2010 Census: State Population Numbers Released
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1133815324_yUWLu-M.jpg)
The Census Bureau recently announced that the nation's population has increased 9.7% over the last decade. Metro Jacksonville shares a state-by-state breakdown of the numbers.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-dec-2010-census-state-population-numbers-released
I find it extremely interesting looking at the apportionment of representatives over time and how population shifts every decade. When you consider US history it makes sense looking at where people were moving and why. Much of the Midwest really saw population growth during the heavy manufacturing period in the US. Michigan's population followed the rise and fall of the US auto industry. New York City and Chicago used to be the financial and retail centers, but as the US became more diversified companies left for other cities. Growth in the Great Plains states has also slowed as farms got larger and the number of farmers got smaller. California has always been popular but I can see the .com and tech phase of the 1980s-2000s has lost steam.
I'm trying to figure out what the next economic generator is going to be. We don't really have one. It may just be the retirement of lots and lots of baby boomers, and it is quite evident where they are heading to retire. Florida must plan for the future and grow in smart ways or else the attractiveness of the state will lose its charm and Texas and Arizona will continue to win out.
For you pseudo-statistics geeks out there, that means that the top 5 states by population contain over a third of the entire US population.
The top 10 states together contain almost exactly 54% of the entire population.
I'm not necessarily going anywhere with that, but it's definitely interesting to note (at least to me :D).
More to Stephen's point regarding green energy:
Texas and California are the two largest states by population, and also happen to be two of the top five states (1 and 3, respectively) with the highest wind-power nameplate capacity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States)
California is #1 in terms of both Solar thermal and photo-voltaic solar power, Florida is #5 in PV capacity and New York #7.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_States#Statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_States#Statistics)
California, Texas, and Florida are also closely tied to the space program.
I'd say the most-populated states are leading the way, per Stephen's criteria.
Its obvious that the south is growing much more rapidly than the north. IMO, climate/weather and overpopulation are huge factors for why the northeast is declining and the south is growing. The southern climates are much more supportive of year round quality of life and allow buisnesses to operate more effectively when they don't have to fight the nasty winter months.
Florida has to get its act together now, unless we want to look like a mix between LA and Atlanta from Jax to Miami. Transit infrastructure needs a plan, development guidelines/boundaries need to be set and enforced, alternative energy sources need to be implemented, and conservation land needs to be vastly expanded.
Quote from: stephendare on December 22, 2010, 09:05:48 AM
biotechnology, green energy, materials, and space mining.
These could be the next economic booms. If so what is FL doing to attract and create jobs within these areas?
1. Well kids, its obvious from the data that Florida won't need a Department of Transportation anymore, hell growth-sprawl-HIGHWAYS could all be handled out of a tobacco shed in Jackson County. We could also eliminate all rail development programs, close the schools, and board up the ports... NOBODY IS COMING THIS WAY ANYMORE!
2. We could be in REAL DANGER... Last time NY, MA, NJ, PA, OH, MI, IL, IA, MO lost so many seats in Congress they created what amounted to a race war to adjust our population back down. Wonder what they'll claim this time, so they can crush us, and spend another 150 years punishing us for losing. Just wondering...
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: Ocklawaha on December 22, 2010, 09:31:28 AM
1. Well kids, its obvious from the data that Florida won't need a Department of Transportation anymore,
Ock...I'm so glad you're visionary like Rick Scott's transition team...lets all get behind the Department of Growth Leadership...woo hoo!
;)
The District of Columbia has more people than the state of Wyoming, yet Wyoming has two Senators and a Representative and DC only has a non-voting delegate. Fair?
From http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2010/12/census-fast-growth-states-no-income-tax
It's all about taxes, stupid.
QuoteFirst, the great engine of growth in America is not the Northeast Megalopolis, which was growing faster than average in the mid-20th century, or California, which grew lustily in the succeeding half-century. It is Texas.
Its population grew 21 percent in the past decade, from nearly 21 million to more than 25 million. That was more rapid growth than in any states except for four much smaller ones (Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Idaho).
Texas' diversified economy, business-friendly regulations and low taxes have attracted not only immigrants but substantial inflow from the other 49 states. As a result, the 2010 reapportionment gives Texas four additional House seats. In contrast, California gets no new House seats, for the first time since it was admitted to the Union in 1850.
There's a similar lesson in the fact that Florida gains two seats in the reapportionment and New York loses two.
This leads to a second point, which is that growth tends to be stronger where taxes are lower. Seven of the nine states that do not levy an income tax grew faster than the national average. The other two, South Dakota and New Hampshire, had the fastest growth in their regions, the Midwest and New England.
Altogether, 35 percent of the nation's total population growth occurred in these nine non-taxing states, which accounted for just 19 percent of total population at the beginning of the decade.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2010/12/census-fast-growth-states-no-income-tax#ixzz18qw9lXVe
"It's all about taxes, stupid."
True. Plus less regulation and cheaper labor.
Texas is also growing because the cost of living, especially housing, is much cheaper than it is in California or Florida. Much of this has to do with lax urban planning standards and massive sprawl, but nonetheless it is what it is. Texas can keep using sprawl for growth as it has lots and lots of land. Florida and California do not have that luxury.
Also, Texas has invested heavily in its universities, something Florida has not and does not do. This has helped them grow a diversified economy, something Florida does not have.
Five or ten years ago I would have agreed with "its about taxes." But low-tax Florida now has one of the nation's highest unemployment rates (over 10 percent) and so does Georgia. Meanwhile, Michigan, the sick man of America, has an average tax burden ( see http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/2181.html for more info on tax burdens).
Quote2. We could be in REAL DANGER... Last time NY, MA, NJ, PA, OH, MI, IL, IA, MO lost so many seats in Congress they created what amounted to a race war to adjust our population back down. Wonder what they'll claim this time, so they can crush us, and spend another 150 years punishing us for losing. Just wondering...
When South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter, 70% of the US population was in the Northern states. That's not too surprising considering virtually every immigrant to the US during the previous 50 years was arriving in the NORTH, since labor was provided by slaves in the South.
I've read a lot of nonsense from Neo-Confederates about reasons for the Civil War, but that is a new one on me. You might want to do a little research first, especially since no state would 'lose' a seat in the US House, for several more decades after the war ended.
Tourism, agriculture (citrus, tomatoes, sugarcane, strawberries), phosphate mining, space, fishing, three huge ports, each of the four major metros have a significant financial services presences (banking, insurance, etc).
That's not diversified?
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on December 22, 2010, 10:07:47 AM
"It's all about taxes, stupid."
True. Plus less regulation and cheaper labor.
Everyone will be moving to Somalia next. There's NO governmental interference there!
Quote from: finehoe on December 22, 2010, 09:47:30 AM
The District of Columbia has more people than the state of Wyoming, yet Wyoming has two Senators and a Representative and DC only has a non-voting delegate. Fair?
like others said, its all about taxes....but not what you think
in this case, the problem is Congress and lobbyists....if DC were allowed to become a state, they would also be allowed to implement a state income tax...which would be a huge problem for all those richy rich's working in DC.
DC does impose an income tax on its residents, 8.5% to be exact. However, DC-VA-MD have entered into a tax treaty under which you pay state/local income tax based on where you live rather than where you work. Ordinarily, you're taxed based on where you earn your income, then you take a credit for that tax on your resident state return. The treaty overrides that. As a result, if you work on K Street but live in McLean, you pay the 5.75% Virginia tax rather than the 8.5% DC tax.
Quote from: finehoe on December 22, 2010, 11:12:23 AM
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on December 22, 2010, 10:07:47 AM
"It's all about taxes, stupid."
True. Plus less regulation and cheaper labor.
Everyone will be moving to Somalia next. There's NO governmental interference there!
Yes. And everyone is thriving in North Korea because the government interferes with everything right?
My strawman is prettier than your strawman.
Quote from: Jason on December 22, 2010, 09:21:05 AM
conservation land needs to be vastly expanded.
And who here knows of the Northeast Florida Timberlands Reserve,or Osceola to Ocala (O2O) conservation lands initiatives??
:) conserveflorida.org ::)
Jason & North, Gov. Scott intends to sell off state owned conservation lands.
Quote from: Dog Walker on December 22, 2010, 12:36:39 PM
Jason & North, Gov. Scott intends to sell off state owned conservation lands.
Not so easy.
First-political conservatives have historically been and remain a key powerful constituency for state lands programs.Conservation land 'sale' proposals will see push back from some political conservative circles.
(Already we have seen a hint as to the landscape-I know of many gun owners who ignored the NRA Scott endorsement and voted for Sink,who after all lost the election by a tiny fraction.....)
Our state constitution-amended in the late 90's,in conjunction with the amendment transferring salt water fisheries and morphing the former Fish & Game Commission in to Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission also holds a protective fire wall- language regarding surplus of state conservation lands.The mainstream,conservatively rooted Florida Wildlife Federation was central in this effort.
This element of our State Constitution has remained obscure for most.It's a 'nuclear option' not be be casually pressed by either 'side' at least untill now.A rare draw of the constitutional surplus sword-in this case simply the threat of knock down drag out battle- occurred over the proposed routing of the First Coast Beltway through existing conservation lands/Ravines.The proposed roadway was shifted away from the Ravines.
Constitutional Amendments,DCA et al-forced on pissed off local development players who now guide Scott.
QuoteIts obvious that the south is growing much more rapidly than the north. IMO, climate/weather and overpopulation are huge factors for why the northeast is declining and the south is growing. The southern climates are much more supportive of year round quality of life and allow buisnesses to operate more effectively when they don't have to fight the nasty winter months.
Just to be clear, the northeast isn't declining; the northeast is growing
less rapidly than it did in the past. Since the northeast (or, roughly the area from metro Washington DC to metro Boston,) hit "build out" first, it makes sense that they are not growing at a percentage rate as fast as the south and the southwest. What is interesting is that despite the crowds, despite the expensive costs of living, and despite the cold weather (which sucks, FYI. Snow is fun once or twice,) the northeast is
still growing.
It's also interesting to note that this just details
population growth, not the
kind of person or people making up the percentage points. For example, Massachusetts has made up for their middle class "snowbird" class vacating by becoming a health and sciences oriented state. Their growth rate may have
slowed, but they've replaced what they've lost with a moneyed, educated and professional class. Nevada's growth rate is off the hook, but consider the people moving there: a society of uneducated casino workers (a gross generalization, but you get the point.) For an example closer to [my] home, most of Virginia's and Maryland's growth happened in the metro DC areas of Western Maryland and Northern Virginia. This region nearly requires education and intellect to settle here, so while 9 and 13 percent don't top the list, consider the smarties building the future of those states.
This was a long way to make the point that it's not just about the numbers. It's about the
people you're attracting to your state. I spent most of my life in South Florida, and watched as the population massively increased, and the developers massively turned over the ground to house, feed and "shop" those new peeps. But, despite all the old folks, South Florida didn't steal the "health and sciences" crown from Boston. Despite all the theme parks and entertainment venues, Central Florida has neither replaced California nor New York as the entertainment capital. It's not just "get the people to move here," it's "get the
right people to move here." (And that's not racist, it's
elitist. Proudly.)
As mentioned above, Texas did this very right, combining the "climate is awesome" story with the "good for business" story that most SunBelt states share...but not leaving out the "invest in education" story or the "diversify your economy" story that are the hallmarks of the (still growing) Northeast Corridor. To be fair to Florida, they've certainly tried to diversify the economy (and in places like South Florida and Tampa,) they've succeeded, but it's hard to steer a ship this big away from the "growth for growth sake" and "tourism rules" paths, after they've been traveling along them for a while.
Quote
2. We could be in REAL DANGER... Last time NY, MA, NJ, PA, OH, MI, IL, IA, MO lost so many seats in Congress they created what amounted to a race war to adjust our population back down. Wonder what they'll claim this time, so they can crush us, and spend another 150 years punishing us for losing. Just wondering...
Nobody had to "create" a race war. The South kept slaves, had draconian laws to keep the slaves from running up North to freedom, and while the North wasn't exactly racist-free, and the Civil War wasn't fought merely to free the black folks, it was the
South, by insisting on maintaining the institution of slavery and by committing a treasonous act (by seceding from the damned country,) that "created" that conflict. And thank heavens they lost.
As for the next 150 of "punishment," that's reaching quite a bit. Without slavery, the southern economy couldn't function. And the people of the South couldn't function without racism (and thus, without cooperation,) and thus, much of the "punishment" was self-inflicted. To have African-Americans leave the South, where they faced a massive barrage of restrictions on their "freedom," and move to the North where those restrictions were lessened, if not eliminated, is, yet again, another example of the self-inflicted "punishment." I'll give you 75 years...at most, before the "New South" began rising.
Finally, it's been a century and a half. Let it go, already. Whether it's called "The Civil War," or "The War of Northern Aggression," or "The War of Southern Ignorance" (my personal fave,) it's over. It's been over for a century and a half. It's quite a few generations of people beyond even an anecdotal relation to your life and mine (or to put it another way, no relative can regale us with stories of how they or their parents or their parent's parent's parents can tell us a lived-in Civil War yarn.) Jesus, can the Daughters of the Confederacy just let those souls sleep, already?
Aaroniuslives, great post. I agree that the Daughters of the Confederacy is just about the most stupid thing ever. It's ok to memorialize fallen soldiers, but not to memorialize the confederacy. Also, I agree about why it's important to distinguish who you're attracting from how many you're attracting. I also think Atlanta does a very good job of attracting an educated workforce being that Atlanta is one of the great higher education cities of the country like Boston, NYC, Chicago, Bay Area, LA, and Chicago. In Atlanta, the focus is more on business rather than retirement/entertainment. I think Jacksonville does a good job attracting decently educated people compared to most metros in Florida since our focus is on business and UF is nearby. I also think the average retiree in Ponte Vedra is a cut above in class and education than retirees in St. Petersburg or parts of SE FL, and that adds to our culture via quality community involvement.
Stephen does make some good points, though. I think what could have been done differently after the war could have made a better difference and it's hard to generalize life in the South pre-war. Also, huge chunks of the population in VA, MA, and other more northern colonies were slaves via indentured servanthood for the 17th and better part of the 18th centuries. White slaves were subject to no pay, harsh living conditions, cruelty, sale, and usually no freedom even when freedom was promised. It's a part of history that usually gets no mention.
I'm just waiting for the MSA, county/parish, and municipality data to come out in spring.
Quote from: stephendare on December 22, 2010, 02:01:40 PM
Actually Aaronious, Its only been 140 years since the Civil War.
really?
Quote from: stephendare on December 22, 2010, 02:25:27 PM
The war drug on a few years, officially ending in 1865, or 145 years ago.
So the
real question is, is 145 closer to 140 or 150? ;D
Quote from: AaroniusLives on December 22, 2010, 01:51:23 PM
Without slavery, the southern economy couldn't function.
The Northern states also had a huge economic stake in slavery and the cotton trade. By the mid 1830s, cotton shipments accounted for more than half the value of all exports from the United States. The income generated by this "export sector" was a major impetus for growth not only in the South, but in the rest of the economy as well. All regions benefited from the South's concentration on cotton production. Northern merchants gained from Southern demands for shipping cotton to markets abroad, and from the demand by Southerners for Northern and imported consumption goods. The low price of raw cotton produced by slave labor in the American South enabled textile manufacturers -- both in the United States and in Britain -- to expand production and provide benefits to consumers through a declining cost of textile products. As manufacturing of all kinds expanded at home and abroad, the need for food in cities created markets for foodstuffs that could be produced in the areas north of the Ohio River. And the primary force at work was the economic stimulus from the export of Southern Cotton.
They didn't call it "King Cotton" for nothing.
The destruction of slavery meant that the entire Southern economy had to be rebuilt. This turned out to be a monumental task; far larger than anyone at the time imagined. Southerners bore a disproportionate share of those costs and the burden persisted long after the war had ended. It's not as simple as "not being able to function" without slavery.
Excellent post Aaronious. I should have expanded my comment to state that the north is seemingly growing at a rate that is slowly dwindling over time. I'm pretty sure that the growth rate for many NE states was a bit higher during the last census, and even higher before that.
Nonetheless, a 2% growth rate in a state with over 19 million is still a lot of people. The same goes for Texas who has added almost 5 million!
And your're right, the quality of the workforce is much more important than quantity. Guess that's why the south tends to be hurting more in the current economy.
QuoteActually Aaronious, Its only been 140 years since the Civil War. Thats not quite two lifetimes. There are plenty of us with grandparents who remembered the War and who passed down the stories. There were plenty more who remembered the extreme poverty that descended on the south afterwards.
Wow, I'd like your genetics! 'Cause either you or your grandparents are insanely old. My
great-grandmother made it until 1983...and she could tell me a lot of stories about the olden days...but not the CIVIL WAR, as she wasn't even a zygote yet!
Got to be careful looking at "Rates of Growth" or "Percentages" of growth without having access to the actual numbers. New York could have added more people than Florida, but because it is more populous in the first place the rate of growth would be lower when expressed as a percentage.
Wyoming has 600,000 people. If 600,000 people moved there in a decade it would have 100% growth rate. If another 600,000 people moved there in the next decade the growth rate would be (takes off shoes) would "fall" to 50%. "Oh horrors, our growth is slowing!"
"The US is having it's slowest rate of growth in 70 years!" Well, duh. 70 years ago we had 130 million people. Now we have 300 million.
Quote from: stephendare on December 22, 2010, 02:01:40 PM
Actually Aaronious, Its only been 140 years since the Civil War. Thats not quite two lifetimes. There are plenty of us with grandparents who remembered the War and who passed down the stories. There were plenty more who remembered the extreme poverty that descended on the south afterwards.
It is a mistake, I have found, to generalize the subject of slavery, labor, plantations and economies in the way that you have, as it doesnt leave much room for accuracy.
Had Johnson's programs for the South been implemented it would have been a different country post war. A very different and I think better world as a result.
Oh God I smell a thread split coming...
Neo-Confederates? WTF? I believe some of us here are down right UNRECONSTRUCTED CONFEDERATES, and not a racist bone in our bodies. FORGET HELL!
See what I mean Stephen? "Textbook history," without the benefit of independent study will create a truly ignorant nation. Next thing you know some yahoo is going to tell me that the war on the south was legally just a war on "combinations of persons too powerful to put down by ordinary means..." Thus LEGAL secession itself never happened per honest Abe.
Those same textbooks that have General Lee surrendering all of the armies of the South, IE: CERTAIN COMBINATION'S..." Don't do a very good job at reporting what went on for another 20 years in my family's neck of the woods, Arkansas-Missouri-Kansas-Indian Territory-Oklahoma Territory etc...
Slavery? Hell the plantations around here tell a different story... as they do in Louisiana, South Carolina, etc...
BTW Y'ALL, the second largest plantation in Louisiana was owned by who? How about locally?
The SCV and UDC are idiots? Tell it to the Veterans Administration who turn over all remains dug up in new developments to these "idiots." They were also asked by the military and the State of South Carolina to provide the color guards for the return of the CSS Hunley.
Here's a recent article, FYI for those that didn't know the function of the two veterans groups... The northern group known as GRAND ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC has dwindled, leaving only the southrons to bury the dead, or care for their last resting areas. Quote
"This soldier represents all of the soldiers, the thousands that were lost and are still buried across the South," said Robin Hood, chairman of the Franklin Battlefield Task Force that organized the event.
It's unknown which side the soldier fought on when he was among the nearly 2,000 killed in the 1864 Battle of Franklin. Construction workers happened upon the anonymous soldier's shallow grave in May.
Military buttons found with the remains were from the Civil War, but they don't prove whether the soldier was a Union man or a Confederate, Hood said.
"Some of them were Union and some of them were Southern," he said. "And that late in the war a lot of the Southern buttons were Union buttons, because the Confederate buttons didn't hold up as well."
The coffin draped in Confederate and Union flags was transported from St. Paul's Episcopal Church, which served as a barracks and hospital during the conflict, to Rest Haven Cemetery in a horse-drawn carriage accompanied by Civil War re-enactors.
A new memorial at the cemetery features a limestone column that was once part of the state Capitol, which served as Union stronghold during the war.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2009/10/unknown_civil_war_soldier_rebu.html
Aren't you glad there are not any real southerners left? Keep reading...Quote
On 17 April 2004 the remains of the crew of the H. L. Hunley were interred in Charleston's Magnolia Cemetery with full military honors. A crowd estimated at between 35,000 and 50,000, including 10,000 period military and civilian reenactors, were present for what some called the 'Last Confederate Funeral.'
http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/H._L._Hunley_%28submarine%29
OCKLAWAHA
Did anyone notice that 3 of the top 5 states on the list are near bankruptcy?
Aaroniuslives, I agree it's about quality, not quantity. My observation is the best quality of life is most predictably found in proximity to where the better or best educational systems and institutions exist. Show me a community anchored by a higher tier university that doesn't have a more stable economy, higher incomes, and great quality of life. Regardless, of the tax burden. Tax statistics don't tell us anymore about quality of life than population growth numbers.
What is important is that we should support quality education as a priority and tax ourselves at least adequately enough to deliver on that support. Otherwise, expect lower paying jobs, higher unemployment, more social ills, less culture, etc.
By the way, there are plenty of cold winter weather countries in Europe and I note many of the worst economies there seem to be in the warmer climates: Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain. Scandinavia doesn't seem to be the worse for it. If one looks at nations closer to the equator, I see many economies of little consequence. So, not so sure weather is a sure fire asset for sustaining growth either.
Bottom line: Population numbers are a measurement, not an explanation. One must dig deeper to find the real story.
An interesting perspective on the Census numbers in the NYT. As is always the case, the story is much bigger than the statistics show.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/23/us/23nevada.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/23/us/23nevada.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig)
Ocklawaha, the main point is thus...why in the hell are we
STILL talking about the Civil War?
STILL? If in fact we had "the last confederate funeral," why in the hell did this happen
6 years ago, instead of
145? I'll concede that it wasn't
all about race, slavery or the rest, but to continue to honor and revere a bunch of people who
committed treason and lost? Move on. Y
ou lost...or to be fair, relatives you couldn't possibly know lost a battle that never really impacted you or your life in the first place. The South ain't rising again. Thank goodness for
very large favors. (Man, this entire conversation reminds me of eating at a Waffle House in suburban Atlanta and overhearing snippets of "fun" from the other tables.)
Sadly, I'm sure we won't move on, and on my deathbed, sometime in the latter part of this century, some schmuck is going to bring up "The War of Northern Aggression" as if it remotely matters in 2074, or did in 2034, or did in 2010 on this effin' board!
QuoteGot to be careful looking at "Rates of Growth" or "Percentages" of growth without having access to the actual numbers. New York could have added more people than Florida, but because it is more populous in the first place the rate of growth would be lower when expressed as a percentage.
Wyoming has 600,000 people. If 600,000 people moved there in a decade it would have 100% growth rate. If another 600,000 people moved there in the next decade the growth rate would be (takes off shoes) would "fall" to 50%. "Oh horrors, our growth is slowing!"
"The US is having it's slowest rate of growth in 70 years!" Well, duh. 70 years ago we had 130 million people. Now we have 300 million.
And lest we forget, having
negative growth is generally bad, as you have infrastructure that's far too out sized for the current population, and a lower tax base to keep up said out sized infrastructure. Having a skyrocketing growth rate is
also generally bad, and you can see the effects of such all across Florida (sprawl, lack of planning, traffic, ugly-assed cheap-assed buildings in a sea of parking lots, look-a-like developments...etc.)
But having a decent, if slowing, growth rate, is the best of both worlds: you're growing the economy, the population, the metropolis. And you're not growing so out of control fast that you're left with a mess that needs to be "fixed." Cool beans. beans that are cool.