U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-31-2016, 01:56 AM
 
9,873 posts, read 10,125,431 times
Reputation: 5292

Advertisements

Census predicted that out of the USA counties over the last year, 2/3 of them had a natural increase (births > deaths). We are ignoring domestic and international immigration in this calculation.

Maine had only 3 of 16 counties show a natural increase (3/16=18.8%). Utah had a natural increase in each of the 29 counties.

Pennsylvania has 52 counties in the Appalachian Regional Commission of which 43 had a natural decrease. The remaining 15 counties in the South East all had a natural increase.

Counties with a natural decrease of more than 500 people were mostly in Florida
Highlands County Florida
Mahoning County Ohio
Lake County Florida
Martin County Florida
Indian River County Florida
Luzerne County Pennsylvania
Yavapai County Arizona
Pasco County Florida
Mohave County Arizona
Hernando County Florida
Sumter County Florida
Marion County Florida
Westmoreland County Pennsylvania
Barnstable County Massachusetts
Brevard County Florida
Charlotte County Florida
Citrus County Florida
Volusia County Florida
Sarasota County Florida
Pinellas County Florida

Counties with a natural increase of more than 20,000 people were in the largest metro areas
Los Angeles County California
Harris County Texas
Cook County Illinois
Maricopa County Arizona
Kings County New York (Brooklyn)
Dallas County Texas
San Diego County California

Nationwide there was 1,360,891 natural increase



Fract State Total Counties
18.8% Maine 16
20.0% Rhode Island 5
25.5% West Virginia 55
35.8% Pennsylvania 67
40.0% New Hampshire 10
46.3% Alabama 67
47.8% Florida 67
48.0% Arkansas 75
48.4% Tennessee 95
49.0% North Carolina 100
49.4% Michigan 83
53.4% Virginia 133
53.9% Illinois 102
54.3% South Carolina 46
62.5% Kentucky 120
64.3% Vermont 14
...
66.7% Delaware 3
66.7% Kansas 105
66.7% Oregon 36
68.1% Wisconsin 72
68.7% Iowa 99
68.8% Nebraska 93
69.4% New York 62
70.6% Nevada 17
70.8% Maryland 24
71.3% Missouri 115
71.4% Massachusetts 14
71.4% Montana 56
71.8% Washington 39
72.7% New Mexico 33
72.7% Oklahoma 77
73.3% Arizona 15
73.6% Georgia 159
75.0% Connecticut 8
75.5% North Dakota 53
75.6% Texas 254
76.1% Ohio 88
76.8% Mississippi 82
77.0% Minnesota 87
79.3% California 58
80.0% Hawaii 5
80.4% Indiana 92
81.3% Colorado 64
85.7% New Jersey 21
85.9% Louisiana 64
86.4% Idaho 44
89.4% South Dakota 66
91.3% Wyoming 23
96.6% Alaska 29
100.0% Utah 29
100.0% District of Columbia 1
66.6% Total Result 3142
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-31-2016, 05:42 AM
 
1,307 posts, read 1,204,754 times
Reputation: 3098
Interesting stuff.

Are any states overall seeing a natural decrease, or do the growing county totals exceed the shrinking county totals?

What is data source?
What year does this represent?

Thanks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2016, 05:58 AM
 
Location: Northeast Suburbs of PITTSBURGH
3,721 posts, read 3,575,851 times
Reputation: 2331
This is the sole reason Pittsburgh is not growing at a steady rate. Where did you find this info? I'm sure Allegheny County would have one of the highest death to birth ratio in the country. The median age is actually dropping at a good clip in the last 10-15 years due to such a high elderly population dying off. Once this anomaly is corrected Pittsburgh can finally shake the 80s steel collapse
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2016, 06:34 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,436 posts, read 11,933,106 times
Reputation: 10542
Quote:
Originally Posted by speagles84 View Post
This is the sole reason Pittsburgh is not growing at a steady rate. Where did you find this info? I'm sure Allegheny County would have one of the highest death to birth ratio in the country. The median age is actually dropping at a good clip in the last 10-15 years due to such a high elderly population dying off. Once this anomaly is corrected Pittsburgh can finally shake the 80s steel collapse
I don't think this was true in 2015. Looking at the map here, it seems like Allegheny County lost more people to net migration than to natural decrease. This is actually good news, because the overall loss was pretty small, and it means we have almost turned the corner demographically.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2016, 02:05 PM
 
9,873 posts, read 10,125,431 times
Reputation: 5292
Quote:
Originally Posted by RocketSci View Post
Interesting stuff.

Are any states overall seeing a natural decrease, or do the growing county totals exceed the shrinking county totals?

What is data source?
What year does this represent?

Thanks
Only two states are seeing a natural decrease. Raw data source is the most recent on year estimate from the census bureau (Jul 1 2014 - Jun30, 2015) . Summary tables that I posted involved data manipulation of raw data.
County Totals: Estimates of the Components of Resident Population Change for Counties: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015 - U.S Census Bureau

Concentrated on natural growth as even the Census bureau admits they have to take a bit of a Wild Ass Guess on immigration data (they build in fudge factors). I know that regarding Allentown PA they were way way off when they did the 2010 census data. There was about 30% more Latinos than they estimated in the interim years, and the city was actually at it's all time peak population. Mundofox immediately kicked into gear to put a relay broadcast tower from their Philadelphia station

The process of reporting births and deaths is a little more routine than domestic and international migration.

Natural Increase
West Virginia -940
Maine -450
Vermont 686
Rhode Island 1,451
New Hampshire 1,582
Delaware 2,588
Wyoming 3,089
Montana 3,389
District of Columbia 4,375
North Dakota 5,291
South Dakota 5,372
Connecticut 6,631
Alaska 7,216
Hawaii 7,614
Alabama 7,975
Arkansas 8,419
Mississippi 8,746
New Mexico 9,236
Idaho 10,925
Nebraska 11,559
Iowa 11,742
Oregon 12,391
Kentucky 12,605
South Carolina 12,808
Pennsylvania 13,326
Nevada 13,691
Kansas 14,813
Oklahoma 15,914
Massachusetts 17,813
Tennessee 18,787
Wisconsin 18,875
Missouri 19,068
Louisiana 20,391
Michigan 23,699
Maryland 24,856
Indiana 25,260
Ohio 28,162
Minnesota 29,710
Florida 29,893
New Jersey 30,941
Colorado 31,931
Arizona 34,152
North Carolina 35,319
Washington 35,608
Utah 35,934
Virginia 40,010
Illinois 52,207
Georgia 53,540
New York 83,857
Texas 215,609
California 243,225

Total Natural Increase 1,360,891

About 1/3 of the natural increase is in Texas and California.

Last edited by PacoMartin; 03-31-2016 at 02:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2016, 01:03 AM
 
972 posts, read 738,772 times
Reputation: 1044
So I'm thinking most of the increase is because immigrant births? Does anyone have like a cool graph of a race in American population, versus fertility rate. I think that would be cool to see! And no I am not racist, races come with their own cultures and I just find it interesting!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2016, 04:54 AM
 
Location: The canyon (with my pistols and knife)
13,223 posts, read 17,966,293 times
Reputation: 14673
Pennsylvania has a smaller natural increase than Kansas and Nevada.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seattle4321 View Post
So I'm thinking most of the increase is because immigrant births? Does anyone have like a cool graph of a race in American population, versus fertility rate. I think that would be cool to see! And no I am not racist, races come with their own cultures and I just find it interesting!
I think Hispanics are the only major race/ethnicity reproducing above replacement rate. Blacks used to be above, but I think they're below now. Whites are low and getting lower. Not sure exactly where Asians are, but I'd venture they're below replacement rate too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2016, 07:53 AM
 
Location: IN
20,852 posts, read 35,964,992 times
Reputation: 13301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craziaskowboi View Post
Pennsylvania has a smaller natural increase than Kansas and Nevada.



I think Hispanics are the only major race/ethnicity reproducing above replacement rate. Blacks used to be above, but I think they're below now. Whites are low and getting lower. Not sure exactly where Asians are, but I'd venture they're below replacement rate too.
The states with the highest natural increase rates are nearly all clustered in the Mountain West and Great Plains states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2016, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Atlanta metro (Cobb County)
1,566 posts, read 748,003 times
Reputation: 1669
Amazing considering their populations that Utah had a natural increase of 36K and Florida's was 30K ... but it makes sense given the states' very different age profiles.

My assessment is the United States in general is catching up to much of Europe and Japan in terms of having little natural increase. Certain locations, such as greater Pittsburgh and northern New England, are just reaching that point sooner than other parts of the nation. With the baby boomer generation reaching senior citizen status and family size continuing to slowly decline, more places are going to have difficulty maintaining a positive natural increase.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2016, 11:16 AM
 
9,873 posts, read 10,125,431 times
Reputation: 5292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seattle4321 View Post
So I'm thinking most of the increase is because immigrant births? Does anyone have like a cool graph of a race in American population, versus fertility rate. I think that would be cool to see! And no I am not racist, races come with their own cultures and I just find it interesting!
Immigrants throughout history have always had higher fertility rate. But the number of legal abortions in the USA since 1970 about equals the number of immigrants that have arrived in that same time period. So fertility rate with or without abortions would be a big factor.

Fertility rates in Mexico are now very similar to fertility rates in the USA. But other factors (like the median age in the USA is a decade older than in Mexico) come into play. So although the fertility rates are similar, Mexico has more women at child bearing age. Also death rates in Mexico are much lower given the younger population.

So jokes like in this video are increasingly inaccurate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7qKD-Ph7ds
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top