Thursday, November 11, 2010

Think Pittsburgh lacks Harrisburg clout now?

Same data I put up before, but everyone likes the maps.  This is my projection for the county by county change in the number of state house districts likely to result from the redistricting soon to come.


This is just a straight line extrapolation of population changes from April 1, 2000 (the reference date for the 2000 decennial census) through July 1, 2009 (the latest Census Bureau estimates data) extended 9 months through to April 1, 2010 (the reference date of the 2010 decennial census, and thus the reference date for reapportionment/redistricting).  This map is showing projected changes in the number of state house seats, which is impacted by the size of the county.  So the colors should not be interpreted as a rate of population change in itself.  Big counties may have a greater change in seats just because they are larger or smaller than other counties.  Thus note the middle of the T showing up as neutral.  That more reflects the low population densities out there, not that their populations are steady.  Of course, the numbers are notional with respect to actual legislators since the maps will be drawn any way the powers that be want them to be.. but on average the map reflects the overall shift in representation.

No matter how you slice it you see the writing on the wall.  West is down, and East is up.

17 Comments:

Anonymous MH said...

People keep bringing out the Christmas decorations earlier and earlier.

Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:10:00 PM  
Blogger hholt01 said...

lol @MH

All this population focus but a larger more menacing point is forgotten with the growing metros and shrinking metros nationally. There is only one state in the nation that when you take out immigration is NOT shrinking. Any guesses?

The Romans fell, the British Empire fell because of an overflow of immigration not assimilating.

Say what you want about pro or anti immigrant the fact of the matter 49 of 50 states are literally dying. We are balkanizing ourselves with people moving into the Georgias and Texases and Michigans that are merely passing through. 98% of this nation has something other then a zero population growth it has a negative population growth. For every Ohioan and Floridian and Oklahoman etc. etc. that exists today their will be 3/5ths a person 25 years from now.

And to think generations ago being 3/5ths a person rallied Americans to change the course of history, now we just import the Carribean, Latin America and the Middle East to take our place to a degree where there is not enough assimilation.

I'm tired of the tried ole tale that Pittsburgh is somehow abnormal in a "growing" nation. Unlike the waves of immigration from the 1880s to the 1920s we are not assimilating immigrants we are being replaced by them.

Not sure if we want to emulate the 1/50th of the nation (the one state) that is actually giving birth to more American babies then the number of American deaths but Pittsburgh and the nation might wish it had in 25 years.

Pittsburgh isn't shrinking, 98% of America is shrinking. Pittsburgh just isn't balkanizing like the sunbelt and east coast. I blame Americans not the immigrants.

Thursday, November 11, 2010 7:08:00 PM  
Anonymous MH said...

The last I checked, the US population was growing without immigration. Maybe (I'm on an iPod, so I can't look easily) it isn't if you don't count the children of immigrants, but that's a whole different thing.

Also, that is a pretty unique British history lesson you got somewhere.

Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:27:00 PM  
Blogger C. Briem said...

http://www.census.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2009-05.xls

Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:33:00 PM  
Blogger hholt01 said...

British Empire failed to assimilate. Britain without the empire is still failing at it.

Don't want this to distract from my larger point. Pittsburgh and the "industrial belt" isn't the thing that's abnormal, its just that we aren't balkanizing ourselves like the sunbelt and east coast to mask negative population growth.

Also Strange how the states with strongest replacement rates are almost exclusively the same ones complaining about non-natives (keep in mind a lot of the east coast states include half or more of the "industrial belt" not masking -PG):
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemapdetail.jsp?ind=35&cat=2&sub=11&yr=18&typ=3&sort=a


Did search for awhile no one chart explains it in a snapshot, this is the most telling if you make the projections: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0081.pdf

However it is not purely immigrant (there are multi-generational hispanic Americans)

Parse away the fact that only one state has a native replacement rate number in positive territory is in there:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/population/native_and_foreign-born_populations.html

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/VitalStats.htm

and the trend line on this:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-08-11-illegal-immigrant-childrenl_N.htm?csp=34news

Again my point isn't immigration or even whose to blame. I just bristle along with C. Briem at talking heads saying that Big Steel collapsed in the 1970s. I also individually bristle that the industrial belt and Pgh have "issues" because "everybody's leaving", wake up NYC, PHL, LA, PHX, DAL, HOU you have the same negative pop growth we do and masking it by balkanizing yourself and having native populations not replace themselves does not "growth" make.

To clarify for those not named Chris, I am speaking of replacement rates. Greater then 2.3 for native born populations. Don't mean to be xenophobic about this but ask any history professor and they will admit it may be a symptom or may be the disease but either way it's the first phase of a balkanized life cycle.

But hey we might be able to cut lose of Philly then LOL!

Friday, November 12, 2010 12:01:00 AM  
Anonymous BrianTH said...

As I recall, and as far as anyone can tell based on the available evidence, urbanized populations have always tended to have below replacement-rate fertility rates. In that sense, urban populations have always required net in-migration from rural areas with higher fertility rates in order to grow.

Then add in the fact that the industrial revolution has led to urbanization everywhere it has happened, and what you get eventually is that developed countries are going to urbanize, and therefore will eventually require in-migration to grow.

And the United States is no exception (although I do think it is true that as of the moment, we might be just above the replacement rate if you don't exclude the children of immigrants) . . . but nor should you want it to be an exception. Given the underlying causes, in order to have stopped these trends you would have to have kept the United States from developing technologically and economically, such that it was a more rural and poorer country today. Why should we want that?

Incidentally, it is not true that we are doing a notably worse job assimilating our immigrants today as compared to the past. Just as in the past, today with each generation there is more English use and less native language use, more intermarrying, a convergence on U.S. education levels, and so forth.

In fact, this is one of those situations where the zero point (in this case, whether the native-born fertility rate) doesn't really matter all that much--in the future, it will likely remain the case that most citizens of the United States will have U.S. ancestors going back one or more generations. Over time, the exact fertility rate of the native-born may make a slight difference in the average number of past U.S. generations per then-current U.S. citizens, but I don't see why that is particularly significant.

Friday, November 12, 2010 10:38:00 AM  
Anonymous MH said...

"But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country."

Friday, November 12, 2010 11:00:00 AM  
Anonymous BrianTH said...

Just to give some numbers, in 2008 a Pew Report extrapolated current trends and estimated that by 2050, 19% of Americans will be foreign born--but obviously that is still way less than a majority. That would be a bit higher than the prior U.S. peaks (about 15% in 1890 and 1910), but also would be a bit lower than Canada and Australia today.

Friday, November 12, 2010 11:00:00 AM  
Anonymous BrianTH said...

Thank goodness for combines and tractors. And GPS. And whichever entity fully automates farm equipment in the future (Google?).

Friday, November 12, 2010 11:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why the lack of linear graphing?

Friday, November 12, 2010 11:20:00 AM  
Anonymous MH said...

My cousin's tractor has GPS and will drive itself down the row, but he still has to turn it around at the end of the field.

Friday, November 12, 2010 11:23:00 AM  
Anonymous BrianTH said...

Yeah, that is where Google's self-driving car technology (or something similar) would come in.

Friday, November 12, 2010 11:58:00 AM  
Blogger hholt01 said...

I have now learned that . . . There is a thin line between tractor navigation and cross state population trends. lol

Friday, November 12, 2010 7:03:00 PM  
Anonymous MH said...

The self-driving wasn't the big labor saver, at least compared to a regular tractor. Combines, better chemicals, better irrigation, animal confinement, and better seeds are more important than the self-driving tractor by a very large margin.

Friday, November 12, 2010 7:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Johnnyg said...

Not it Iowa, it ain't. Deere has GPS controlled tractors and combines and tractors that drive themselves. You program it, then become a passenger. Seen it, been in it. So cool--and a big reason why we have productive and very capital intensive farming in US.

Friday, November 12, 2010 8:48:00 PM  
Anonymous MH said...

I'm not saving it doesn't help, but that the earlier improvement were bigger labor savers.

You still need a guy in the tractor. It does help because you can do paperwork or keep at it longer. You can also be more accurate with seed and chemicals. But, it was not long ago when corn was harvested two or four rows at a time. Even more recently, half the summer would go to tilling. Farmers are in the tractor less per acre than they were in the past.

Friday, November 12, 2010 9:08:00 PM  
Anonymous BrianTH said...

I am sure it is true that the tractor and combine themselves are the biggest labor-savers in recent agricultural history (I would wonder about things like the plow and yoke if you went back far enough). But full automation would be a way to cut back a big chunk of the remainder.

Saturday, November 13, 2010 9:35:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home