The 2010 Census - Milken Institute

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1: left: ©viviane moos/corbis, right:
Page 5 and 6: METRO AREAS WITH WHITE MInORITy POP
Page 7 and 8: orado Springs. Because boomers are
Page 9 and 10: ence. Texas led all states in child
Page 11 and 12: The exit of blacks from large citie

The 2010 Census - Milken Institute

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?