population

New York Urban Area Map

Wendell Cox — Mon, 25 Apr 2022 12:31:26 -0400

A commenter on the article (Comparing Urban Densities: Winnipeg and New York) expressed an interest in seeing the extent of the New York urban area. The main page of the Census Bureau map is posted here (PDF, 9MB). The map is difficult to read, but easier if the zoom function is employed. The New York urban area is defined by a black line, and extends:

South to the southern tip of Long Beach Island, in Ocean County, New Jersey, about 10 miles from the city limits of Atlantic City --- about 85 miles south of Manhattan (“as the crow flies”).
West to within 7 miles of the Pennsylvania border, in Warren County, New Jersey --- about 50 miles west of Manhattan.
North to southern Dutchess County, New York --- about 60 miles of Manhattan)
East to 25 miles west of Montauk, New York (east end of Long Island) --- about 85 miles east of Manhattan.

The entire map is available here and contains 22 maps with more detailed information.

In 2010, the New York urban area covered 3,450 square miles (8,936 square kilometers), with a population of 18.351 million and a population density of 5,319 per square mile (2,054 per square kilometer). Among the large urban areas in the United States, New York was the fourth densest, trailing Los Angeles (6,999 per square mile), San Francisco (6,267 per square mile) and San Jose (5,820 per square mile).

Urban areas are defined by Census Bureau criteria principally using population density of continuously developed urbanization. The 2010 census urban area criteria are here. The 2020 data has not yet been released.

Metropolitan areas are organized around urban areas, and their corresponding “central counties.” The central counties associated with a particular urbanized area or urban cluster are grouped to form a single cluster of central counties for purposes of measuring commuting to and from potentially qualifying outlying counties. Central counties are defined as “those counties that:

Have at least 50 percent of their population in urban areas of at least 10,000 population; or
Have within their boundaries a population of at least 5,000 located in a single urban area of at least 10,000 population.”

Metropolitan areas comprise the central counties and “outlying counties that meet commuting interchange criteria. Urban areas can have small extensions into counties not within the corresponding metropolitan area, such as Warren County, New Jersey and Dutchess County, New York as in the case of the New York urban area (above).

Due to the huge size of the New York urban area, all but one of the 23 metropolitan counties is “central.” Only Pike County, Pennsylvania is an “outlying” county.

There is a misimpression that metropolitan areas are organized around commuting into central business districts, or central cities (municipalities). In fact, the current commuting criteria relates only to central counties --- the 22 in New York metropolitan area, not Manhattan or the city of New York.

Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international public policy firm located in the St. Louis metropolitan area. He is a founding senior fellow at the Urban Reform Institute, Houston, a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Winnipeg and a member of the Advisory Board of the Center for Demographics and Policy at Chapman University in Orange, California. He has served as a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers in Paris. His principal interests are economics, poverty alleviation, demographics, urban policy and transport. He is co-author of the annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey and author of Demographia World Urban Areas.

Mayor Tom Bradley appointed him to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (1977-1985) and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich appointed him to the Amtrak Reform Council, to complete the unexpired term of New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman (1999-2002). He is author of War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life and Toward More Prosperous Cities: A Framing Essay on Urban Areas, Transport, Planning and the Dimensions of Sustainability.

2020 Census: Predictable California, Surprising New York and New Jersey

Wendell Cox — Mon, 26 Apr 2021 23:32:34 -0400

The US Census Bureau announced national, state and District of Columbia 2020 Census population totals yesterday. The big story in the media was the changes in Congressional apportionment, which are detailed later in this article.

Note: This article summarizes the first results of the 2020 census (national, states and DC). A table at the end of the article provides 2020 census figures, change from 2010, percentage change and comparison to expected, along with rankings in each category.

The big stories, from a demographic rather than a political perspective were (in my judgment) in California, New York and New Jersey, Texas and Florida, as well as the Mountain West.

California, Texas and Florida

First, as predicted, the California malaise continued. For the second Census in a row, California placed second after Texas in total population gain. Texas gained 4.0 million residents, while California gained 2.3 million. The Texas lead of 1.7 million nearly doubled compared to its 900,000 lead between 2000 to 2010. But there’s more. Florida also led California over the last census period by 450,000. California had added the largest number of residents in every census from 1930 through 2010.

New York and New Jersey

But the big surprise is New York, in which the Census Bureau was estimating an increase of about 75,000 residents between 2010 and 2019. The newly reported census figure for New York was up 823,000 from 2010, This more than doubles New York’s 2000-2010 gain.

There’s good reason to believe that the unexpected New York increase will be contained in the New York metropolitan area. New Jersey, much of which is included in the New York metropolitan area, also had a 2020 census reported population much higher than expected. Through 2019, the Census Bureau estimated that New Jersey’s population had risen just over 100,000 from 2010. The new 2020 estimate of 9.82 million is nearly 500,000 greater than in 2010.

It will be interesting to see the distribution of the higher population when figures are available

Utah, Idaho and the Top Five Proportionate Gainers

Meanwhile, the stars in proportionate population growth were in the Mountain West. Utah led with an 18.2% increase. Idaho was second at 17.3%. Despite its huge population, Texas slipped into the number 3 position, at 15.9%. North Dakota, in the Great Plains, added 15.0%, with its more than 100,000 increase being more the state gained from 1920 to 2010. Mountain West Nevada placed 5th with a 15.0% increase.

States Losing Population

The largest loss, at 3.2% was in West Virginia. Mississippi (minus 0.2%) and Illinois (minus 0.1%) also lost population

Changes in Apportionment

Based on the new census counts six states will gain seats in Congress. Texas will gain two seats, while Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina and Oregon will each gain one. Seven states will lose one seat apiece, including California, for the first time since becoming a state in 1850. Illinois, Michigan, New York (despite the unexpected gain), Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia will also lose seats.

View/download the Table of 2020 Census First Results (PDF)

California Loses 70,000 Residents 2019 to 2020

Wendell Cox — Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:25:45 -0500

The Census Bureau has just published its 2020 state population estimates, which indicate that the state that has led growth in the United States for the last 170 years lost 70,000 residents last year. For the first five years of the decade, California had gained 300,000 residents, with a total gain over the period of 1.6 million. Since 2015, California’s population gain plummeted, reaching virtually zero in 2019 and the loss in 2020 (Figure 1). At the same time, the Census Bureau restated California’s 2018 to 2019 population change, which had been shown as a gain of 51,000 last year to a gain of only 147.

This may be California’s first annual population loss since statehood (1850). According to Census Bureau data reported by macrotrends.net, California had gained population in every year since 1900. Earlier annual data was not found.

National Trends

Overall, the national population growth rate has been falling throughout the decade. In 2011, the nation added 0.73% to its population, and fell to 0.35% in 2020. In 2019, the gain was 0.46%. The smaller gain in 2020 is likely attributable to the generally downward trend and smaller international migration flows in the COVID environment.

Over the past year, the South has accounted for 85% of the nation’s growth, adding nearly 1,000,000 residents. The West had 30% of the growth (350,000). The Midwest experienced a modest loss (20,000), while the Northeast lost more than 150,000 residents (Figure 2).

Fastest Gainers

Texas added the largest number of residents in the last year, at 374,000. Florida was second, at 241,000 and Arizona was third at 130,000 (Figure 3). Among the top ten states, six were from the South and the other four from the Intermountain West. The five Pacific Coast states added about 25,000 residents, with an 80,000 gain in Washington and 25,000 in Oregon, which was nearly offset by losses in California, Hawaii and Alaska.

The largest percentage gain was in Idaho, which added 2.11% between 2019 and 2020. Arizona, Nevada and Utah all gained more than 1.40%. Texas ranked 5th, while Florida placed 7th (Figure 4).

Fastest Losers

By far the largest losses were in New York (minus 126,000), Illinois (minus 79,000) and California (minus 70,000). Sixteen states had population losses (Figure 5). New York had the largest percentage loss from 2019 to 2020, at 0.65%. The largest percentage losses were in Illinois, Hawaii and West Virginia, all had losses exceeding 0.55%. California had the 10th largest percentage loss, at 0.18% (Figure 6).

As was the case in 2010, this year’s estimates did not include migration data, unlike the earlier years in the decade.

The 2020 estimates will be superseded by the 2020 Census counts, which will be released in the near future.

The table below shows the 2010 Census as well as the 2019 and 2020 population estimates.

Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international public policy firm located in the St. Louis metropolitan area. He is a founding senior fellow at the Urban Reform Institute, Houston and a member of the Advisory Board of the Center for Demographics and Policy at Chapman University in Orange, California. He has served as a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers in Paris. His principal interests are economics, poverty alleviation, demographics, urban policy and transport. He is co-author of the annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey and author of Demographia World Urban Areas.

Photograph: Great Seal of the State of California via Wikimedia.

2020 Population Estimates

	2010 Census	2019 Estimate	2020 Estimate	2019-20 #	2019-20 %
United States	309,327,143	328,329,953	329,484,123	1,154,170	0.35%

Alabama	4,785,514	4,907,965	4,921,532	13,567	0.28%
Alaska	713,982	733,603	731,158	(2,445)	-0.33%
Arizona	6,407,342	7,291,843	7,421,401	129,558	1.78%
Arkansas	2,921,998	3,020,985	3,030,522	9,537	0.32%
California	37,319,550	39,437,610	39,368,078	(69,532)	-0.18%
Colorado	5,047,539	5,758,486	5,807,719	49,233	0.85%
Connecticut	3,579,173	3,566,022	3,557,006	(9,016)	-0.25%
Delaware	899,647	976,668	986,809	10,141	1.04%
District of Columbia	605,282	708,253	712,816	4,563	0.64%
Florida	18,846,143	21,492,056	21,733,312	241,256	1.12%
Georgia	9,712,209	10,628,020	10,710,017	81,997	0.77%
Hawaii	1,364,004	1,415,615	1,407,006	(8,609)	-0.61%
Idaho	1,570,819	1,789,060	1,826,913	37,853	2.12%
Illinois	12,840,545	12,667,017	12,587,530	(79,487)	-0.63%
Indiana	6,490,555	6,731,010	6,754,953	23,943	0.36%
Iowa	3,050,819	3,159,596	3,163,561	3,965	0.13%
Kansas	2,858,266	2,912,635	2,913,805	1,170	0.04%
Kentucky	4,348,464	4,472,345	4,477,251	4,906	0.11%
Louisiana	4,544,635	4,658,285	4,645,318	(12,967)	-0.28%
Maine	1,327,651	1,345,770	1,350,141	4,371	0.32%
Maryland	5,788,784	6,054,954	6,055,802	848	0.01%
Massachusetts	6,566,440	6,894,883	6,893,574	(1,309)	-0.02%
Michigan	9,877,597	9,984,795	9,966,555	(18,240)	-0.18%
Minnesota	5,310,934	5,640,053	5,657,342	17,289	0.31%
Mississippi	2,970,615	2,978,227	2,966,786	(11,441)	-0.38%
Missouri	5,996,089	6,140,475	6,151,548	11,073	0.18%
Montana	990,730	1,070,123	1,080,577	10,454	0.98%
Nebraska	1,829,591	1,932,571	1,937,552	4,981	0.26%
Nevada	2,702,483	3,090,771	3,138,259	47,488	1.54%
New Hampshire	1,316,807	1,360,783	1,366,275	5,492	0.40%
New Jersey	8,799,451	8,891,258	8,882,371	(8,887)	-0.10%
New Mexico	2,064,614	2,099,634	2,106,319	6,685	0.32%
New York	19,399,956	19,463,131	19,336,776	(126,355)	-0.65%
North Carolina	9,574,586	10,501,384	10,600,823	99,439	0.95%
North Dakota	674,752	763,724	765,309	1,585	0.21%
Ohio	11,539,449	11,696,507	11,693,217	(3,290)	-0.03%
Oklahoma	3,760,014	3,960,676	3,980,783	20,107	0.51%
Oregon	3,837,614	4,216,116	4,241,507	25,391	0.60%
Pennsylvania	12,711,406	12,798,883	12,783,254	(15,629)	-0.12%
Rhode Island	1,053,994	1,058,158	1,057,125	(1,033)	-0.10%
South Carolina	4,635,846	5,157,702	5,218,040	60,338	1.17%
South Dakota	816,193	887,127	892,717	5,590	0.63%
Tennessee	6,355,518	6,830,325	6,886,834	56,509	0.83%
Texas	25,241,897	28,986,794	29,360,759	373,965	1.29%
Utah	2,775,413	3,203,383	3,249,879	46,496	1.45%
Vermont	625,886	624,046	623,347	(699)	-0.11%
Virginia	8,024,004	8,556,642	8,590,563	33,921	0.40%
Washington	6,743,009	7,614,024	7,693,612	79,588	1.05%
West Virginia	1,854,265	1,795,263	1,784,787	(10,476)	-0.58%
Wisconsin	5,690,538	5,824,581	5,832,655	8,074	0.14%
Wyoming	564,531	580,116	582,328	2,212	0.38%
Source: US Census Bureau

Feudal Future Podcast, with John Russo

Joel Kotkin and Marshall Toplansky — Wed, 28 Oct 2020 22:59:30 -0400

On today's episode of Feudal Future hosts Joel Kotkin and Marshall Toplansky interview John Russo, co-author of Steel Town USA and a visiting scholar at Georgetown University. John has spent most of his academic career at Youngstown State University in Ohio, and he has spent much time cataloguing the plight of the middle class and working class in the US.

As the conversation begins, John talks about the political situation in Ohio. While Donald Trump polled well in Ohio in 2016, with the 2020 presidential election right around the corner, John notes that Trump is now in trouble in Ohio. He explains from his observations in Youngstown how this change occurred, specifically citing the development of disillusionment with Trump. John also comments on demographics in Ohio, an article he wrote on Trump’s prospects in the state, Operation Grant, schism within the Republican party, and party polarization.

Next, focus shifts to issues surrounding the election itself. John does not offer a concrete guess as to who will win, but comments that the election is not so much about Trump and Biden as it is about the American people and their future. The election marks a significant generational shift as a new wave of young voters steps up, and John explains how this generation differs from generations that preceded it. He shares about potential conflict in the Democratic party, the idea of a “political parabola,” and realities of fear among voters.

Finally, the conversation turns to thoughts on the future, focusing first on the top three policy initiatives of the prospective Biden administration before turning to the future of capitalism, which John imagines will look more like the system established in China. As the episode moves toward a close, Joel, Marshall, and John talk about issues in the technology sphere, the last chance for the democratic party, labor reform, and more!

Listen on Apple Podcast

Listen on Stitcher

Listen on Spotify

More podcast episodes & show notes at JoelKotkin.com

Watch Episode on Youtube

Learn about John Russo.
Learn more about the Feudal Future podcast.
Learn more about Marshall Toplansky.
Learn more about Joel Kotkin.

Join the Beyond Feudalism Facebook group.
Read the Beyond Feudalism report.
Leran about Joel's book, The Coming of Neo-Feudalism.

Feudal Future Podcast — Making Sense Of Urban Density, Death Rates & Dispersion With Wendell Cox

Charlie Stephens — Fri, 21 Aug 2020 14:57:50 -0400

In this episode of the Feudal Future podcast, hosts Joel Kotkin and Marshall Toplansky interview one of their longtime collaborators, Wendell Cox. He is an expert in urban policy, focusing much of his work on demographics and transportation, and he joins Joel and Marshall for a conversation on the COVID-19 pandemic, death rates, and public policy.

The first topic of the conversation is a chart Wendell explains correlating death rates from COVID-19 and urban density rates. Wendell describes the significance of urban density, specifically as it contrasts with county density. Urban density is associated with overcrowding in close spaces, and highlights the need not only for social distancing, but also for good ventilation. The group considers the possible reasons behind a seemingly low death rate in Manhattan, the issue of dense housing, and how various parts of California fare on the chart.

Next, the group considers implications of the issues of density and death represented by Wendell’s chart. They think about possible policy changes to come, and Wendell argues that we need to avoid full lockdown as we move forward in order to avoid bringing more ruin to the economy. Rather than locking down, we ought to specify our problem areas and target them. Further, rather than making the politically correct move of denying the problem of density, we need to look our situation in the face, figure out what’s happening, and take action to address it.

The group talks through what changes may be needed in the days ahead. There are issues to address with regard to building codes and transit systems. There are also major questions to answer about how to move cities - such as the majorly impacted city of New York - toward recovery. Wendell instructs Marshall and Joel in how to think about the example of Asian cities, speaks with them about how various cities in the US are faring now and how they may move forward, and emphasizes the need for cities to consider where people are going.

Listen on Apple Podcast

Listen on Stitcher

Listen on Spotify

More podcast episodes & show notes at JoelKotkin.com

Watch this episode on YouTube:

Learn about Wendell Cox.
Learn more about the Feudal Future podcast.
Learn more about Marshall Toplansky.
Learn more about Joel Kotkin.
Join the Beyond Feudalism Facebook group.
Read the Beyond Feudalism report.
Leran about Joel's book, The Coming of Neo-Feudalism.

Visualizing Houston’s Population Density

Brian Shreckengast — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:34:33 -0500

Population density may sound like the most mundane of metrics, a column heading in a city planner’s spreadsheet, but in cities across the U.S. it’s been a source of cultural controversy, guiding where people move and why.

To those seeking a more urban lifestyle, “density” implies walkability, car-free transit, and cosmopolitan culture. To others, “density” equates to crowds, cramped quarters, and the inability to find parking. The debate arises around nearly every planning decision under consideration in cities like Charlotte, often devolving into vicious debate.

Where these debates often breakdown is when it comes to the relative nature of population density: How dense is ‘dense’? Is Houston dense? We should all be able to agree that New York is dense, right? Well, not compared to Paris, let alone Manila.

In order to put Houston’s density in perspective, we put together a series of visualizations showing how large Houston would be if it were as dense as other cities.

If Houston’s population lived as close together as New York’s does, how much space would they take up? Compared to cities like Mumbai, or even Los Angeles, Houston is a sprawl, while compared with Jacksonville and Anchorage, Houston is practically Manhattan.

Note that Houston’s city limits were used for this visualization, not the metro area. While some readers may object to the exclusion of surrounding locales, metro areas are not as well defined as city limits and that is often a matter of debate itself.

Metropolitan Populations from 1900 Posted (Current Geographies)

Wendell Cox — Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:03:37 -0400

We have posted population data for the nation's major metropolitan areas for censuses from 1900 to 2010 and as estimated in 2013. These data are use the current (2013) boundaries to define metropolitan areas. There is no consistent list historical listing of metropolitan area populations using the commuting criteria that define the 2010 and 2013 metropolitan areas. Thus, in using the data in this new report, caution should be employed.

North Dakota Leads Population Growth Again

Wendell Cox — Mon, 30 Dec 2013 23:49:06 -0500

New US Census Bureau state level estimates have just been released. Repeating the pattern similar to that developing since 2010, North Dakota, the District of Columbia, Texas, Utah and Colorado have posted the strongest percentage gains. North Dakota added 3.1 percent to its population between 2012 and 2013 and 7.6 percent since the 2010 Census. Close behind was the District of Columbia, which added 7.4 percent since 2010, though its growth over the past year has been at a lower 2.1 percent rate.

Texas added the most residents of any other state over the last three years (1.3 million), a fifth more than 22nd ranked California, which is nearly 50 percent larger. Texas has added 5.2 percent to its population since 2010, while California has added 2.9 percent.

Utah grew 5.0 percent, followed closely by Colorado, at 4.8 percent.

Former perennial growth leader Florida continues to recover, placing 6th, with a three year growth rate of 4.0 percent. At its present growth rate, Florida should pass New York by 2014, to become the fourth largest state. South Dakota, Washington, Arizona and Alaska rounded out the top ten.

The slowest growing states were Rhode Island (the only state to lose population since 2010), Maine, West Virginia, Michigan and Vermont. A table is attached with the data.

States Ranked by 2010-2013 Population Change
Rank		2010 Census	2012	2013	Pop. Change 2010-2013	% Change 2012-2013	% Change 2010-2013
1	North Dakota	672,591	701,345	723,393	50,802	3.1%	7.6%
2	District of Columbia	601,723	633,427	646,449	44,726	2.1%	7.4%
3	Texas	25,145,561	26,060,796	26,448,193	1,302,632	1.5%	5.2%
4	Utah	2,763,885	2,854,871	2,900,872	136,987	1.6%	5.0%
5	Colorado	5,029,196	5,189,458	5,268,367	239,171	1.5%	4.8%
6	Florida	18,801,310	19,320,749	19,552,860	751,550	1.2%	4.0%
7	South Dakota	814,180	834,047	844,877	30,697	1.3%	3.8%
8	Washington	6,724,540	6,895,318	6,971,406	246,866	1.1%	3.7%
9	Arizona	6,392,017	6,551,149	6,626,624	234,607	1.2%	3.7%
10	Alaska	710,231	730,307	735,132	24,901	0.7%	3.5%
11	Wyoming	563,626	576,626	582,658	19,032	1.0%	3.4%
12	Nevada	2,700,551	2,754,354	2,790,136	89,585	1.3%	3.3%
13	North Carolina	9,535,483	9,748,364	9,848,060	312,577	1.0%	3.3%
14	Virginia	8,001,024	8,186,628	8,260,405	259,381	0.9%	3.2%
15	South Carolina	4,625,364	4,723,417	4,774,839	149,475	1.1%	3.2%
16	Hawaii	1,360,301	1,390,090	1,404,054	43,753	1.0%	3.2%
17	Georgia	9,687,653	9,915,646	9,992,167	304,514	0.8%	3.1%
18	Delaware	897,934	917,053	925,749	27,815	0.9%	3.1%
19	California	37,253,956	37,999,878	38,332,521	1,078,565	0.9%	2.9%
20	Idaho	1,567,582	1,595,590	1,612,136	44,554	1.0%	2.8%
21	Maryland	5,773,552	5,884,868	5,928,814	155,262	0.7%	2.7%
22	Oklahoma	3,751,351	3,815,780	3,850,568	99,217	0.9%	2.6%
23	Montana	989,415	1,005,494	1,015,165	25,750	1.0%	2.6%
24	Oregon	3,831,074	3,899,801	3,930,065	98,991	0.8%	2.6%
25	Tennessee	6,346,105	6,454,914	6,495,978	149,873	0.6%	2.4%
26	Nebraska	1,826,341	1,855,350	1,868,516	42,175	0.7%	2.3%
27	Massachusetts	6,547,629	6,645,303	6,692,824	145,195	0.7%	2.2%
28	Minnesota	5,303,925	5,379,646	5,420,380	116,455	0.8%	2.2%
29	Louisiana	4,533,372	4,602,134	4,625,470	92,098	0.5%	2.0%
30	Arkansas	2,915,918	2,949,828	2,959,373	43,455	0.3%	1.5%
31	Iowa	3,046,355	3,075,039	3,090,416	44,061	0.5%	1.4%
32	Kansas	2,853,118	2,885,398	2,893,957	40,839	0.3%	1.4%
33	New York	19,378,102	19,576,125	19,651,127	273,025	0.4%	1.4%
34	Indiana	6,483,802	6,537,782	6,570,902	87,100	0.5%	1.3%
35	Kentucky	4,339,367	4,379,730	4,395,295	55,928	0.4%	1.3%
36	New Mexico	2,059,179	2,083,540	2,085,287	26,108	0.1%	1.3%
37	New Jersey	8,791,894	8,867,749	8,899,339	107,445	0.4%	1.2%
38	Alabama	4,779,736	4,817,528	4,833,722	53,986	0.3%	1.1%
39	Wisconsin	5,686,986	5,724,554	5,742,713	55,727	0.3%	1.0%
40	Missouri	5,988,927	6,024,522	6,044,171	55,244	0.3%	0.9%
41	Mississippi	2,967,297	2,986,450	2,991,207	23,910	0.2%	0.8%
42	Connecticut	3,574,097	3,591,765	3,596,080	21,983	0.1%	0.6%
43	Pennsylvania	12,702,379	12,764,475	12,773,801	71,422	0.1%	0.6%
44	New Hampshire	1,316,470	1,321,617	1,323,459	6,989	0.1%	0.5%
45	Illinois	12,830,632	12,868,192	12,882,135	51,503	0.1%	0.4%
46	Ohio	11,536,504	11,553,031	11,570,808	34,304	0.2%	0.3%
47	Vermont	625,741	625,953	626,630	889	0.1%	0.1%
48	Michigan	9,883,640	9,882,519	9,895,622	11,982	0.1%	0.1%
49	West Virginia	1,852,994	1,856,680	1,854,304	1,310	-0.1%	0.1%
50	Maine	1,328,361	1,328,501	1,328,302	(59)	0.0%	0.0%
51	Rhode Island	1,052,567	1,050,304	1,051,511	(1,056)	0.1%	-0.1%
	United States	308,745,538	313,873,685	316,128,839	7,383,301	0.7%	2.4%

How Electricity and TV Diffused the "Population Bomb"

Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus — Wed, 15 May 2013 10:19:37 -0400

In the late sixties, India was the poster child of Third World poverty. In 1965, the monsoon rains failed to arrive, food production crashed, and much of the country was on the brink of starving. Asked for help, President Lyndon Johnson is reported to have told an aide, "I'm not going to piss away foreign aid in nations where they refuse to deal with their own population problems." Johnson came around, but by the end of the decade India was viewed in the West as, at best, a basket case and, at worst, a "population bomb" that threatened the entire planet.

Given this history, it's hard not to see the success India has had feeding its people and slowing population growth as the finale to a Bollywood movie — one most Americans stopped watching in 1970. "In a recent exercise," Stanford's Martin Lewis writes in a new article for The Breakthrough, "most of my students believed that India’s total fertility rate was twice that of the United States. Many of my colleagues believed the same. In actuality, it is only 2.5, barely above the estimated U.S. rate of 2.1 in 2011, and essentially the replacement level."

What did it? Lewis created a series of fascinating maps comparing Indian fertility rates to per capita wealth, female education level, electrification, access to TV, and other metrics to answer this question. His first map is one of the most striking. It shows the entire southern half of the country, plus the northern pan handle, as having fertility rates below replacement levels.

Wealth, electricity, education, and moving to the city are all loosely correlated with lower fertility, but the strongest correlation is watching television. "The map of television ownership in India," writes Lewis, "does bear a particularly close resemblance to the fertility map." He notes that two Indian states with a low level of female education, which is traditionally inversely correlated with low fertility, still had low fertility rates, a fact that may be explained by its high levels of TV penetration. Lewis bolsters his argument by pointing to a study from India that found declining fertility after cable TV was introduced into poor neighborhoods.

How does TV act as a contraceptive? Lewis notes it may be because "many of its offerings provide a model of middle class families successfully grappling with the transition from tradition to modernity, helped by the fact that they have few children to support." It may not be TV generally, but rather soap operas specifically that paint a vision for poor women of how much better life with fewer kids might be.

Maybe the reason the West has been so slow to appreciate this Indian success story, Lewis speculates, is because it contradicts everything we've come to believe about overpopulation. Back in the late sixties, some prominent Western ecologists called for the sterilization of Indian men and the halting of food aid, so as to not prolong the suffering. A book called The Population Bomb that proposed these things sold four million copies.

Hopefully now, anyone concerned about both human development and the environment will come to see electricity, rising wealth for the poor, and even TV not as anathema to human development but, at least in many parts of the world, essential to it.

Read the article at The Breakthrough: "Population Bomb? So Wrong, How Electricity, Development, and TV Reduce Fertility"

New Metropolitan Area Definition Winners: New York, Charlotte, Grand Rapids, and Indianapolis

Wendell Cox — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:21:35 -0400

Metropolitan America continues to expand. The new Office of Management and Budget metropolitan area definitions, based upon the 2010 census indicate that the counties composing the 52 metropolitan areas with more than 1 million population increased by 1.65 million from the previous definition. This includes more than 1.4 million new residents in the previous 51 major metropolitan areas and more than 200,000 in Grand Rapids, which has become the nation's 52nd metropolitan area with more than 1 million population.

The fastest growers due to the addition of counties were New York, Charlotte, Grand Rapids, and Indianapolis. New York had a 670,000 increase in its metropolitan population, resulting from the addition of Dutchess and Orange counties. New counties also increased the population of the Charlotte metropolitan area by 459,000, the Grand Rapids metropolitan area by 215,000 and Indianapolis by 132,000. The largest percentage gains were in Grand Rapids (28%) and Charlotte (26%).

Ten metropolitan areas had population increases under 100,000 from expansion of the metropolitan area definitions.

For the most part, the major metropolitan area county components were unchanged, with 31 having the same boundaries as under the previous definition. Six metropolitan areas were reduced in geographic size.

The changes in population for 2000 based upon the new metropolitan area definitions are indicated in the table. The components of metropolitan areas are determined by commuting patterns to urban areas (not to the historical core municipalities).

Effect of New Metropolitan Area Geographic Definition on Population: 2010
Population Change Rank	Metropolitan Area	Old Definition	New Definition (2013)	Change	% Change
12	Atlanta, GA	5,268,860	5,286,728	17,868	0.3%
15	Austin, TX	1,716,289	1,716,289	0	0.0%
15	Baltimore, MD	2,710,489	2,710,489	0	0.0%
15	Birmingham, AL	1,128,047	1,128,047	0	0.0%
15	Boston, MA-NH	4,552,402	4,552,402	0	0.0%
15	Buffalo, NY	1,135,509	1,135,509	0	0.0%
2	Charlotte, NC-SC	1,758,038	2,217,012	458,974	26.1%
15	Chicago, IL-IN-WI	9,461,105	9,461,105	0	0.0%
46	Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN	2,130,151	2,114,580	(15,571)	-0.7%
15	Cleveland, OH	2,077,240	2,077,240	0	0.0%
7	Columbus, OH	1,836,536	1,901,974	65,438	3.6%
8	Dallas-Fort Worth, TX	6,371,773	6,426,214	54,441	0.9%
15	Denver, CO	2,543,482	2,543,482	0	0.0%
15	Detroit, MI	4,296,250	4,296,250	0	0.0%
3	Grand Rapids, MI	774,160	988,938	214,778	27.7%
15	Hartford, CT	1,212,381	1,212,381	0	0.0%
49	Houston, TX	5,946,800	5,920,416	(26,384)	-0.4%
4	Indianapolis. IN	1,756,241	1,887,877	131,636	7.5%
15	Jacksonville, FL	1,345,596	1,345,596	0	0.0%
48	Kansas City, MO-KS	2,035,334	2,009,342	(25,992)	-1.3%
15	Las Vegas, NV	1,951,269	1,951,269	0	0.0%
15	Los Angeles, CA	12,828,837	12,828,837	0	0.0%
51	Louisville, KY-IN	1,283,566	1,235,708	(47,858)	-3.7%
13	Memphis, TN-MS-AR	1,316,100	1,324,829	8,729	0.7%
15	Miami, FL	5,564,635	5,564,635	0	0.0%
15	Milwaukee,WI	1,555,908	1,555,908	0	0.0%
6	Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI	3,279,833	3,348,859	69,026	2.1%
5	Nashville, TN	1,589,934	1,670,890	80,956	5.1%
11	New Orleans. LA	1,167,764	1,189,866	22,102	1.9%
1	New York, NY-NJ-PA	18,897,109	19,567,410	670,301	3.5%
15	Oklahoma City, OK	1,252,987	1,252,987	0	0.0%
15	Orlando, FL	2,134,411	2,134,411	0	0.0%
15	Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD	5,965,343	5,965,343	0	0.0%
15	Phoenix, AZ	4,192,887	4,192,887	0	0.0%
15	Pittsburgh, PA	2,356,285	2,356,285	0	0.0%
15	Portland, OR-WA	2,226,009	2,226,009	0	0.0%
15	Providence, RI-MA	1,600,852	1,600,852	0	0.0%
15	Raleigh, NC	1,130,490	1,130,490	0	0.0%
52	Richmond, VA	1,258,251	1,208,101	(50,150)	-4.0%
15	Riverside-San Bernardino, CA	4,224,851	4,224,851	0	0.0%
10	Rochester, NY	1,054,323	1,079,671	25,348	2.4%
15	Sacramento, CA	2,149,127	2,149,127	0	0.0%
47	St. Louis,, MO-IL	2,812,896	2,787,701	(25,195)	-0.9%
50	Salt Lake City, UT	1,124,197	1,087,873	(36,324)	-3.2%
15	San Antonio, TX	2,142,508	2,142,508	0	0.0%
15	San Diego, CA	3,095,313	3,095,313	0	0.0%
15	San Francisco-Oakland, CA	4,335,391	4,335,391	0	0.0%
15	San Jose, CA	1,836,911	1,836,911	0	0.0%
15	Seattle, WA	3,439,809	3,439,809	0	0.0%
15	Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL	2,783,243	2,783,243	0	0.0%
14	Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC	1,671,683	1,676,822	5,139	0.3%
9	Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV	5,582,170	5,636,232	54,062	1.0%

	Total	167,861,575	169,512,899	1,651,324	1.0%