The Census Bureau has sent out its Christmastime gift to its millions — or thousands, or dozens — of fans across the United States: the official Census estimates of the population of each state as of July 1, 2014.
The numbers shouldn’t be regarded as etched in stone: When the head count for the 2010 Census was tabulated, it turned out that the estimates for some states in the later years of the 2000-10 decade had been off by a noticeable margin, and that will probably be the case as this decade goes on as well.
But the 2014 numbers do show some variance from the trendlines noticed in the post-recession of 2007-09 numbers. Here are my first observations on the 2014 estimates, and I expect more will be coming in the new year.
1. The order of the top 10 states has changed. Florida, with 19,893,297 residents passed New York, with 19,746,227. And North Carolina, with 9,943,964, passed Michigan, with 9,909,877. New York ranked first in population in the Censuses conducted from 1810 to 1960; it was passed by California about 1963 and Texas about 1994. Now it’s fourth. Michigan, a boom state with the growth of the auto industry from 1900 to 1930 and with population growing at rates above the national average from 1930 to 1970, was the seventh largest state from 1930 to 1970. Now it’s No. 10, but well ahead of No. 11, Virginia. The complete order: California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan. Notice that none of the top three was part of the United States in its original form or as augmented by the Louisiana Purchase (unless you accept the claims that what is now the western panhandle of Florida was part of that purchase). Only four of the current top 10 were among the original 13 states (New York, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina).
2. Six states lost population between July 1, 2013 and July 1, 2014, according to the Census Bureau. And only one of those states (Vermont) was recorded by Census estimates as losing population in a previous 12-month period since the 2010 Census. Declining oil production probably accounts for Alaska’s population loss, declining coal production for West Virginia’s and, perhaps, declining atomic energy research for New Mexico’s. I would argue that overlarge state and local government accounts for the 2013-14 population losses in Connecticut, Vermont and Illinois. Note that although all three states voted heavily for President Obama in 2008 and 2012, in 2014, Republicans captured the governorship in Illinois and came very close to doing so in Connecticut and Vermont.
3. The nation’s population rose 0.75 percent in 2013-14, a slightly lower percentage than in any year since the 2010 Census. The largest percentage populations gains were in North Dakota (2.16 percent), with its booming Bakken shale, and Nevada (1.71 percent), now resuming rapid growth after a sharp decline in 2006-08. Number three was Texas (1.70 percent) — fabulous growth since it started with a base of more than 26 million. Some 19 percent of the nation’s population gain came in Texas alone. Other states with well-above-average percentage increases: Colorado (1.59 percent), District of Columbia (1.51 percent), Florida (1.49 percent), Arizona (1.45 percent), Utah (1.38 percent), Idaho (1.34 percent).
4. Regionally, the West and South continue to gain population at well-above-average rates and the East and Midwest at well-below-average rates. But the patterns are not uniform. In the West, every state but Alaska, New Mexico and Wyoming had above-average percentage gains, but in California — by far the largest Western state — the gain was only .97 percent, not much above the national average. California, which gained people much more rapidly than the national average from 1850 to 1990, has posted only slightly-above-average percentage gains since.
In the East, only Delaware (no sales tax) and D.C. gained at above national average rates. New Hampshire, which gained far above national rates from 1970 to 1990, when its lack of an income or sales tax contrasted with high tax rates in Massachusetts, has not had above-national-average gains since Massachusetts lowered its tax rates in the 1990s. In the Midwest, the only above average gainers were North Dakota, with its booming oil industry, and South Dakota, a leader in credit card and call centers, both with low tax rates.
In the South, Texas, as noted, continued its outstanding gains and Florida, after a post-recession slump, did very well also. Growth has slowed in Georgia and North Carolina; both remain above the national average but have fallen behind faster growth in South Carolina. But Virginia, which posted above-national-average gains even just after the recession, thanks to the stimulus package, was slightly below the national average in 2013-14, though still ahead of its higher-taxed neighbor Maryland. No-state-income-tax Tennessee had a .80 percent gain, just above the national average of .75 and the state closest to it except for atypical-in-so-many-ways Hawaii.
Overall, there is a continued flight from high-tax, high-spending states to low-tax, low-spending states; the effect of the 2009 stimulus package, which pumped money into states with big federal payrolls and high-spending policies, has long since worn off. Changing energy production patterns have large effects in small states, while Texas continues to be a star performer and Florida showed impressive growth.
