Census population estimates 2011-2019

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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).

[jimrtex]

ND down to 0.1% growth, from 2.3% in the previous year.

[jimrtex]

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 ***

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

2016 County Estimates will be released on Thursday, March 23 .

[jimrtex]

When do the county subdivision estimates come out?  June?

May.

Technically it is incorporated place and minor civil division (i.e. legal entities).

[jimrtex]

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 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.

[jimrtex]

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)

[jimrtex]

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%

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

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%