MsDoodahs
02-17-2008, 11:24 AM
Americans Hate New York and Massachusetts
February 17, 2008 – 9:05 am
In actuality, Louisiana and the District of Columbia are more unpopular with Americans than New York or Massachusetts are, but I don’t like to think of D.C. as a “state” and Louisiana’s issue is decidedly “event-related.” What do I mean by “unpopular?” I mean that the people of America are voting with their feet, and leaving these states in massive numbers.
The analysis is based on Census estimates for July 2006, the latest I’ve found available, and comparing those estimates to the 2000 Census and the change elements implied by the differences. I would view the Census estimates as being fairly accurate for this usage, because I’m not looking at the counts per se, but converting them into percentage changes and looking at categorizations of the states.
My first step was to break down changes in population to those that were organic (the result of people either being born or dying in that state), those that were the result of internal American migration, those that were the result of international immigration, and the total amount of change. Viewed in this light, the primary driver (read: highest cross-correlation) of total growth is internal American migration. Organic growth is more a function of international immigration than of internal American migration, which makes sense in light of historical evidence that first-generation immigrants breed more than subsequent-generation immigrants. Internal migration appears to be mutually independent of (read: low cross-correlation to) international immigration.
I followed that initial breakdown with the following classifications:
Places Everybody Hates: Louisiana and North Dakota. Through 2006, these locations lost more than 2.75% of their 2000 population through internal migration, and grew less than 0.6% through international immigration. Louisiana’s problem is event-related, so one could say it was an exception. In terms of North Dakota, well, let’s just say that -40˚F keeps the riff-raff out.
Places Americans Hate and Immigrants Love: D.C., New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey, and California. Through 2006, these locations lost more than 2.75% of their 2000 population through internal migration, while at the same time, having international immigration inflows representing at least 3.0% of their 2000 population. As a group, their organic growth rate only slightly exceeded the national average. To be clear, these places are growing in population, due to the influx of immigrants and the natural birth/death replacement (which is itself highly correlated with immigrants), but the American people who lived there in 2000 are migrating out in droves. These states currently represent about 28% of the total U.S. population.
Places Americans Like and Immigrants Hate: Montana and Maine. Nobody who lives there seems to breed, nobody seems to want to immigrate there, but Americans seem to be migrating there. Interesting. As you might imagine, the total growth rate for these locations is positive but far below the national average.
Places Everybody Loves: Listed in descending order of percentage population growth, these are Nevada, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Georgia, Texas, North Carolina, Delaware, Washington, Oregon, South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Tennessee. These locations are experiencing both significant internal migration and significant international immigration. The growth leaders of this group, Nevada, Arizona, and Florida, are the three highest states in both migration and immigration over the 2000-2006 period, and Nevada and Arizona are high in organic growth as well. Despite the overall correlation between immigration and breeding, Florida, which is high in immigration, is far below the national average in organic growth. Gotta love those retirees. This total group represents about 31% of the current population.
Places Immigrants Hate, but Americans are Indifferent To: Mississippi, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Nobody expats to these locations, but the internal migratory trends are neutral. I personally think that many of the South Dakotans who move away are replaced by North Dakotans seeking “warmer” climates. While these locations are growing organically, they are doing so very slowly, so their share of the population will continue to shrink over time.
Meh. Yes, “meh” is a category. For 24 of the 51 locations (50 states plus D.C.), representing about 36% of the country’s population, both immigrants and internal migrants are indifferent. These locations are getting some growth through immigration, at a level below the national average but not super-low. They are relatively neutral in terms of migration, and their organic growth rate and total growth rates are below the national averages. In alpha order, they are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Why would this be interesting or useful? I can think of a few reasons why this is worth looking at.
* Is the competition for resources between inflows of immigrants and internal migrants a polarizing force in politics?
* To what extent does rapid growth fuel economic phenomena?
* To what extent do economic phenomena fuel growth prospects?
* To what extent do taxation policies fuel growth prospects?
* To what extent do natural phenomena fuel growth? Overall climate vs. the unrealized or realized odds of natural disaster?
* The next Census will determine the Electorate for the next Presidential election, which was set on 2000 data.
It might also be worth looking at the county-level estimates in-state, and at the county-level estimates by population.
More on this later.
www.billakanodoodahs.com
February 17, 2008 – 9:05 am
In actuality, Louisiana and the District of Columbia are more unpopular with Americans than New York or Massachusetts are, but I don’t like to think of D.C. as a “state” and Louisiana’s issue is decidedly “event-related.” What do I mean by “unpopular?” I mean that the people of America are voting with their feet, and leaving these states in massive numbers.
The analysis is based on Census estimates for July 2006, the latest I’ve found available, and comparing those estimates to the 2000 Census and the change elements implied by the differences. I would view the Census estimates as being fairly accurate for this usage, because I’m not looking at the counts per se, but converting them into percentage changes and looking at categorizations of the states.
My first step was to break down changes in population to those that were organic (the result of people either being born or dying in that state), those that were the result of internal American migration, those that were the result of international immigration, and the total amount of change. Viewed in this light, the primary driver (read: highest cross-correlation) of total growth is internal American migration. Organic growth is more a function of international immigration than of internal American migration, which makes sense in light of historical evidence that first-generation immigrants breed more than subsequent-generation immigrants. Internal migration appears to be mutually independent of (read: low cross-correlation to) international immigration.
I followed that initial breakdown with the following classifications:
Places Everybody Hates: Louisiana and North Dakota. Through 2006, these locations lost more than 2.75% of their 2000 population through internal migration, and grew less than 0.6% through international immigration. Louisiana’s problem is event-related, so one could say it was an exception. In terms of North Dakota, well, let’s just say that -40˚F keeps the riff-raff out.
Places Americans Hate and Immigrants Love: D.C., New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey, and California. Through 2006, these locations lost more than 2.75% of their 2000 population through internal migration, while at the same time, having international immigration inflows representing at least 3.0% of their 2000 population. As a group, their organic growth rate only slightly exceeded the national average. To be clear, these places are growing in population, due to the influx of immigrants and the natural birth/death replacement (which is itself highly correlated with immigrants), but the American people who lived there in 2000 are migrating out in droves. These states currently represent about 28% of the total U.S. population.
Places Americans Like and Immigrants Hate: Montana and Maine. Nobody who lives there seems to breed, nobody seems to want to immigrate there, but Americans seem to be migrating there. Interesting. As you might imagine, the total growth rate for these locations is positive but far below the national average.
Places Everybody Loves: Listed in descending order of percentage population growth, these are Nevada, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Georgia, Texas, North Carolina, Delaware, Washington, Oregon, South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Tennessee. These locations are experiencing both significant internal migration and significant international immigration. The growth leaders of this group, Nevada, Arizona, and Florida, are the three highest states in both migration and immigration over the 2000-2006 period, and Nevada and Arizona are high in organic growth as well. Despite the overall correlation between immigration and breeding, Florida, which is high in immigration, is far below the national average in organic growth. Gotta love those retirees. This total group represents about 31% of the current population.
Places Immigrants Hate, but Americans are Indifferent To: Mississippi, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Nobody expats to these locations, but the internal migratory trends are neutral. I personally think that many of the South Dakotans who move away are replaced by North Dakotans seeking “warmer” climates. While these locations are growing organically, they are doing so very slowly, so their share of the population will continue to shrink over time.
Meh. Yes, “meh” is a category. For 24 of the 51 locations (50 states plus D.C.), representing about 36% of the country’s population, both immigrants and internal migrants are indifferent. These locations are getting some growth through immigration, at a level below the national average but not super-low. They are relatively neutral in terms of migration, and their organic growth rate and total growth rates are below the national averages. In alpha order, they are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Why would this be interesting or useful? I can think of a few reasons why this is worth looking at.
* Is the competition for resources between inflows of immigrants and internal migrants a polarizing force in politics?
* To what extent does rapid growth fuel economic phenomena?
* To what extent do economic phenomena fuel growth prospects?
* To what extent do taxation policies fuel growth prospects?
* To what extent do natural phenomena fuel growth? Overall climate vs. the unrealized or realized odds of natural disaster?
* The next Census will determine the Electorate for the next Presidential election, which was set on 2000 data.
It might also be worth looking at the county-level estimates in-state, and at the county-level estimates by population.
www.billakanodoodahs.com