Census population estimates 2011-2019
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:44:57 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Census population estimates 2011-2019
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 36
Author Topic: Census population estimates 2011-2019  (Read 180234 times)
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #325 on: May 26, 2017, 08:52:34 AM »

I've made my maps using the 2016 Estimates Data.  Please let me know if there are any obvious errors. There may be a separate post analyzing trends in the future:

2010-2016 Percentage Change versus 2010 Census

Do annexations cause "Balance of X County" to drop? Looking at Dekalb, GA in particular.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #326 on: May 26, 2017, 10:11:35 AM »

I've made my maps using the 2016 Estimates Data.  Please let me know if there are any obvious errors. There may be a separate post analyzing trends in the future:

2010-2016 Percentage Change versus 2010 Census

Do annexations cause "Balance of X County" to drop? Looking at Dekalb, GA in particular.

In the 2010 census version of the map, yes.   But not in the version versus 2010 population estimates, which controls for annexations and the like.  IIRC, the balance of Dekalb, GA dropped because of the creation of a new city.  We had the same issue in the 2010-15 version of the map.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #327 on: May 26, 2017, 10:14:42 AM »

Cinyc, in Arkansas, what are you going to do with College City located in Lawrence County.  It consolidated with Walnut Ridge in May of last year.  It was in the final phases of occurring when the data was estimated.

Could you possibly combine the two on one of your maps to show that this occurred?

I could estimate things manually when I get a chance, but if Census hasn't caught up with the change yet, I'm not going to change the shapefile.  I used the most recent Census shapefile for each type (County, MCD and Place).
Logged
JerryArkansas
jerryarkansas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,536
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #328 on: May 26, 2017, 11:07:15 AM »

Cinyc, in Arkansas, what are you going to do with College City located in Lawrence County.  It consolidated with Walnut Ridge in May of last year.  It was in the final phases of occurring when the data was estimated.

Could you possibly combine the two on one of your maps to show that this occurred?

I could estimate things manually when I get a chance, but if Census hasn't caught up with the change yet, I'm not going to change the shapefile.  I used the most recent Census shapefile for each type (County, MCD and Place).
It occurred over a year ago, so it may not be in the shapefile for 2016.  It defently should be in the 2017 version though if they ever release it.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #329 on: May 26, 2017, 04:31:51 PM »
« Edited: May 26, 2017, 06:34:17 PM by cinyc »

Cinyc, in Arkansas, what are you going to do with College City located in Lawrence County.  It consolidated with Walnut Ridge in May of last year.  It was in the final phases of occurring when the data was estimated.

Could you possibly combine the two on one of your maps to show that this occurred?

I could estimate things manually when I get a chance, but if Census hasn't caught up with the change yet, I'm not going to change the shapefile.  I used the most recent Census shapefile for each type (County, MCD and Place).
It occurred over a year ago, so it may not be in the shapefile for 2016.  It defently should be in the 2017 version though if they ever release it.

The combined entity gained 3 residents from 2015 to 2016.  Its 2016 population is 5180.  It has lost 3.08% of its population from 2010, or 165 residents.

If census hasn't gotten around to fixing the shapefile, I'm not going to change the map.  It would take more work to do that than you think.

Edited to add:  Census is aware of the consolidation (it made their list of entity changes), but it didn't take effect until January 1, 2017.  The estimates are 2016 estimates - so it makes sense to show the entities as they existed in 2016, not 2017.  I'm sure Census will update their 2017 shapefiles to reflect the consolidation.
Logged
Kevinstat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,823


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #330 on: May 27, 2017, 03:19:24 AM »
« Edited: August 20, 2017, 10:45:44 AM by Kevinstat »

In the 2010 census, the State House "quotas" of Maine's largest municipalities (those over 0.9/151 of Maine's population in any one of the three following tables, plus Old Town which would meet that criteria if you added in the Penobscot Reservation where the part where people live is right next to Old Town (they basically make up a State House district now)), were as follows (with instances where the "Estimates Base" (EB) yields a different quota than the official census numbers noted in parentheses):

=7.6 (8*0.95)  "cutoff"=
Portland city 7.5245 (State Senate quota* 1.7441, between 1.05 and 1.9 "cutoffs")
=7.35 (7*1.05)  "cutoff"=
...
=4.2 (4*1.05) "cutoff"=
Lewiston city 4.1596 (EB 4.1595) (State Senate quota* 0.9641, between 0.95 "cutoff" and 1.0 mark)
=4.0 mark=
=3.8 (4*0.95) "cutoff"=
Bangor city 3.7557 (EB 3.7554)
=3.15 (3*1.05) "cutoff"=
=3.0 mark=
=2.85 (3*0.95) "cutoff"=
South Portland city 2.8421
Auburn city 2.6208 (EB 2.6204)
Biddeford city 2.4186
Sanford city 2.3642 (EB 2.3640)
Brunswick town 2.3051
Augusta city 2.1753 (EB 2.1748)
Scarborough town 2.1506
Saco city 2.1009 (EB 2.1030)
=2.1 (2*1.05) "cutoff"=
=2.0 mark=
Westbrook city 1.9886
Windham town 1.9326 (EB 1.9321)
=1.9 (2*0.95) "cutoff"=
Gorham town 1.8621 (EB 1.8620)
Waterville city 1.7872
York town 1.4242 (EB 1.4231)
Falmouth town 1.2714
Kennebunk town 1.2275 (EB 1.2274)
Orono town 1.1779 (EB 1.1772)
Standish town 1.1224 (EB 1.1222)
Presque Isle city 1.1017
Wells town 1.0900
Kittery town 1.0788
Brewer city 1.0779
=1.05 "cutoff"=
Cape Elizabeth town 1.0248
Lisbon town 1.0241 (EB 1.0242)
=1.0 mark=
Topsham town 0.9985
Old Orchard Beach town 0.9803 (EB 0.9793)
Skowhegan town 0.9763 (EB 0.9766)
Bath city 0.9678
[Old Town city (0.8912 (EB 0.8919)) + Penobscot Indian Island Reservation (0.0693)] 0.9605 (EB 0.9612)
=0.95 "cutoff"=
Yarmouth town 0.9491
Caribou city 0.9309
Buxton town 0.9133 (EB 0.9129)
Freeport town 0.8956
...
Gray town 0.8822
...
Ellsworth city 0.8799
...
Cumberland town 0.8197 (EB 0.8187)

The largest municipalities as and according to the 2016 estimates and their State House "quotas" are as follows:

=7.6 (8*0.95)  "cutoff"=
Portland city 7.5912 (State Senate quota* 1.7595, between 1.05 and 1.9 "cutoffs")
=7.35 (7*1.05)  "cutoff"=
...
=4.2 (4*1.05) "cutoff"=
Lewiston city 4.0986 (State Senate quota* 0.949996, 0.14 people below 0.95 "cutoff")
=4.0 mark=
=3.8 (4*0.95) "cutoff"=
Bangor city 3.6273
=3.15 (3*1.05) "cutoff"=
=3.0 mark=
South Portland city 2.9006
=2.85 (3*0.95) "cutoff"=
Auburn city 2.6025
Biddeford city 2.4226
Sanford city 2.3745
Brunswick town 2.3413
Scarborough town 2.2708
Saco city 2.1789
=2.1 (2*1.05) "cutoff"=
Augusta city 2.0974
Westbrook city 2.0869
Windham town 2.0417
=2.0 mark=
Gorham town 1.9711
=1.9 (2*0.95) "cutoff"=
Waterville city 1.8606
York town 1.4683
Falmouth town 1.3725
Kennebunk town 1.2838
Orono town 1.2749
Wells town 1.1549
Standish town 1.1538
Kittery town 1.0937
Cape Elizabeth town 1.0580
=1.05 "cutoff"=
Brewer city 1.0328
Presque Isle city 1.0327
Lisbon town 1.0032
=1.0 mark=
Old Orchard Beach town 0.9990
Topsham town 0.9964
Yarmouth town 0.9705
Freeport town 0.9555
=0.95 "cutoff"=
Bath city 0.9416
Skowhegan town 0.9415
Buxton town 0.9294
Gray town 0.9203
[Old Town city (0.8526) + Penobscot Indian Island Reservation (0.0673)] 0.9199
Ellsworth city 0.8972
Cumberland town 0.8895
...
Caribou city 0.8773

Taking the "Estimates base" from April 1, 2010 (usually within a few people of the official numbers) shown in the same Census Bureau tables showing the above estimates, and adding to it the population gains (negative for losses) from that base to July 1, 2016 multiplied by 10/6.25 (I use a linear progression rather than exponential as it has the benefit of municipal projections being the same as county projections), the following are the projected 2020 State House "quotas" for all municipalities (in descending order) with projected (or 2010) quotas above 0.9000:

=8.0 mark=
Portland city 7.6310 (State Senate quota* 1.7688, between 1.05 and 1.9 "cutoffs")
=7.6 (8*0.95)  "cutoff"=
...
=4.2 (4*1.05) "cutoff"=
Lewiston city 4.0621 (State Senate quota* 0.9415, below 0.95 "cutoff")
=4.0 mark=
=3.8 (4*0.95) "cutoff"=
Bangor city 3.5508
=3.15 (3*1.05) "cutoff"=
=3.0 mark=
South Portland city 2.9356
=2.85 (3*0.95) "cutoff"=
Auburn city 2.5918
Biddeford city 2.4250
Sanford city 2.3809
Brunswick town 2.3630
Scarborough town 2.3426
Saco city 2.2243
Westbrook city 2.1457
Windham town 2.1072
=2.1 (2*1.05) "cutoff"=
Augusta city 2.0511
Gorham town 2.0364
=2.0 mark=
Waterville city 1.9044
=1.9 (2*0.95) "cutoff"=
York town 1.4953
Falmouth town 1.4328
Orono town 1.3333
Kennebunk town 1.3174
Wells town 1.1938
Standish town 1.1727
Kittery town 1.1026
Cape Elizabeth town 1.0778
=1.05 "cutoff"=
Old Orchard Beach town 1.0108
Brewer city 1.0059
=1.0 mark=
Topsham town 0.9951
Presque Isle city 0.9914
Freeport town 0.9912
Lisbon town 0.9907
Yarmouth town 0.9834
=0.95 "cutoff"=
Gray town 0.9431
Buxton town 0.9392
Cumberland town 0.9318
Bath city 0.9260
Skowhegan town 0.9206
Ellsworth city 0.9075
[Old Town city (0.8291) + Penobscot Indian Island Reservation (0.0660)] 0.8951
...
Caribou city 0.8453

*assuming 35 Senators.  With 33 or 31, Lewiston would be too small for a Senate district even under the 2010 Census figures.  Portland would still be comfortably between 1.05 and 1.9 State Senate quotas.

Wow, I wouldn't have done this if I didn't enjoy the result of having done it, but that took some work, even though I created the spreadsheet by copying and modifying an existing one and did the same thing with this post.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #331 on: May 28, 2017, 01:25:55 AM »

I made single-year maps for 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, etc.  They're available in my Carto account.  These are backward looking, so if there was a merger or consolidation, you're only going to get stats for the 2016 entity, and won't get stats for dissolved entities.

Unfortunately, I compared 2011 to the 2010 estimate instead of the estimates base or census, and didn't compare the 2010 estimate to the 2010 EB or census in my spreadsheet.  It's way too much of a pain to fix that (I'd have to update all the maps), so it will have to stay that way.  At least all of the comparisons are for a one-year period, though.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #332 on: August 31, 2017, 09:50:22 PM »

Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2016 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 6 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.

AL -1
AZ +1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

There is only one change since my projections last year. CA stays unchanged at 53 instead of adding a seat and FL gains 2 instead of 1 up to 29. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
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.

I think it's fairly safe to say Harvey ended any chance of Texas gaining three seats in the next census.  Even if the disruption proves only half as bad as Katrina, there will be a lot of people who otherwise might live in Texas who won't be able to thirty-one months from now.
Logged
KingSweden
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,227
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #333 on: August 31, 2017, 09:59:06 PM »

Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2016 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 6 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.

AL -1
AZ +1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

There is only one change since my projections last year. CA stays unchanged at 53 instead of adding a seat and FL gains 2 instead of 1 up to 29. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
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.

I think it's fairly safe to say Harvey ended any chance of Texas gaining three seats in the next census.  Even if the disruption proves only half as bad as Katrina, there will be a lot of people who otherwise might live in Texas who won't be able to thirty-one months from now.

So they'll just gain 2, then?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #334 on: August 31, 2017, 11:26:52 PM »

The only way I could see Texas not gaining two would be if Republican xenophobia has the side effect of causing a severe undercount of Hispanics in Texas.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #335 on: September 01, 2017, 07:09:46 AM »

Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2016 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 6 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.

AL -1
AZ +1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

There is only one change since my projections last year. CA stays unchanged at 53 instead of adding a seat and FL gains 2 instead of 1 up to 29. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
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.

I think it's fairly safe to say Harvey ended any chance of Texas gaining three seats in the next census.  Even if the disruption proves only half as bad as Katrina, there will be a lot of people who otherwise might live in Texas who won't be able to thirty-one months from now.

Unfortunately we wont have a good estimate of that next year. The date used for next year's estimate release is July 1, 2017 and the impact of Harvey is after that. Until then it will useful to see where displaced Houstonians go. A lot of Katrina victims moved to se TX, but if Harvey victims shift within TX, eg to DFW, it will have minimal impact on the statewide estimates.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #336 on: September 01, 2017, 09:55:44 AM »

I miss jimrtex's table of projected apportionment across multiple decades with three decimal places.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #337 on: September 01, 2017, 12:07:20 PM »

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%

Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #338 on: September 01, 2017, 12:41:13 PM »

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.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #339 on: September 01, 2017, 11:13:44 PM »

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.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #340 on: September 01, 2017, 11:17:41 PM »

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.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #341 on: September 25, 2017, 10:39:27 PM »

I wonder if the post-Maria exodus from Puerto Rico might keep New York from losing a seat. If you take a look at the Puerto Rican demographics, a lot of the people who left were men who couldn't find work there. Now we're likely to see a lot of women and kids who can't live there as well as those displaced by lack of work. A 10% exodus is probably a bare minimum under current conditions, and many will head to New York. Probably not enuf by itself to keep the Empire State from losing another seat, but it should make it close.
Logged
KingSweden
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,227
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #342 on: September 30, 2017, 07:08:06 PM »

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.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #343 on: October 02, 2017, 01:26:04 AM »

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.
Logged
KingSweden
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,227
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #344 on: October 02, 2017, 09:27:06 AM »

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.


Thanks!
Logged
Obama-Biden Democrat
Zyzz
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #345 on: November 15, 2017, 10:35:54 PM »

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.

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.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #346 on: November 16, 2017, 07:22:02 AM »

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.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #347 on: November 26, 2017, 08:38:50 AM »

Update:

The new estimates for Mid-2017 are out in 4 weeks.

Based on preliminary CDC data of births and deaths, the US population growth rate likely dropped to the lowest level on record last year ... => 0.6%

(Not even in the 1930s was population growth so low, but there were no annual estimates back then. Only a decade-long growth rate of 7.5%)

Why ?

Births between July 2016 and June 2017 were only at 3.884 million (vs. 3.976 million in the year before).

Deaths between July 2016 and June 2017 were up at 2.780 million (vs. 2.721 million in the year before).

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/provisional-tables.htm

So, the natural increase decreased from 1.255 million between 2015-16 to just 1.104 million between 2016-17.

It is likely that the immigration balance is also down slightly from the +1 million in 2015-16, so the population likely increased by about 2 million people (maybe 2.1 million if immigration levels remain stable).
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #348 on: November 26, 2017, 03:14:18 PM »

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.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #349 on: November 26, 2017, 03:36:37 PM »

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.

Yes, this might be a reason.

Also:

Traditionally, some states have already released their own estimates for 2017 and it seems the high growth rates on the West Coast are very stable (WA had 1.7%, OR 1.6% and CA 0.9%) - while CO is also at 1.7%

FL is projected at +335.000, or +1.7% (like the year before).

Metro Atlanta increased by 80.000 people to April 2017, the highest level since before the 2008 recession.

On the other hand, WI's growth is down from 30.000 to about 8.000 within a year - suggesting an increased trend of stagnant/declining population in the Rust Belt/Northeast, with more and more people moving to the South and West Coast + the Mountain West.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 36  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.088 seconds with 12 queries.