The 2010 Census - Milken Institute

left: ©viviane moos/corbis, right: ©robert fried/alamy
tk The
2010
Census
america on the cusp
by william h. frey
Second Quarter 2012
47

CCounting every resident of the United
States is a monumental task. And last year,
as the results of the latest national census
dribbled out, demographers lined up to
interpret their meaning. Only now, with
the benefit of some time to analyze the
findings, is the dramatic import of those
statistics coming into focus: the next few
decades will bring demographic changes
that profoundly affect the nation’s culture,
economy and politics.
Bear in mind that the 2010 census form
was the shortest in history – just 10 questions
– because of the jettisoning of the 50-plusquestion
long-form questionnaire that sought
a wealth of details about income sources,
bathroom facilities and the like. (Much of the
information no longer collected so broadly
will still be gleaned from the much smaller,
but more frequently administered, American
Community Survey.) Still, the answers to just
those 10 remaining questions make plain that
who Americans are, along with where and
how they live, is changing radically.
As anticipated, the population is growing
more slowly, aging more rapidly and becoming
more racially diverse from the bottom
(that is, youngest) up. But the changes are altering
the demographic characteristics of specific
regions and localities in patterns that
were not foreseen. The housing crisis, along
with the subsequent recession and almost jobless
recovery, has slowed some of these shifts.
However, seemingly inexorable long-term
trends will reshape the nation and its culture.
growth is on the wane
There is good news here for those who have
William H. Frey, a senior fellow at both the milken
institute and the Brookings institution, specializes in
demography.
48 The Milken Institute Review
U.S. POPULATION GROWTH
18.5%
7.3%
1930-
1940
14.5%
1940-
1950
1950-
1960
13.3%
1960-
1970
11.5%
1970-
1980
9.8%
1980-
1990
13.2%
9.7%
1990-
2000 2000-
2010
bemoaned the relatively rapid growth of the
U.S. population because they feared environmental
damage or the economic burdens created
by floods of impoverished immigrants
(or both). Population growth in this century’s
first decade was the slowest since the Great
Depression – 9.7 percent, compared with 13.2
percent in the 1990s. What’s more, the growth
rate has continued to fall since the census was
completed.
This is a consequence of both short- and
long-term factors. Not surprisingly, the recession
affected the pace of immigration (legal
and illegal) as well as current residents’ decisions
to bear children. Indeed, the scarcity of
jobs in construction, retailing and myriad
low-skill services cut the flow of immigrants
to far less than the million-a-year observed
during most of the 1990s. By the same token,
young people have put off marriage and
childbearing in response to the horrible job
market. And the birth numbers may never
fully recover, because aging is continuing to
shrink the share of women of childbearing
age in the population.
In contrast to many other advanced industrialized
nations, though, U.S. population
growth shows no signs of tanking. The fertility
rate is still near the number needed to stabilize
source: Author’s analysis of U.S. Census and the 2006 American Community Survey (all).

STATE POPULATION GROWTH 2000-2010
CA
OR
WA
AK
NV
ID
AZ
UT
the population in the long run. And unlike
countries like Japan and Italy, the United States
doesn’t face the challenge of a related issue:
making do with a shrinking labor force. Nonetheless,
those of us raised during the peak years
of the baby boom are very unlikely to see that
era’s growth rates replicated in our lifetimes.
we’re moving inland
While the national growth rate has slowed,
sharp regional shifts in population continue to
favor the Sun Belt. Unlike the past, though,
Americans are moving away from the coasts,
not toward them. While the three Sun Belt behemoths
– California, Texas and Florida – continue
to grow, they are no longer the only states
on the move. The four fastest growing states in
the past decade – Nevada (35 percent), Arizona
(25 percent), Idaho (21 percent) and Utah (24
percent) – are all in the Mountain West.
This is reflected, of course, in the reappor-
MT
WY
NM
HI
CO
ND
SD
NE
TX
KS
OK
MN
IA
MO
AR
LA
WI
IL
MI
IN
TN
AL
tionment of seats in the House of Representatives.
Between 1950 and 1990, California,
Texas and Florida accounted for two-thirds of
the gains logged by the South and West. But
between 1990 and 2010, other Sun Belt states
gained more seats than the Big Three. And in
the 2010 census, California came up dry –
even as Arizona, Nevada, Utah and Washington
each gained a seat. Texas was still the biggest
winner overall, gaining four seats. The
biggest congressional losers were Snow Belt
states, in particular, New York and Ohio,
which lost two seats each.
Bear in mind that the census is a snapshot
that masks volatile growth patterns within a
boom-and-bust decade that culminated in
the mortgage meltdown, the Great Recession
and the lowest rates of internal migration
since the end of World War II. Much of the
growth of the South and interior West occurred
during the housing-bubble years, only
MI
KY
OH
GA
WV
SC
FL
PA
VA
NC
NY
Second Quarter 2012
VT
NH
MA
CT
NJ
DE
MD
ME
RI
15%+
10-15%
5-10%
0-5%
Decline
49

RACE AND ETHNICITY:
SHARE OF
2010 POPULATION
2+ Races: 1.9
Other Race: 0.2
Hawaiian: 0.2
Asian: 4.7
Am. Indian: 0.7
SHARE OF 2000-2010 GROWTH
Hispanic:
55.5
White:
8.3
Black: 63.7
Black:
13.7
Hispanic:
16.3
to fall off dramatically in the last part of the
decade. The spectacular swoons in Las Vegas,
Phoenix and Orlando slowed the loss of population
in Los Angeles and New York, where
high housing costs have been pushing Americans
toward the more-affordable interior.
Growth has not picked up in the boom-andbust
interior cities in the year since the census,
but probably will once the economy gets out
of low gear.
population growth
means minority growth
When we talk about population dynamics in
contemporary America, we are largely talking
about the impact of changes in race and ethnicity.
The nation’s growth lull would have
been far more pronounced had it not been for
the ongoing infusion of new minorities. Be-
50 The Milken Institute Review
White:
63.7
Am. Indian: 0.7
Asian: 15.9
Hawaiian: 0.5
Other Race: 0.5
2+ Races: 5.0
METRO AREAS WITH GREATEST
WHITE LOSSES, 2000-2010
— 186,000
San
Francisco
— 193,000
— 195,000
Chicago Detroit
— 268,000
Miami
— 362,000
Los
Angeles
— 559,000
New
York
tween 2000 and 2010, the population grew by
27.3 million, but whites comprised only 2.3
million of them – a mere 8 percent of the
total. This compares with a white contribution
of 20 percent in the 1990s and much
higher shares in earlier decades. Meanwhile,
Hispanics added 15.1 million and Asians 4.3
million to their numbers, together representing
71 percent of the population gain.
Whites still make up 64 percent of the
country, but the new minorities (including
multiracial Americans) were crucial to the
growth in all regions. They accounted for all
or most of the growth in 33 states – and not
just in “melting pot” states like California and
Texas, but in whiter, slower-growing states
like Ohio, Nebraska and Iowa. The latter two
were especially dependent on Hispanics for
their growth.
Minority growth dominated growth in the
nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas, where
minorities contributed fully 98 percent of the
decade’s net growth and now represent 43

METRO AREAS WITH WHITE MInORITy POPuLATIOnS, 2010
White share of population shown in parentheses. Circles are shaded according to the most populous minority group:
San
Francisco
(42%) Stockton (36%)
Modesto (47%)
San
Jose
(35%)
Fresno (33%)
Bakersfield (39%)
Oxnard
Las Vegas (48%)
(49%)
L.A. (32%)
Riverside (37%)
San Diego (48%)
Albuquerque (42%)
El Paso (13%)
Honolulu (19%)
San Antonio (36%)
McAllen (8%)
percent of the population. Indeed, 42 of these
metropolitan areas registered absolute declines
in white population between 2000 and
2010, and minorities are now a majority in 22
of them. While most of the “minority-majority”
cities are in California, Texas and the
Deep South, the list also includes the New
York and Washington metropolitan areas.
Changes in ethnic composition have been
startlingly rapid in some areas: the minority
share of Las Vegas’s population increased
from 40 percent in 2000 to 52 percent in 2010.
Hispanics are now the largest minority in 52
of the 100 largest metropolitan areas, up
from 42 in 2000. All told, Hispanic populations
more than doubled in 29 metropolitan
areas, while Asian residents increased by
more than half in 63 of them. Mexican-
Americans, Asians and Indian-Americans –
groups with very different labor-force profiles
– have led the charge.
Houston (40%)
Memphis (46%)
Jackson (48%)
Hispanic
Asian
Black
New York (49%)
D.C. (49%)
U.S. POPULATION GROWTH
bY AGE, 2000-2010
(Percentage change over 10 years)
11.3%
19.5%
Miami (35%)
1.6%
2.9%
Under 15 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
— 9.0%
50.3%
Second Quarter 2012
15.1%
51

CHILD GROWTH (PERCENT)
pervasive aging,
selective younging
The baby boomers have now reached advanced
middle age and are knocking on the
door of full-fledged seniorhood. Nearly 80
million strong, this generation continues to
inflate the size of the age niches it occupies.
With the last boomers turning 45, the nation
is facing a sharp divide between the rap-
STATES WITH GREATEST GROWTH OF
PRE-SENIORS (AGES 55-64), 2000-2010
HIGHEST GROWTH PERcEnT cHAnGE OvER dEcAdES
1 alaska 92%
2 Colorado 76%
3 Utah 69%
4 Washington 68%
5 idaho 68%
6 Oregon 67%
7 Nevada 66%
30%
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
idly growing senior cohort and tepidly growing
youth cohort. In the census decade, the
number of people 45 and older grew by 26
percent – 18 times faster than the under-45
group! For the first time in history, over half
the nation’s voting-age population is over 45.
(Needless to say, they will have a similar impact
on the size of the 65-74 population before
2020.)
These trends are only beginning to affect
localities. All parts of the country, but especially
the fast-growing Sun Belt areas, will see
a rise in their elderly population. This is no
longer because older people are retiring there
in large numbers, but because Snow Belt residents
who emigrated in droves as young
adults are aging in place. Large metropolitan
areas that experienced the fastest growth (80
percent-plus) in their age 55-64 populations
included Austin, Raleigh, Boise City and Col-
GROWTH AND DECLINES OF STATE CHILD POPULATIONS, 2000-2010
37.9 33.8 35.9 37.4 35.2 36.1 40.0 38.8 33.8 40.7 35.3 38.6 34.6 36.6 37.0 38.1 36.0 38.1 35.8 42.7 38.0
39.1 38.9 37.4 36.0 37.9
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
D.C.
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri

orado Springs. Because boomers are aging in
place everywhere, even stagnant localities like
Youngstown, Buffalo and Cleveland had 30
percent-plus growth in pre-seniors. The Snow
Belt has had time to adjust to aging populations.
That is not the case in many parts of
the Sun Belt, which have yet to create the
public and private infrastructure needed for
oldsters.
An even more surprising development is
the emerging division between states that are
losing children and those that are gaining them.
Nationally, the under-18 cohort grew by a
mere 2.6 percent over the decade. But 23 states
(mostly in the Northeast, Midwest, Appalachia
and the Deep South) registered absolute declines
in child residents. The other 27 states
(including Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona
and Nevada) gained children, because
they are magnets for young-adult migrants
CHANGE IN CHILD POPULATION
bY RACE/ETHNICITY, 2000-2010
White Black
— 4,312,000
39.8 36.2 36.3 41.1 39.0 36.7 38.0 37.4 37.0 38.8 36.2 38.4 40.1 39.4 37.9 36.9 38.0 33.6 29.2 41.5 37.5 37.3 41.3 38.5 36.8 Median Ages for States
— 248,000
Am.
Indian
— 39,000
756,000
26,000
31,000
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
883,000
4,789,000
Asian Hawaii Other 2+
Races Hispanic

2+ Races
Others
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
PERCENT WHITE OF STATE CHILD POPULATIONS
CA
RACE/ETHNICITY bY AGE GROUP,
U.S. POPULATION 2010
Under
5 years
OR
WA
AK
NV
5-17
years
54 The Milken Institute Review
ID
AZ
18-34
years
UT
35-49
years
MT
WY
NM
HI
50-64
years
CO
65-74
years
ND
SD
NE
TX
85+
years
KS
OK
100%
80
60
40
20
0%
MN
IA
MO
AR
LA
WI
IL
MI
IN
TN
AL
MI
KY
OH
GA
Under 50%
50-60%
60-75%
75% +
WV
from other states as well as immigrants.
The nation’s pervasive senior growth, coupled
with its divided child growth, is creating
a demographic fault line demarcated by age.
At the extremes are Maine (median age: 43)
and Utah (median age: 29).
kids and the emerging
cultural generation gaps
The sharp decline in the growth of the youth
population reflects, in large part, the reality
that an increasing proportion of whites are
no longer of childbearing age. In fact, there
was an absolute decline of 4.3 million white
children nationwide, along with small declines
in black and Native American children.
All but four states showed absolute declines in
white children over the 2000-2010 decade, as
did 86 of the 100 largest metropolitan areas.
In most of the 27 states that, on balance,
gained children, Hispanics made the differ-
SC
FL
PA
VA
NC
NY
VT
NH
MA
CT
NJ
DE
MD
ME
RI

ence. Texas led all states in child gains, adding
nearly one million – 95 percent of them Hispanic.
In 12 states, mostly in the West and
South, minority children outnumber whites.
And in another 13, more than 40 percent of
children are minorities. Minority children recently
became the majority in Atlanta, Dallas,
Orlando and Phoenix.
The rapidly growing diversity of the children’s
population stands in stark contrast to
the largely white growth of the senior population.
In effect, the nation’s diversity, bubbling
up from the bottom of the age structure, has
not yet reached the older segments of the
population. The 2010 census revealed an important
tipping point: nearly half (49.7 percent)
of the nation’s infants are now the children
of minority parents, and a quarter of
them are Hispanics. Compare this to the age
85-plus population, which is 85 percent
white; the largest minority within these mostsenior
seniors consists of blacks.
Viewed in generational terms, there is an
especially large cultural divide emerging between
those under age 35 (40 percent minority)
and those over age 50 (more than 70 percent
white). Both the baby boomers and
today’s seniors grew up in an era of low immigration,
when the relatively small minority
population was primarily black. By contrast,
Americans under 35 came of age at a time in
which racial mingling was the norm in classrooms,
workplaces, dance clubs and churches.
The resulting differences in social and political
attitudes can only exacerbate economic
sources of tension – in particular, who will
pay for Social Security, Medicare and public
education – between the young and the old.
adios, ozzie and harriet
Another benchmark recorded by the 2010
census: for the first time, households headed
by married couples were less than half the
SHARES OF U.S. HOUSEHOLDS THAT ARE
MARRIED COUPLES AND TWO-PARENT
FAMILIES, 1950-2010
80%
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0%
1950 ’60 ’70 ’80 ’90 2000 ’10 1950 ’60 ’70 ’80 ’90 2000 ’10
Married Couples Two-Parent Families
total. Meanwhile, the number of marriedcouple-with-child
households declined in absolute
terms, and now represents just onefifth
of all households. “Traditional” nuclear
families, it seems, are no longer at the center
of American life.
The downturn in the married couples’
share reflects a sea change since 1950, when
they made up nearly four out of five households.
The change has been driven by a mix
of factors: greater financial independence for
women, the rise of single-parent households,
the inclination of young couples to live together
without the benefit of wedding vows.
Today, many more people, young and old, live
alone, with unrelated people or in households
headed by single people.
The percentage of households of any kind
with children is lower than it was in 2000, but
only two-parent households declined in absolute
terms. There are still states, including
Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Texas and Idaho, in
which the number of two-parent households
Second Quarter 2012
55

100%
80
60
40
20
0%
RACE/ETHNICITY PROFILES FOR
SUbURbS, 2000 AND 2010
(many of them Hispanic) has grown. Indeed,
the greater inclination of Hispanics to live in
traditional families suggests the potential for
a revival of what was once the cultural norm.
However, the great majority of states are still
registering substantial declines in these sorts
of households.
geographic reversals for blacks
The new census pointed up two striking reversals
in long-term trends for blacks that are
changing racial demographics in America.
One is blacks’ departure from non-Southern
states and metropolitan areas – a 180-degree
turn from the postwar migration to the North
in the quest for better jobs. The second is an
unprecedented black flight from cities to suburbs.
Together, these patterns suggest that
younger blacks are eschewing the segregated
urban life of their parents and grandparents as
they reach the middle class.
While small numbers of blacks have been
returning to the South since the 1970s, the
most recent census was the first to document
absolute losses for places that had earlier been
black destinations – among them New York,
Michigan and California. Meanwhile Florida,
56 The Milken Institute Review
Hispanic
Others
Asian
Black
White
AGE PROFILES FOR SUbURbS,
2000 AND 2010
SOUTH SHARE OF U.S. bLACK POPULATION
GROWTH, 1970-2010
100%
80
60
40
20
0%
Age 45+
Age 25-44
Age Below 25
2000 2010 2000
2010
1960-
1970
1970-
1980
1980-
1990
1990-
2000
Non-
South
South
2000-
2010
Georgia, Texas and North Carolina have all
recorded substantial gains. All told, threequarters
of the growth of the nation’s black
population took place in the South. Atlanta
has now surpassed Chicago as the metropolitan
area with the second-largest black population
(after New York).

The exit of blacks from large cities was also
new in the 2010 census. Six decades after the
onset of white flight to the suburbs, blacks are
following. The core cities within the nation’s
100 largest metropolitan areas registered an
absolute decline in black residents. This occurred
in non-Southern cities including Chicago,
Detroit and New York, as well as in
Southern cities, including Dallas and Houston
– where all of the recent black growth in
the metropolitan areas took place in the suburbs.
Happily, these shifts are also associated
with a modest wane in black-white residential
segregation.
suburbs are becoming
less distinct
Market researchers, politicians and the public
are still inclined to lump suburbs together as
a socioeconomic phenomenon. Suburbs are
seen as predominantly white, with large numbers
of children and lifestyles that are distinct
from the rest of America. But the 2010 census
makes clear this is no longer the case. Half of
all Americans now live in suburbs. And, in aggregate,
within the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan
areas, a majority of Hispanics, blacks
and Asians now live in the suburbs. The same
is true of the foreign-born and poor, who are
now more numerous in the metropolitan
areas’ suburbs than in the central cities.
The shifting racial dynamics of suburbs
are especially striking. White gains have
slowed since 2000, with the bulk of suburban
growth coming from minorities. While the
arrival of blacks is a factor, Hispanics accounted
for nearly half of all the gains in large
metropolitan areas’ suburbs; whites contributed
just 9 percent. Whites are now just 65
percent of suburban residents – almost the
same as their share of the total population,
and well below their 81 percent suburban
share in 1990. In fact, there were absolute de-
clines in white residents in the suburbs of 32
of the 100 largest metropolitan areas.
The generalization that suburbs are dominated
by children and young adults is also becoming
less true. The baby boom population
is the first suburban generation. Now, as the
boomers age in place, the suburbs are aging
with them. Within the largest metropolitan
areas, the suburbs house higher percentages
of seniors and mature adults (and lower percentages
of children) than the metropolitan
areas’ cores.
In 2010, 40 percent of suburbanites in the
big metropolitan areas were older than 45,
compared with 34 percent in 2000. Meanwhile,
in the last census decade, the number
of children living in the suburbs of 34 of the
100 largest metropolitan areas declined.
In essence, the suburbs have become a microcosm
of America. While some remain
largely white, young and home to a lot of
two-parent families with 2.3 children, most
do not. To say “I live in the suburbs” means
about the same thing today as saying “I live in
America.”
new demographics
of the 21st century
The 21st century will be one of slower population
growth, but sharp shifts of population
characteristics will make us a different country.
One key driver is the phalanx of aging
baby boomers that, while no longer at the nation’s
demographic center, will continue to
make its presence felt in the growing numbers
of elderly.
The second, more important driver is the
rise of Hispanic and Asian minorities. The
change toward greater racial and ethnic diversity
will continue upward from the bottom of
the age distribution, leading eventually to a
population with a more global perspective.
Indeed, the 2010 census results suggest that
Second Quarter 2012
57

WHITE SHARE OF AGE GROUP POPULATION
100%
80
60
40
20
0%
STATES WITH HIGH AND LOW CULTURAL GENERATION GAPS
Arizona
Nevada
California
America will become a majority-minority
population well before 2042, the year in
which such a shift had been projected.
The juxtaposition of young, new-minority-
driven growth against a stagnant, aging white
population is occurring at different speeds in
different regions. The most racially diverse
and youthful populations are in fast-growing
states of the West and South, where people
are headed inland, away from the traditional
coastal magnets.
In contrast, large swaths of the country, including
the non-coastal Northeast, the Midwest
and parts of the old South, are observing
slow growth or even declines in their youth
populations while remaining home to large
numbers of white baby boomers and seniors.
The demographic profiles of these states will
eventually converge with those of more diverse
states. But in the interim, they will be
adapting – often fitfully – to the changes
going on elsewhere.
To different degrees, regions are experiencing
cultural generation gaps in both public
and private arenas, creating conflict over is-
58 The Milken Institute Review
Under 18 Age 65+
New Mexico
Texas
West Virginia
Vermont
Maine
New Hampshire
Kentucky
sues that are important to young minorities
(immigration reform, the quality of public
schools, affordable housing) against those
that are dear to boomers and seniors (medical
and retirement benefits). The gaps will
occur in communities of all sizes, but will be
widest in states where the presence of young
minorities is new and the race-ethnic profiles
of the younger generation differ most from
the older generation – like Arizona, Nevada,
California and Texas. The diffusion of these
minorities, initially widening cultural gaps
and then burying them with sheer numbers,
is a near certainty.
The emergence of the culture generation
gap, along with unprecedented shifts that are
upending stereotypes about households, cities
and suburbs and racial residence patterns,
make clear that America is on the cusp of
great cultural change. The demographic
trends are accelerating, but in ways we can
reasonably predict. This gives us some lead
time to deal with both the challenges and opportunities
they present. The time, one hopes,
will not be squandered.
m
U.S.