Census population estimates 2011-2019

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

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.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

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.

This is true, but it's also probably because of shrinking household sizes amongst immigrant families. Communities of ~2 million people dropping from 4 to 3 people per household can't be offset by 100k new 2 person apartments. This almost certainly explains what's happening in LA county, as the peripheral immigrant communities have fewer children per household even as the urban core explodes.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

In the new release today, CA only grew by 0.3% last year, the lowest population growth rate since 1900:

http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-2/documents/PressReleaseJuly2019.pdf

200.000 more Californians left for other states than moved into the state last year ... (this was compensated by an international immigration surplus and of course a birth surplus).

Tragic. And it's all due to dumb late 20th century zoning laws. If these hadn't been passed and CA kept growing at its pre 1985 clip, we would have 50 million people already.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

In the new release today, CA only grew by 0.3% last year, the lowest population growth rate since 1900:

http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-2/documents/PressReleaseJuly2019.pdf

200.000 more Californians left for other states than moved into the state last year ... (this was compensated by an international immigration surplus and of course a birth surplus).

Tragic. And it's all due to dumb late 20th century zoning laws. If these hadn't been passed and CA kept growing at its pre 1985 clip, we would have 50 million people already.

Ehhh, this is a good development in fact.

Population growth largely sucks and leads to the destruction of CA and the planet.

Stop being such a growth fetishist.

Lol no. People are either going to like in California or somewhere else, and I'd rather see them here. Besides, more people in places like CA and fewer in places like TX is good for the planet, and CA can brkng down its total emissions with growth because increased population density will reduce our dependence on automobiles and so on. CA has only gotten better with growth, and it will continue to do so. The key is to minimize sprawl and resource use, not growth. Furthermore, any socially responsible person supports population growth in the west even if they want the world's population to shrink. We're simply more equipped to handle a billion people than India or sub Saharan Africa. It's racist to think otherwise.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Hurry up and rebound Los Angeles. There is no reason we shouldn't be adding 100k+ annually except for the damn nimbys.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

inner ring Los Angeles County suburbs (Downey, Inglewood, West Covina, Torrance, Norwalk, Burbank)

The key thing to know about these places is that they aren't really declining, but rather family sizes are plummeting. Many of them have large immigrant populations which formerly had very high birthrates. I expect the number of households is climbing, but the average household size has probably dropped from 4 to 3 and produces an illusion of decline.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Hmm. DC-Baltimore is definitely passing Chicago next year and San Francisco-San Jose should pass Chicago by 2022 at the latest. Weird seeing Chicago slip from 3rd to 5th place so fast.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Hmm. DC-Baltimore is definitely passing Chicago next year and San Francisco-San Jose should pass Chicago by 2022 at the latest. Weird seeing Chicago slip from 3rd to 5th place so fast.

Both the DC-Baltimore and San Francisco Metro areas will pass Chicagoland pretty soon (they grow at 0.8% per year while Chicago is flat).

All 3 will have ca. 10 million people by 2022.

But Chicago is the more densely populated of the 3: the metro area has 27.500 square km, while DC-Baltimore has 33.000 and the Bay Area 35.000

For comparison: London has 9 million people, but only 1.600 square kilometers ...

Kind of an awkward metric. Since it's based off of counties, DC-Baltimore, for example, contains a lot of rural areas.

A more apt comparison is 9.0 million person Greater London (606 square miles) to 5.1 million person Washington urban area (1,321 square miles).
Otherwise, you have to compare all of Metropolitan London (Greater London+Buckinghamshire+Hertfordshire+Essex+Kent+Surrey+Berkshire+Hampshire+Sussex+Oxfordshire) with 20.9 million people and 10,404 square miles against the DC-Baltimore CSA with 9.8 million people across 33,000 square miles. Even this is crude because American CSAs include any county with 5% of its workforce commuting to any county in the CSA, which adds parts of the Delmarva peninsula, West Virginia, and South-Central Pennsylvania to the metro area even when they're obviously undeveloped. It would be like having Metropolitan London stretch from Ipswich to Swindon.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Combining Washington and Baltimore into one CSA makes me wonder if they'd ever do the same with Chicago and Milwaukee.

Definitely a possibility, although I'm not sure if commuting between Lake County and Kenosha/Racine is increasing.. A more intriguing possibility is New York-Philadelphia. Last census, Mercer county hit the commuting threshold to combine the two but it was overridden. At some point or another, the two will be attached, which will be weird. I guess we'll have to call the area Greater Jersey.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I just signed up for DRA. What should be the "target population" for each district on a CA map with 52 districts?

Set the population to 2018 figures and divide by 52. Also, this is the wrong thread for this.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Does anyone want to take any guesses as to what the biggest and most surprising differences will be between the 2019 Population Estimates (or the way things are headed based on those) and the 2020 Census Results? Such as perhaps a state with a far higher or lower population than projected in the several hundreds of thousands?

Like happened with Georgia between 2009 and 2010:

At the time of the 2000 Census (April 1, 2010), Georgia had a population of 8,186,453.

The U.S. Census Bureau projected that Georgia had a population of 9,829,211 on July 1, 2019.

The 2010 Census (April 1, 2010) showed that Georgia actually had a population of 9,687,653.

It isn't likely that Georgia actually lost 150,000 people between 2009 and 2010, and when the Census Bureau released its final intercensal tables (showing their population estimates of every state between 2000 and 2010), they estimated Georgia's actual population in 2009 was 9,620,846 (208,365 lower than the initial 2009 estimate released before the census).

What are the chances these estimates turn out to miss the mark by such high amounts?

New York probably will be lower than estimated, due to Covid/rich people filling out the census in the places they fled to.

I think you a) overestimate how many people left the city and b) overestimate how many left the state as opposed to going upstate/to Long Island.

NY could lose 2 districts, but I doubt a massive share of the variance is covid-related.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Do you all think Minnesota has a good chance to regain the seat it lost in 2020 at the time of the 2030 census?

Yes and I also think it'll pass Wisconsin in population so MN will gain back an 8th seat even as WI loses one.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Do you all think Minnesota has a good chance to regain the seat it lost in 2020 at the time of the 2030 census?

Yes and I also think it'll pass Wisconsin in population so MN will gain back an 8th seat even as WI loses one.

Which states are in most danger of losing seats in 2031 if current growth/loss continues?

New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Connecticut, maybe California.