, 12:00:15 pm by jimrtex »Logged
Skill and Chance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,315
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 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).
Logged
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,392


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 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.
Logged
Linus Van Pelt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,128


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 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.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,050
Marshall Islands


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 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.
Logged
Linus Van Pelt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,128


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 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
« Last Edit: December 22, 2012, 10:43:59 am by The Head Beagle »Logged
Horus
Sheliak5
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,623


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 22, 2012, 03:07:13 am »

Anyone know where I could find county by county loss/gain margins from '10 - '12?
Logged

E -1.84
S -7.78
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,444


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 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?
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58,296
India


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 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. Cheesy
Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.
politicallefty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,345
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: -9.57


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 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. Wink
Logged

Beto 2020
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,947


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 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.
Logged



Don't troll and drive!
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,050
Marshall Islands


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 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. Wink
Fixed.   Surprisingly, the forum software uses smilies for teletype mode.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,050
Marshall Islands


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 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.
Logged
Linus Van Pelt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,128


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 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 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.
Logged
Benj
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 983


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 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 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.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,050
Marshall Islands


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 11, 2013, 11:39:42 pm »

Bump re the above to note an interesting new paper here 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.
Logged
greenforest32
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,637


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 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.)
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,983
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -6.09

P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: November 18, 2013, 08:18:51 am »

New state population estimates will be released in ca. 1 month !

My prediction:

316.159.818
« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 01:08:51 pm by Tender Branson »Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 24 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines