2012 county & metro area estimates released today

[Benj]

They added Benton County MS to the Memphis metro. That decision belongs in the deluge. It's an hour outside of town and at least a half hour beyond any signs of civilization. We're not Atlanta. People don't commute across three counties here.

Just did a quick Google tour of that county... I have no idea how they could consider that place at all urban.

Interestingly, the fastest growing county in NJ was Hudson (2.8%), head and shoulders above everywhere else. Seven counties lost population; the usual suspects of Salem (-0.5) and Cape May (-1.0), but also Monmouth (-0.2), Hunterdon (-1.0), Warren (-1.0) and Sussex (-1.2) (not the four I would have guessed) as well as Camden (-0.0). Second-fastest growing was Middlesex (1.6%), followed by Bergen (1.5), Union (1.4), Somerset (1.3) and Morris (1.2) to round out those growing more than the state (0.8).

Edit: NJ Population change by county, 2010-2012 (1% scale):

[Benj]

And a much harder map to create: Virginia population growth by county/city (1% scale, topping at 6+%, though Prince William and Loudoun are over 7%, Manassas Park is over 10% and Fredericksburg is over 12%). A tough map for the state Republican Party in the long term (though some of the most declining counties are rural black counties).

[Benj]

Another interesting bit embedded in the data: Apparently NYC is now a net in-migration city for the first time since the 1950 Census. Previously, the city had net out-migration offset by natural population growth (more births than deaths).

Hudson County, NJ has also passed its 1940 Census population, and if its blistering (for such a dense area*) pace of growth continues, is on track to well surpass its record high in the 1930 Census by 2020.

*More dense than any other county or county-equivalent except the city of San Francisco and the four urban boroughs of NYC. Brooklyn had a comparable but slightly lower growth rate.

[Benj]

Another interesting bit embedded in the data: Apparently NYC is now a net in-migration city for the first time since the 1950 Census. Previously, the city had net out-migration offset by natural population growth (more births than deaths).

Net domestic migration or domestic and international combined?

Domestic and international combined, I think. But international immigration hasn't increased in recent years, so it must be primarily due to more domestic in-migration and/or less domestic out-migration.

Just glanced at the numbers. Manhattan was about +28k on international immigration, -16k on domestic migration, for a net +12k on migration, plus a net of +23k on natural growth. Similar is true of Brooklyn and Queens, which have smaller net positive migration numbers. The Bronx and Staten Island have net negative migration (though both still positive on international migration and showing growth, albeit slower, overall--striking that Staten Island is now the slowest-growing borough (!)). So it must be net of all migration. Not sure where to find old data on that, but Bloomberg apparently thinks it's the case that this is new:

http://gothamist.com/2013/03/14/census_says_the_bronx_is_blooming_a.php (Small note: the article states Staten Island has lost population. While that is true between the 2011 and 2012 estimates, it has grown since the 2010 Census, which is probably a more helpful point of comparison.)

[Benj]

So 49% of Washington's population growth from 2011 to 2012 was in King County...

I almost feel sorry for the local GOP... but not quite.

Could be worse for the Republicans... 84% of New York state's population growth was in New York City!

[Benj]

So 49% of Washington's population growth from 2011 to 2012 was in King County...

I almost feel sorry for the local GOP... but not quite.

Could be worse for the Republicans... 84% of New York state's population growth was in New York City!

Does it matter outside of the state senate?  The VA and GA growth is probably most interesting to D's.  VA could be D+1-2 in 2020 if this keeps up and GA could be put in play.

Meant the state party, obviously. Same group that would be upset by King County's growth in Washington state, which also isn't really in play nationally. If those numbers keep up, there's really no way the State Senate can stay Republican after the next Census. Though NYC's growth means that the potential House seat loss in 2020 (very much on the bubble) would almost certainly be a Republican seat upstate if current trends keep up. Then again, the Democrats might have won back most of the upstate House seats again by 2020, and there will always be at least one Republican seat in the Southern Tier.

VA would be more than D+1. It was already D+0 in 2012.

GA, harder to say. Population growth is high in all of the urban/suburban counties, including the Republican ones. Obviously rural declines favor the Democrats since the rural areas are more Republican than the cities (overall, though the Black Belt's not exactly booming either), but shifting population sizes are not enough to make a real difference in the state's overall vote. The Democrats will need demographic transition in places like Gwinnett County to continue as well (which presumably it is, but these estimates are of total population only, so they don't tell us whether and to what degree the minority population boom in Gwinnett County is continuing).

[Benj]

Another interesting question is whether/when Texas could pass California.  Using a straight line model, this could happen sometime in the 2050's.  I'm not sure straight line growth is appropriate here because inland Texas may well hit its ecological capacity long before then, but let's say it's possible.  Could we be looking at this apportionment come 2050?

Seems unlikely. It's pretty much impossible for Texas's growth to go any faster, and keeping up its current pace for more than another decade or so will be very difficult. Additionally, Texas's economic strength is based entirely on the strength of the energy sector, particularly oil. In the long-run, it's doubtful the current oil boom (either in production/extraction or in demand) can continue more than another decade. The environmental stresses you mention will also start to come into play eventually, but that's only really important for isolated outposts like Midland/Odessa and Lubbock. There's also the immigration factor: Many border towns are growing quickly due to immigration, but it's hard to say how immigration will continue over the next 40 years. I would have to assume immigration will decrease over time, especially given the poor economic state South Texas is in.

tl;dr: Texas will continue to grow quickly for about a decade, then slow down, primarily for economic reasons.