Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 20, 2019, 03:44:27 pm
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
  Census population estimates 2011-2019
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 25 Print
Author Topic: Census population estimates 2011-2019  (Read 92111 times)
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,517


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #125 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.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 48,421
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -6.09

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #126 on: December 23, 2014, 11:58:36 am »

The states with the highest international migration gains (per 1000 inhabitants)Sad

   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)Sad

 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)Sad

  -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
Logged
hopper
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,457
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #127 on: December 23, 2014, 12:15:07 pm »
« Edited: December 23, 2014, 12:17:11 pm by hopper »

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.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 48,421
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -6.09

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #128 on: December 23, 2014, 12:16:31 pm »

Yeah sure, but I meant 2008/2012 Pres. election results with "Democratic states".
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 48,421
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -6.09

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #129 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).
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 48,421
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -6.09

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #130 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 ...
Logged
hopper
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,457
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #131 on: December 23, 2014, 12:34:54 pm »

AZ is in NC population growth territory. Wow!
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 48,421
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -6.09

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #132 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.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 48,421
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -6.09

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #133 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.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,517


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #134 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.
Logged
Panda Express
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,157


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #135 on: December 23, 2014, 09:11:55 pm »

Yep, FL passes NY:

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

Disgusting
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 45,436


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #136 on: December 24, 2014, 01:48:25 am »

Yep, FL passes NY:

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

Disgusting

Damn you, Florida.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 45,436


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #137 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.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 48,421
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -6.09

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #138 on: December 24, 2014, 03:11:59 am »

The states with the highest international migration gains (per 1000 inhabitants)Sad

   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.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #139 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.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #140 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.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,517


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #141 on: December 24, 2014, 12:31:55 pm »
« Edited: December 24, 2014, 12:35:31 pm by Gravis Marketing »

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?
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #142 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.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 48,421
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -6.09

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #143 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.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 45,436


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #144 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.
Logged
Flake
Flo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,709
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #145 on: December 25, 2014, 07:39:37 pm »

Yep, FL passes NY:

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!
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #146 on: December 26, 2014, 04:01:46 am »
« Edited: December 26, 2014, 04:25:51 am by jimrtex »

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.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #147 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.
Logged
hopper
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,457
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #148 on: March 08, 2015, 12:46:08 am »
« Edited: March 08, 2015, 02:03:28 am by hopper »

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

Logged
hopper
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,457
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #149 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
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 25 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines