Census population estimates 2011-2019
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:37:26 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 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 36
Author Topic: Census population estimates 2011-2019  (Read 180220 times)
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #525 on: December 19, 2018, 06:11:43 PM »

I used a linear growth rate estimation based on changes across the whole decade.

If that's the case you should add the overseas military personnel times the same growth rate to the state populations since the 2020 Census will. MT has about double the participation rate of CA in overseas military - 0.5% compared to 0.24% for CA. When I took the military population out of my projection CA was back on top using the whole decade. However, even without the military adjustment MT still wins using a short term 2 or 3 year average for projection.
Logged
America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS
Solid4096
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,730


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #526 on: December 19, 2018, 07:34:10 PM »

I used a linear growth rate estimation based on changes across the whole decade.

If that's the case you should add the overseas military personnel times the same growth rate to the state populations since the 2020 Census will. MT has about double the participation rate of CA in overseas military - 0.5% compared to 0.24% for CA. When I took the military population out of my projection CA was back on top using the whole decade. However, even without the military adjustment MT still wins using a short term 2 or 3 year average for projection.

I have no idea where that data exists.

I thought they were already pre-placed into the census data compilations.
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 #527 on: December 19, 2018, 10:46:16 PM »

The 10 states that had the highest domestic migration surpluses (= intra-US movements between the states) between 2017 and 2018:

FL +133K
AZ +83K
TX +83K
NC +67K
SC +51K
NV +48K
WA +47K
CO +43K
GA +42K
TN +40K

... and the biggest net losses:

NY -180K
CA -156K
PR -123K
IL -114K
NJ -51K
LA -28K
MA -26K
MD -25K
CT -22K
PA -21K
MI -17K

Puerto Rico lost 4% of its population last year (a record) and that was not only because of out-migration (-123K people), but also because a -7K death surplus. A loss of 130K people in total.

Since the Census 2000, more than 1 million Puerto Ricans have left the island - or about 1/4 of the population ...
Logged
Cokeland Saxton
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,601
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -6.26

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #528 on: December 19, 2018, 11:19:05 PM »

Much of that was from Hurricane Maria
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #529 on: December 19, 2018, 11:20:29 PM »

I used a linear growth rate estimation based on changes across the whole decade.

If that's the case you should add the overseas military personnel times the same growth rate to the state populations since the 2020 Census will. MT has about double the participation rate of CA in overseas military - 0.5% compared to 0.24% for CA. When I took the military population out of my projection CA was back on top using the whole decade. However, even without the military adjustment MT still wins using a short term 2 or 3 year average for projection.

I have no idea where that data exists.

I thought they were already pre-placed into the census data compilations.

The Census only puts out residential estimates. The residential data is used for grant funding and redistricting, but not for apportionment. There have been SCOTUS cases about who should be counted for apportionment. For instance in Utah vs Evans I (2001) the state argued that their Mormon missionaries should be counted for apportionment which would have given UT a seat at the expense of NC, but they lost.

The data is available through the American Fact Finder tool which has the apportionment data set. However, it's not estimated through the decade so a proper model has to make its own estimate to project to the next apportionment.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #530 on: December 20, 2018, 12:59:09 AM »

Imagine how physically tiny NV-01 is going to be in the next set of maps.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #531 on: December 20, 2018, 08:24:42 AM »

Imagine how physically tiny NV-01 is going to be in the next set of maps.

Is Las Vegas getting more densely populated?
Logged
Strudelcutie4427
Singletxguyforfun
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,375
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #532 on: December 20, 2018, 08:33:01 AM »

How is MA losing population? I see new obnoxiously tacky looking condos go up every time I drive through Boston
Logged
Thatkat04
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 462
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #533 on: December 20, 2018, 09:03:40 AM »

How is MA losing population? I see new obnoxiously tacky looking condos go up every time I drive through Boston

It's not. It's the fastest growing state in the northeast.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #534 on: December 20, 2018, 10:12:04 AM »

How is MA losing population? I see new obnoxiously tacky looking condos go up every time I drive through Boston

It's funny, I can think of at least three specific neighborhoods near highways you're referring to unless it's a general observation:

  • NorthPoint in Cambridge
  • South End against I-93
  • Chelsea on Rt. 1

Anyway, yeah, MA is the fastest-growing state in the northeast other than possibly Delaware.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #535 on: December 20, 2018, 10:12:54 AM »

How is MA losing population? I see new obnoxiously tacky looking condos go up every time I drive through Boston

It's not. It's the fastest growing state in the northeast.

MA is growing at 0.6%/year over the decade. That's almost as fast as the nation as a whole.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #536 on: December 20, 2018, 10:26:57 AM »

The last five awarded are IL-17, FL-29, TX-39, NY-26, and MT-2 (#435).
The next five in line are CA53, AL-7, MN-8, OH-15, and VA-12.

Wow, that seems new!  I thought MN was definitely doomed.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #537 on: December 20, 2018, 11:57:15 AM »

The last five awarded are IL-17, FL-29, TX-39, NY-26, and MT-2 (#435).
The next five in line are CA53, AL-7, MN-8, OH-15, and VA-12.

Wow, that seems new!  I thought MN was definitely doomed.

MN is now the fastest growing state in the upper Midwest/Great Lakes region. They've paced the national average for the decade and are slightly ahead of it over the last two years. If they keep up their current pace of the last year or two they have a definite shot at holding their 8th seat.
Logged
Cokeland Saxton
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,601
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -6.26

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #538 on: December 20, 2018, 02:45:35 PM »

Imagine how physically tiny NV-01 is going to be in the next set of maps.

Is Las Vegas getting more densely populated?

Clark County is the fastest-growing county in Nevada since 2010, and with 2.2 million people, contains nearly 3/4 of the state's population, and that percentage continues to increase.
Logged
DINGO Joe
dingojoe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,700
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #539 on: December 20, 2018, 03:19:12 PM »

Colorado has added about 660,000 people this decade or more than the actual population of Wyoming (577,000).
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #540 on: December 21, 2018, 02:02:24 AM »

Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2018 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 8 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
CA -1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
MT +1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

Compared to last year, CA loses one and MT gains one. That is what my model based on the two years from 2015-2017 projected, so it appears that that short-term trend has continued enough to influence the whole decade. 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, FL-29, TX-39, NY-26, and MT-2 (#435).
The next five in line are CA53, AL-7, MN-8, OH-15, and VA-12.

The alternate projection based on just the prior two years of estimates to determine the rate of growth matches the full decade projection now.

Based on resident population, projected exponentially for the last 1.75 years, I have California narrowly keeping its 53rd seat, and Montana staying at one seat. But an additional 1000 population for Montana or -30K for California would swap the two.

The exponential projection is quite optimistic for California. Growth in California was quite flat for the first half of the decade through 2015 at 327K per year. The last three years have been 256K, 190K, and 158K. That is, the second derivative has been negative. The exponential growth projection would add 506K over the next 1.75 years. Taking 7/8 of the 2016-2018 increase would only add 305K. Not only is California not going to meet the exponential projection it will miss it badly.

We will likely miss the California Paradox where California's share of population is increasing, while its share of representation is decreasing. Currently, California is slightly above the USA growth rate (projected at 7.3% for the decade), but will likely fall below the national rate by 2020.

So this will give Montana the 435th seat. Montana's growth is not robust, but will increase by about 9.0% during the decade. Montana's growth rate is volatile, subject to energy prices. Expansion of the Williston Basin into Montana depends on sustained higher oil prices, along with a way to transport the oil. Regina is the closest population center to Williston, but Billings is the closest domestic center. Both Billings and Bismarck benefit from rentals to the Williston Basin.

A negative for Montana is it's COLD. But Montana is not going to drop much below its current rate of growth in the next 1.75 years. It could be on the cusp between one and two seats for decades to come. After losing the 2nd seat at the 1990 census, Montana has been just short of gaining it back - at times missing simply because of the timing of the census.

The only realistic contender for the 435th seat is Minnesota. But while its growth has increased a bit the last few years, it should still be short of holding on to its 8th district. Exponentially projected growth would give Minnesota 68K more persons, about 32K short of the needed population. Linear growth based on 2016-2018 would net 77K. This would still leave Minnesota 23K short.  It would really need to pop its growth for the next two year, and the increase for 2018 was actually less than 2017.



Realized changes for 2018, were for Arizona to gain its 10th district, and Rhode Island to lose its 2nd. Montana surpassed Rhode Island in population during the year.

Quite likely changes by 2020 are for Florida to gain its 28th and Texas 39th, at the expense of Alabama to 6 and Ohio to 15.

The final change if it happens is Montana 2nd at the expense of California to 52.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #541 on: December 21, 2018, 03:58:37 AM »

I used a linear growth rate estimation based on changes across the whole decade.

If that's the case you should add the overseas military personnel times the same growth rate to the state populations since the 2020 Census will. MT has about double the participation rate of CA in overseas military - 0.5% compared to 0.24% for CA. When I took the military population out of my projection CA was back on top using the whole decade. However, even without the military adjustment MT still wins using a short term 2 or 3 year average for projection.
Most of the overseas population is military personnel and their dependents.

The Census Bureau's rationalization is that military personnel are not living overseas by choice. The real reason is that the Census can easily get records from other federal agencies.

The US government requires that overseas civilian citizens be able to vote in their state of last residence. It is pretty hypocritical to require that they be able to vote for representatives, while not including them in the determination of the number of representatives they may vote for.

The US should maintain voter registration for civilian overseas and all military personnel (this would avoid providing information about location of military personnel to states). Overseas voters should be able to vote at embassies, consulates, other population centers, and military bases.

An overseas voter could go to a federal voting center, prove his identity. The voting center would contact the state of (last) residence and generate a ballot. The voter would vote, and the results would be sent back to the state.

With these registration records, the Census Bureau could contact civilians living overseas and determine the number of associated dependents.

In 2010, about 1,000,000 of 1,048,000 were associated with the military (95%+). About 400,000 were military and 600,000 were dependents.

Since 2010 overseas military has declined by about half. OTOH, there has been little decline in numbers stationed in countries that are suitable for dependents: Japan, Germany, Korea, Italy, UK, Spain and Belgium (countries with more than 1K military personnel).

The DOD administrative records include 3 potential states: home of record - which is generally where someone resided prior to (re)enlistment; legal address - where someone pays state taxes (tends to be heavy on Texas, Florida, Washington, Alaska, Wyoming, and Tennessee which have no income taxes, but have military bases which can be used to establish legal residency); and last duty session.

If available, the Census Bureau uses the home of record, perhaps reasoning that was the last place that was under control of the service member - and likely to produce less distortion of the apportionment population.

If we assume that the distribution of home states has not changed, and that the overseas military has declined by 50%, but not in locations where dependents can live. That means we could take (800/1050)/1.073  which would be ratio of overseas population to resident population in 2020 to that in 2010.

Then for each state take the 2010 ratio of overseas/resident population and multiply by this factor and multiply this by the 2020 projected resident population.

This assumes that factors that lead to enlistment do not vary over time, but the number who do enlist is proportional to the resident population of a state.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #542 on: December 21, 2018, 04:00:34 AM »

Imagine how physically tiny NV-01 is going to be in the next set of maps.
It is kind of like the two districts in the Northern Territory of Australia. One does not get out of Darwin.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #543 on: December 21, 2018, 08:08:08 AM »

Imagine how physically tiny NV-01 is going to be in the next set of maps.

Is Las Vegas getting more densely populated?

Clark County is the fastest-growing county in Nevada since 2010, and with 2.2 million people, contains nearly 3/4 of the state's population, and that percentage continues to increase.

Sure, but since NV-1 consists of fully built-out land and its population is going to have to go up, either the city has gotten more densely populated *or* NV-4 and NV-3 are going to shrink in size while NV-1 stays the same or gets a little bigger.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #544 on: December 21, 2018, 01:16:56 PM »

19 states are gaining ground relative to the USA:

Western states (all but AK, HI, NM, and WY): AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NV, OR, UT, WA
Central tier: ND, SD, TX
South Atlantic (DE to FL, except MD): DE, FL, GA, NC, SC, VA
Tennessee: TN

These states can gain representation. The other 32 states are losing ground relative to the USA and can lose representation.

The following table is based on exponentially projected 2020 resident population. Above the line it shows the relative quotient for 2020 gainers: AZ(10), CO(8), FL(29), NC(14), OR(6), and TX(39). They will have notched these gains by 2020, and will be moving away from the line. The other states are growing slower than the national average and are at risk of losing additional seats. States like MA and NE are just below the national average in growth, and are potentially decades away from change. It is more likely that there will be a change in trends.

Pretty certain losses for 2030 are CT, IL, NJ, NY(2), PA, and WI. Possible losers are IL(2), IN, MI, and OH. These are based on comparing margin for 2020 and growth rates from 2010 to 2020 relative to the national growth rate of 7.3.

States below the line that lost a seat are AL(6), IL(17), MI(13), MN(7), NY(26), OH(15), PA(17), RI(1), WV(2). These states have notched a loss for 2020, and will be dropping further. With the exception of MN, they won't be making up lost ground.

Other states are growing faster than the national average and have the possibility of gaining seats. Fairly certain gainers for 2030 are FL(2), ID, TX(3), UT, and WA. Possible gainers are AZ, CO, FL(3), GA, NV, TX(4), VA.

Because there are more possible gainers than possible losers, there is a greater chance that the potential losses will occur (more eager contenders to grab the seat away from the sluggards). But it is likely that all the potential gainers will not be realized (too much competition).

Special cases are CA, MN, and MT, which have growth rates near to the national average AND are close to the threshold. They can ping pong back and forth. The MN growth rate is increasing a bit, which could turn it into a gainer by 2030, while CA growth rate is slowing substantially which could turn it into a loser. It likely will already lose its 53rd due to the slowdown, and could lose additional seats. California loses/gains seats for roughly every 2% difference from the national rate. A 5.3% increase vs. a national rate of 7.3% would cost another seat. The MT economy is too resource dependent, and has no major cities to sustain growth (compared to say Boise, Des Moines, or Omaha).


NY 23 1.092
PA 15 1.085
MO  7 1.078
MA  8 1.078
IL 15 1.076 ?
KY  5 1.076
MD  7 1.068
OH 14 1.060 ?
MI 12 1.051 ?
NY 24 1.047 x
CT  4 1.047 x
NE  2 1.044
IN  8 1.040 ?
NC 14 1.027(+)
CO  8 1.024(+)
WI  7 1.023 x
OR  6 1.022(+)
PA 16 1.019 x
NJ 11 1.019 x
CA 51 1.015
AZ 10 1.015(+)
IL 16 1.011 x
NY 25 1.006 x
FL 29 1.006(++)
TX 39 1.005(+++)
CA 52 0.9999
--------------------------------------------------
MT  2 0.9992
MN  7 0.994(-)
AL  6 0.993(-)
OH 15 0.991(-)
VA 12 0.984 ?
CA 54 0.981
RI  1 0.980(-)
TX 40 0.979 x
MI 13 0.973(-)
FL 30 0.971 x
NY 26 0.968(-)
GA 15 0.968 ?
WA 11 0.964 x
ID  3 0.961 x
PA 17 0.961(-)
WV  2 0.961(-)
TX 41 0.955 x
UT  5 0.953 x
IL 17 0.953(-)
TN 10 0.948
NC 15 0.946
FL 31 0.940 x
TX 42 0.932
AZ 11 0.918 ?
NV  4 0.911 ?
DE  2 0.910
TX 43 0.910 ?
FL 32 0.910 ?
SC  8 0.908
VA 13 0.905
GA 16 0.905
CO  9 0.903 ?

States that are losing ground relative to the USA, but are at least 10% above losing a seat.
AR(4), HI(2), IA(4), KS(4), LA(6), ME(2), MS(4), NM(3), OK(5). They won't lose the seat by 2030.

States that are losing ground relative to the USA, and already have the minimum number of seats.

AK(1),  VT(1), and WY(1).

States that are gaining ground relative to the USA, but are at least 10% below gaining a seat, and won't gain a seat by 2030 (barring oil going above $100 per barrel).

ND(1) and SD(1)
Logged
Thatkat04
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 462
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #545 on: December 22, 2018, 08:39:23 PM »

So question, was New Jersey adjusted down? In 2017, the population was past 9 million but this 2018 Census states the population is 8.9 million while at the same time showing NJ with population growth of 0.22% from last year. Not that it matters all that much since the twelfth district is safe in 2020 but its just kind of bothering me.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/nj/IPE120217
Logged
Cokeland Saxton
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,601
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -6.26

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #546 on: December 22, 2018, 08:50:11 PM »

Yes, New Jersey's was adjusted down, just like New York's was adjusted down by like a quarter million.
Logged
Starry Eyed Jagaloon
Blairite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #547 on: December 23, 2018, 02:32:07 AM »

We will likely miss the California Paradox where California's share of population is increasing, while its share of representation is decreasing. Currently, California is slightly above the USA growth rate (projected at 7.3% for the decade), but will likely fall below the national rate by 2020.
That may be true, but this decrease is very artificial. California is an economic powerhouse, it's quality of life is second to none, and polling indicates millions of Americans would move here if they could. This slowdown is occurring EXCLUSIVELY because of artificial zoning laws keeping LA and the Bay Area from building the 250,000+ new units of housing per year market conditions would indicate. Fortunately, legislators are finally catching on to this, and seem very likely to pass growth-friendly legislation this cycle, while local authorities are streamlining the permital process. I firmly expect that within five years, California's population growth rate will be between 0.8 and 1.2 percent per year, and California should gain one or two seats in 2030, putting us at 54 congressional districts. One only needs to look at the demographic profile of those moving in and out of the state to see that the only reason Nevada, Texas, and Arizona are growing so fast is because California isn't building enough homes. 2030, prepare for a 45 million person California.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #548 on: December 24, 2018, 01:56:07 AM »

So question, was New Jersey adjusted down? In 2017, the population was past 9 million but this 2018 Census states the population is 8.9 million while at the same time showing NJ with population growth of 0.22% from last year. Not that it matters all that much since the twelfth district is safe in 2020 but its just kind of bothering me.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/nj/IPE120217
Census estimates are based on estimates of demographic changes due to births, deaths, in-migration, and out-migration.

Birth and death estimates are based on birth and death data from the National Heath Sevice (NHS). This lags the estimate date by 1-1/2 years (for the July 1, 2018 estimate is based on data for calendar year 2016). The 2018 estimate is based on a projection of the earlier data.

The estimate made for 2017 did not have 2016 data, so the death and birth data was based on projection from earlier data. But in 2018, we can correct the 2017 estimate. Even with accurate birth and death records, place of residence may be misleading. A widow from Florida who moved to live with he daughter in North Carolina, before she died, will show up as a North Carolinian dying, and a Floridian getting a year older (since no death or move was recorded). Some mothers move after giving birth. If their husband was in Afghanistan, she may have move to be nearer her parents home during the pregnancy, rather than being alone near some military base.

Domestic migration is estimated based on IRS, Medicare, and SSA records - which can apparently be anonymized enough such that you can find where a taxpayer has changed residence, and the number of exemptions and perhaps the age. Since this does not cover those who don't file, they project this to the total population This could be fairly current, since most taxpayers have filed by July 1. It got really complicated for international migration.

METHODOLOGY FOR THE UNITED STATES POPULATION ESTIMATES: VINTAGE 2018 (PDF)

I think they try to track the number of persons from the 2010 Census:

Let's say there are N 47 YO white males in 2010.

X% die,
Y% move to another state.
Z% move to another country.
W% move from another country.

Then for 2011 they have an estimated number of 48 YO white males, etc.

To try to make sense of the estimates, I compared the 2018 vintage annual components of change with the 2017 vintage annual components of change for New York.

The changes in birth and deaths appear just to be noise. But there was a dramatic decrease in the net inflow of international migration, which goes back most of the decade. That is, the Census Bureau now believes that they had been overestimating net international migration. This is close to a 200K difference over the decade.

I don't know the source of the error. Perhaps they were using the ACS and could not find the immigrants. Perhaps there have been people leaving the US. These are hard to detect, because the US government doesn't care if you leave. They, in theory, care if you enter the country.

Of course it is is possible that the ACS does a particularly poor job of counting persons who are illegally in the country, and avoid anything they believe might result in detection.

If there has been a change in methodology with respect to international migration, this would have a particularly profound effect on the estimates for New York and California.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #549 on: December 24, 2018, 03:02:58 PM »

The 10 states that had the highest domestic migration surpluses (= intra-US movements between the states) between 2017 and 2018:

FL +133K
AZ +83K
TX +83K
NC +67K
SC +51K
NV +48K
WA +47K
CO +43K
GA +42K
TN +40K

... and the biggest net losses:

NY -180K
CA -156K
PR -123K
IL -114K
NJ -51K
LA -28K
MA -26K
MD -25K
CT -22K
PA -21K
MI -17K

Puerto Rico lost 4% of its population last year (a record) and that was not only because of out-migration (-123K people), but also because a -7K death surplus. A loss of 130K people in total.

Since the Census 2000, more than 1 million Puerto Ricans have left the island - or about 1/4 of the population ...
Please cite your original source.  Paraphrasing data still needs a citation.  I suspect you are possesive of your data sources.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 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 0.062 seconds with 12 queries.