Well this won't be pretty:

Ohio will lose two congressional seats, Census Bureau says

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/12/ohio_to_lose_congressional_sea.html

Hmm, if they know the state population they must already know the metro populations.

 

They have until April 1, 2011 to release the rest of the data levels. (e.g county, city, etc)

Ohio gained 1.6% population this past decade ... But will lose 2 seats in Congress :(.  The other states in the Sunbelt grew much, much faster

Over 20% of the US is now either Texan or Californian.

Over 20% of the US is now either Texan or Californian.

 

20% of the country = 4% of the Senate.(CA & TX)

0.37% of the country = 4% of the Senate (WY & VT)

^That is exactly why there are two chambers of Congress.  One (HOR) is representative of population and the other (Senate) is not.

Just pulled up the census estimates for Ohio for 2009 and it was 11,542,645. The 2010 census came in at 11,536,504. So the estimates were pretty close to actuality.

 

I'm very anxious for city level data. If the estimates of the state were pretty close, Cleveland shouldn't have lost much more than the estimates, as it would have required a lot of overestimating elsewhere in the state.

 

I'm putting my guess at 417k.

 

 

 

^That's a gain of 6141 people per year over the entire state or 0.0005 or 0.05%. Ohio is basicly stable (or stagnant, depending on your point of view.)

 

To imagine this growth rate, picture an auditorium that holds about 10,000 people. Fill it up, and then wait a year. During that year, a few babies will be born, a few people will die, and a few will come and go. At the end of the year, the population will have increased by 5 people, which is barely enough to notice.

 

Ohio's population is barely growing.

 

 

 

^

Ohio's population is barely growing compared to 2000, but we might actually be on the slight decline if you look at year level data. It appears that Ohio was the 4th slowest growing state in the US (1.6%), ahead of Louisiana(1.4%), Rhode Island (0.4%), and Michigan (-0.6%).

 

I think the Michigan number is interesting because Michigan was growing up until the recession, and then the hemorrhaging of people began that offset all the growth that occurred over the first 7 years of the decade. Michigan actually grew a respectable 6.9% from 1990-2000, much more than Ohio, PA, NY, or New England did in that time frame.

 

The Ohio number is a bit deceptive because you basically have a state with decent growth areas and NE Ohio which continues to drain people. The overall effect is slow or no growth.

^ Why do you attribute all the loss to Northeast Ohio?  Last I heard, Southeast, Northwest, and Southwest Ohio weren't exactly booming either.  You're also assuming that most Northeast Ohioans that are leaving are leaving the state entirely.

 

Just pulled up the census estimates for Ohio for 2009 and it was 11,542,645. The 2010 census came in at 11,536,504. So the estimates were pretty close to actuality.

 

I'm very anxious for city level data. If the estimates of the state were pretty close, Cleveland shouldn't have lost much more than the estimates, as it would have required a lot of overestimating elsewhere in the state.

 

I'm putting my guess at 417k.

 

 

I have much less faith in the local estimates than state estimates.  There's a significantly larger margin of error on the city level, especially considering Cleveland's demographics (over 50% minority, large numbers of unemployed people who are probably not filing tax returns, etc.)

Well, Central and Southwest Ohio are growing moderately.  Last I checked, NW Ohio was more stagnant if anything.  NE and SE Ohio (hell, Eastern Ohio) is where the population is declining so his point is valid.  Nowhere in this state is "booming" but there is moderate growth in SW/Central, which is holding this state up.

^ I don't buy what you're selling CDM...Lake and Medina counties are growing. Last time I checked they were still in NEO.  How much has SW ohio really grown? I'll give you central Ohio, but we all know why.   

You guys in Cleveland take everything so seriously.

^ I don't buy what you're selling CDM...Lake and Medina counties are growing. Last time I checked they were still in NEO.  How much has SW ohio really grown? I'll give you central Ohio, but we all know why.   

Uh...what?  Simple county growth facts will show you that.  It isn't a secret. 

 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/39000.html

 

But since I'll inevitable get a response, Merry Christmas:

 

Ohio core metro growth between 2000 through 2009:

 

Southwest Ohio:

 

Cincinnati

Hamilton: 1.2%; +9,760

Butler: 9.2%; +30,479

Warren: +33%; +52,223

Clermont: 10.3%; +18,389

Brown: 4.1%; +1,718

 

Net growth: +112,569

 

 

Dayton

Montgomery: -4.7%; -26,502

Greene: 8.1%; +11,937

Miami: 2.4%; +2,388

Preble: -2.2%; -915

 

New growth: -13,092

 

Southwest Ohio's Two Largest Metros Net Growth: +99,477

 

 

Northeast Ohio

 

Cleveland

Cuyahoga: -8.5%; -118,139

Lorain: 7.5%; +21,039

Lake: 4.1%; +9,264

Medina: 15.2%; +22,940

Geauga: 9%; +8,165

 

Net growth: -56,731

 

 

Akron

Summit: -0.1%; -496

Portage: 3.6%; +5,487

 

Net growth: +4,991

 

Northeast Ohio's Two Largest Metros Net Growth: -51,740

 

 

I'm not even going to bother doing Youngstown, Canton, Ashtabula, or Mansfield for NE Ohio.  Nor am going to bother showing Springfield for SW Ohio.  Here's a hint: They are all stagnant or declining.  Let alone doing Central Ohio's obvious growth numbers.  What this does show is that Cleveland's decline is significantly greater than Dayton's and Cincinnati's population increase is significantly larger than Akron's.  Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that SW Ohio is doing "okay" for this Rustbelt area while NE Ohio is declining.

 

So yes, it is reasonable to assume that SW Ohio and Central Ohio are "holding this state up" in terms of population.  Class dismissed.

well when people make ignorant statements like "there is moderate growth in SW/Central, which is holding this state up" someone should speak up....i don't get how he's a mod? every g'damn thread he puts down Cleveland and NEO.  I just don't get it, but whatever Danb, haters = love.

and those are population "estimates" you're using as "facts". 

And how exactly is it an ignorant statement if it's true?  The irony of that.  Aside from silly boosterism and local insecurity, the statement is true.  And last I checked, showing the Census for proof of what a CLEVELANDER'S statement (WestBLVD) isn't exactly "putting down Cleveland."  Now, had I shown a Forbes magazine article or followed the Census statements with "See, Cleveland sucks!" then you'd have a point.  Would I get offended if somebody stated "NE Ohio is Ohio's largest region in population?"  No, because it's also true. 

and those are population "estimates" you're using as "facts".

 

So you're saying the Census shouldn't be used now?  A government verified agency?  Do they have inconsistencies?  Sure.  Do they over/underestimate populations?  Yes.  Could that be said for EVERY region though?  Without question.  But they ARE the official Census facts so sorry if that doesn't appease you.  Next time, I'll go to Barney Rubble's Sin-Suss and find that Cuyahoga and Montgomery Counties gained people and this whole magical thing called job decline never existed.

 

Dios Mios.

Pretty cool map showing migration trends among U.S. counties provided by our favorite source: forbes.com.

 

http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/04/migration-moving-wealthy-interactive-counties-map.html

 

Now, the site does say info is taken from the IRS.

It's Christmas...can't we all get along? CDM is right, the numbers show a decline in eastern Ohio. The last ten years have been hard on Northeastern Ohio.The area has lost well over 100,000 manufacturing jobs over the last ten years. People follow jobs and the area has lost quite a bit. However, that doesn't necessarily mean NEO will be on this path forever (NEO gained people during the 90's). It's a reflection of the the local economy over the last decade, that's it. NEO has finally moved towards a service based economy. I expect we will see an uptick over the next decade. I think some of us NEO posters feel these population estimates are thrown out as a way to poke fun of the region. Yes, we're probably being a little sensitive, but it's hard not to be when you've been the butt of jokes for the last 40 years.

 

 

Pretty cool map showing migration trends among U.S. counties provided by our favorite source: forbes.com.

 

http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/04/migration-moving-wealthy-interactive-counties-map.html

 

Now, the site does say info is taken from the IRS.

 

Great link! That is fascinating to look at. Really gives you an eyeball perspective of migration. Look at Franklin County, a stream of inward migration throughout all of northern Ohio, and if people leave they are mostly headed south.

 

Cuyahoga County is interesting. They've managed to have a net gain from most of southeast Michigan and southern New England. However, the loss of people is evident with amount of red lines, which are mostly out of state.

 

It's Christmas...can't we all get along? CDM is right, the numbers show a decline in eastern Ohio. The last ten years have been hard on Northeastern Ohio.The area has lost well over 100,000 manufacturing jobs over the last ten years. People follow jobs and the area has lost quite a bit. However, that doesn't necessarily mean NEO will be on this path forever (NEO gained people during the 90's). It's a reflection of the the local economy over the last decade, that's it. NEO has finally moved towards a service based economy. I expect we will see an uptick over the next decade. I think some of us NEO posters feel these population estimates are thrown out as a way to poke fun of the region. Yes, we're probably being a little sensitive, but it's hard not to be when you've been the butt of jokes for the last 40 years.

 

 

 

I agree. No need for hostility!

 

When the official census numbers come out we can analyze how Ohio's 1.6% growth really broke down.

 

Census = Forbes List

Pretty cool map showing migration trends among U.S. counties provided by our favorite source: forbes.com.

 

http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/04/migration-moving-wealthy-interactive-counties-map.html

 

Now, the site does say info is taken from the IRS.

 

Great link! That is fascinating to look at. Really gives you an eyeball perspective of migration. Look at Franklin County, a stream of inward migration throughout all of northern Ohio, and if people leave they are mostly headed south.

 

Cuyahoga County is interesting. They've managed to have a net gain from most of southeast Michigan and southern New England. However, the loss of people is evident with amount of red lines, which are mostly out of state.

 

Educated people moving in; uneducated moving out?  I'd be okay with that..

It's Christmas...can't we all get along? CDM is right, the numbers show a decline in eastern Ohio. The last ten years have been hard on Northeastern Ohio.The area has lost well over 100,000 manufacturing jobs over the last ten years. People follow jobs and the area has lost quite a bit. However, that doesn't necessarily mean NEO will be on this path forever (NEO gained people during the 90's). It's a reflection of the the local economy over the last decade, that's it. NEO has finally moved towards a service based economy. I expect we will see an uptick over the next decade. I think some of us NEO posters feel these population estimates are thrown out as a way to poke fun of the region. Yes, we're probably being a little sensitive, but it's hard not to be when you've been the butt of jokes for the last 40 years.

 

 

 

I agree. No need for hostility!

 

You ain't lied!

Pretty cool map showing migration trends among U.S. counties provided by our favorite source: forbes.com.

 

http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/04/migration-moving-wealthy-interactive-counties-map.html

 

Now, the site does say info is taken from the IRS.

 

Great link! That is fascinating to look at. Really gives you an eyeball perspective of migration. Look at Franklin County, a stream of inward migration throughout all of northern Ohio, and if people leave they are mostly headed south.

 

Cuyahoga County is interesting. They've managed to have a net gain from most of southeast Michigan and southern New England. However, the loss of people is evident with amount of red lines, which are mostly out of state.

 

Educated people moving in; uneducated moving out? I'd be okay with that..

 

What?

^Let it go

 

Does anyone know what the or whether there is a generally accepted 'lab error' to cencus results?  If they go just by returns and abilities of census workers to otherwise count heads, then the results are certainly under the actual population numbers.  Or do they factor some equation into the final results which accounts for what will inevitably be missed?

 

And why, whenever the issue of population/census/etc come up, it is always the same forumers engaging in the debate and with such 'hostility'?  There are a lot of things to argue about in this world.  Meaningless and negligible differences in population don't fall in that category IMHO.  I don't know what is more pathetic, the eggers or the ones getting egged on.  Whatever brings you joy.  Now... if you all want to start arguing net agriculture exports, let me know!

^Some have claimed that the U.S. census official numbers are 30% too low. The reason for this is that the Census misses a lot of people.

 

Some years ago, there was a debate in Congress about whether or not Census numbers should be adjusted scientifically to come up with a more accurate number. This could be done by sampling a certain city or neighborhood, making a more thorough count, and coming up with a correction factor to apply to the rest of the state.

 

Since it is assumed that statistical sampling would account for more homeless, illegal immigrants, poor and disabled, etc, who did not fill out the Census form or otherwise did not cooperate, then states with a lot of said demographic groups would come out ahead in the Census. Naturally, the political party that expected to win seats in Congress, namely the Democrates, supported statistical sampling, and Republicans resisted it. At that time, the Republicans had a controlling interest, so the Census remained as is.

 

The purpose of the decennial census of course is to distribute seats in Congress. This is one of the very few duties of Congress that is actually specified in the Constitution. However, the Census has been used, or even abused, for so many other things that it is starting to get out of hand. Federal funds are distributed based on Census numbers, causing local governments to pay more attention to the Census. The Census has collected all kinds of data such as race, income, employment, etc., that wasn't really relative to the number of seats in Congress.

 

If you noticed, the 2010 Census form was very much simplified from that of 10 years ago. Perhaps they are getting back to basics.

 

Of course, all along the Census has been a "nightime" Census; that is, it counts where people spend the night. Nowdays, the typical commute to work is 20 miles, which can lead to huge differences between daytime population and nightime population. Why, in Cincinnati, we have 80,000 jobs downtown, yet the population of downtown as measured by the Census is just a few thousand. So, the Census is no longer as good of a measure of how big or important a city is than it was in the past, when commutes were much shorter. This leads to all of the MSA and CSA debates, which are really no more than where one draws the boundary lines around cities.

 

 

 

 

Whatever the result whether too high or too low... it would affect everyone the same. So,  if there is a 30% -/+ you'd add 30% to Cincinnati and 30% to Cleveland and we go back to where we started.

Who suggested otherwise?  Why don't you all start a thread to discuss that issue, and this thread can be left for informartive responses limited to the type Eighth and State just provided?  Thanks for that BTW.  I would think that a curve would make sense too.  I have to assume the more urban the neighborhood is, the more innacurate the numbers are.  Same probably applies once you reach a certain level of ruralness (is that a word?).

Ohio gets shafted every year. TONS livein Florida 6 months out of the year and Ohio 6 months out of the year yet they can only claim one as their state residence. Flaws everywhere.

 

Whether 30% too high or too low, the inaccuracies in the Census do NOT necessarily affect everyone the same. The participation rates are not the same in all places.

 

Suppose there are 100 people living in city A. 90 of them fill out the Census form. Then the Census sends workers and discovers 5 more people. The population as reported by the Census is 95.

 

City B has 100 people. 70 of them fill out the Census form. Workers discover 20 more people. The reported population is 90.

 

Basicly, the higher proportion of people who cooperate, the more accurate the reported population is.

 

Cities with higher rates of homeless, illegal immigrants, poor and disabled, etc., are more likely to be undercounted because those groups are less likely to cooperate with the Census.

This:

Whatever the result whether too high or too low... it would affect everyone the same. So,  if there is a 30% -/+ you'd add 30% to Cincinnati and 30% to Cleveland and we go back to where we started.

 

+

 

This:

Who suggested otherwise?  Why don't you all start a thread to discuss that issue, and this thread can be left for informartive responses limited to the type Eighth and State just provided?  Thanks for that BTW.  I would think that a curve would make sense too.  I have to assume the more urban the neighborhood is, the more innacurate the numbers are.  Same probably applies once you reach a certain level of ruralness (is that a word?).

 

+

 

This:

Whether 30% too high or too low, the inaccuracies in the Census do NOT necessarily affect everyone the same. The participation rates are not the same in all places.

 

= hilarious chain of responses.

 

Thanks for your though, Hts121. ;)

^Let it go

 

Does anyone know what the or whether there is a generally accepted 'lab error' to cencus results?  If they go just by returns and abilities of census workers to otherwise count heads, then the results are certainly under the actual population numbers.  Or do they factor some equation into the final results which accounts for what will inevitably be missed?

 

And why, whenever the issue of population/census/etc come up, it is always the same forumers engaging in the debate and with such 'hostility'?  There are a lot of things to argue about in this world.  Meaningless and negligible differences in population don't fall in that category IMHO.  I don't know what is more pathetic, the eggers or the ones getting egged on.  Whatever brings you joy.  Now... if you all want to start arguing net agriculture exports, let me know!

 

It really isn't that serious.  I wish I had that *chill pill* emoticon but damn...

Your pill, sir....

 

I wanted the one that's black and white, you racist!

This:

Whatever the result whether too high or too low... it would affect everyone the same. So,  if there is a 30% -/+ you'd add 30% to Cincinnati and 30% to Cleveland and we go back to where we started.

 

+

 

This:

Who suggested otherwise?  Why don't you all start a thread to discuss that issue, and this thread can be left for informartive responses limited to the type Eighth and State just provided?  Thanks for that BTW.  I would think that a curve would make sense too.  I have to assume the more urban the neighborhood is, the more innacurate the numbers are.  Same probably applies once you reach a certain level of ruralness (is that a word?).

 

+

 

This:

Whether 30% too high or too low, the inaccuracies in the Census do NOT necessarily affect everyone the same. The participation rates are not the same in all places.

 

= hilarious chain of responses.

 

Thanks for your though, Hts121. ;)

 

Hilarious?  You would have us believe that you actually lol'd, rofl'd, lmao'd, or whatever the Gen Y acronym is after you read those?

roflmaoyaoming.

OK, guys.

Ohio gained 1.6% population this past decade ... But will lose 2 seats in Congress :(.  The other states in the Sunbelt grew much, much faster

 

say didnt the state loose that in the last two decades and thats kind of just making it up? not sure, but up or a down that much is pretty stagnant. not that that is bad, but i guess it is if the state is losing congresspeople and power. worst of all i bet any pop loss in NE and gain elsewhere. i guess we'll see about all that soon enough. ugh.

 

 

Interesting to see how areas with a low high school graduation rate tend to be high crime areas. The blocks SE of Central & 155th in Central has Cleveland's lowest high school graduation rate: %37 of all residents 25 and over. The north end of Cincy's OTR had their lowest at 54% while in C-bus the southern reaches of Franklinton (east of Cooper Stadium) got a measly 44% (the next two are west Franklinton south of Broad and TriSouth & Stambaugh-Elwood at 49%).

 

  There's more than one way to estimate population other than take what the U.S. Census tells us. Marketers make their own estimates, and schools are pretty good at projecting enrollment.

 

  Guess how the State of Ohio projects prison populations, to make decisions on whether or not to build new prison space?

 

    They look at 3rd grade proficiency test results and project the numbers forward.  :police:

(Saw that in the paper the other day.)

   

That's scary (about that prison fact).

 

  There's more than one way to estimate population other than take what the U.S. Census tells us. Marketers make their own estimates, and schools are pretty good at projecting enrollment.

 

  Guess how the State of Ohio projects prison populations, to make decisions on whether or not to build new prison space?

 

They look at 3rd grade proficiency test results and project the numbers forward. :police:

(Saw that in the paper the other day.)

 

 

So...what's a passing grade?

When does the full census come out?

When does the full census come out?

 

Most city data will start to be release around April.

Some hot and fresh good news on brain drain trends in wake of the economic crisis.

 

Where the Brains Are Going

By Richard Florida Jan 18 2011, 4:34 PM ET 4

 

Over the past decade or so, communities across America and the world have been redoubling their efforts to attract and retain college graduates. This makes good economic sense. According to a wide and growing body of research, the competitiveness of places -- nations as well as cities, regions, and states -- turns on their ability to harness human capital.  Since young adults are the most mobile members of the population -- people in their mid-20s are three to five times more likely to move than middle aged folks -- the ability to attract them early in life can pay big, lasting dividends.

 

A new study by Brookings demographer William Frey examines trends in the migration decisions of young adults and college grads (as separate groups) over the years 2007-2009. His findings are especially interesting and relevant, since they cover the period since the onset of the economic crisis and reset....

 

 

Read More at:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/01/where-the-brains-are-going/69729/#

Good information. Sounds like good material for my new blog.

The more i hear about this underestimates after the real head count. Some Ohio cities are in for a disappointment.  I think it has to do with foreclosed homes or people kicked out at the time of the census. Since there are no longer living there(foreclosures and vacant units)  at the time of the census they will not be counted.

 

For Cincinnati i know there is TONS of for rent signs up all over the city. Im thinking it maybe closer to 310-320,000 instead of the 330k+ that people are wanting to see.

Chicago came in about 200k down and far below estimates. I admit I have a lot of schadenfreude about that one.