Census 2020

Sometimes Comical; Sometimes Tragic

Alan Pisarski — Tue, 16 Apr 2024 20:28:58 -0400

On the last working day before the Holidays the OMB of the White House announced a notice of decision regarding the statistical treatment of race and ethnicity topics in all government statistical programs and analyses. In a revised Statistical Policy Directive 15 it stated: These revisions to SPD 15 are intended to result in more accurate and useful race and ethnicity data across the Federal government. (emphasis mine)

That last sentence is a little tough to swallow. Rather than straightforward and easily comprehensible categorization, the agency is imposing assemblages of warped race and ethnicity labels which have little useful purpose or applicable meaning. People’s views on their own ethnic identity are complex, particularly with historical mixed groups like Hispanics, many of whom are of mixed race and most of whom traditionally consider themselves white.

One particularly sad note here is that the US Government is classifying residents by categories that the residents would not themselves select or even recognize. Costa Ricans think they are Costa Rican, Brazilians think they are Brazilian, and soon after coming to America they are Americans. OMB has decreed that people from Spain are no longer White Europeans— which they clearly were up till now —even though they speak (and originated) the language used by many decidedly mestizo (mixed) people from places like Mexico, Guatemala, or Brazil.

So, the Iberian peninsula apparently now consists of a small Portuguese population, classified as White Europeans and maybe also the Catalans and Basques of Northern Spain. Years ago, my wife, from Spain, was asked by her employers if it would be ok if they counted her as Hispanic to up their percentage with a report to US DHUD. She actually was born in Barcelona so she could well claim to be Catalan!

Which brings us to South America, pretty much all labeled Hispanic, except for those pesky Portuguese-speaking Brazilians – merely half of South America’s population. So, are Brazilians now White Europeans like Portuguese based on their language? And there’s English speaking Guyana , with a distinctly mixed rate population of Asian Indians and descendants of Africans, or Dutch speaking Surinamese or r French speaking residents of Guiana. Are we going to call them Hispanics or perhaps Latinos by dint of their geography? This is absolutely meaningless and insulting, and then expect them to adopt/accept such labeling.

The list of categories below shows the expected structure required in future surveys.

Middle Eastern or North African MENA as a new minimum category. As a result, the new set of minimum races and/or ethnicity categories are:

American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latino
Middle Eastern or North African, MENA
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
White

The MENA idea was proposed early on by the Census Bureau for the 2020 Census but withdrawn given strong pushback. It has been pushed by residents descended from those countries to gain greater access and recognition of some sort of constructed ethnic grouping in public policy debates and funding. A side benefit in some eyes is it would reduce the size of the White population and divide America nicely into 6 or 7 competing ethnicities. The overall category goes like this:

Middle Eastern or North African: Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi, Israeli, Another group (for example, Moroccan, Yemeni, Kurdish as well as others.

Hmmm! These are all countries that pretty much hate each other and are often trying to destroy each other. Some are Sunni, others Shia or some splinter group/ Neither Algeria, Tunisia nor Libya is mentioned. What do Moroccans have to do with Kurds or Iraqis? Iranians and Kurds are not even primary Arabic speakers. The Kurdish are recognized as an entity suggesting that the Turks, never mentioned anywhere here, belong to the White Europeans? Would a Saudi Arabian label themselves or accept a label of being a MENA? Why?

Negro person has been dropped from the race category of Black or African American. Yet many of the organizations created and serving those group are still labeled as Black person. US agencies, United Negro College Fund, traditionally Negro Colleges, etc. My age is showing; when I was younger the mandated survey term was Negro; Black was considered pejorative, and I was told to delete it from my survey designs. I also remember in my youth when people were Irish-Americans or Italian-Americans or Swedish-Americans – those labels are long gone. They are just Americans.

Two very small groups Native Hawaiians or Pacific Islanders and American Indians and Alaskan Native are sustained, but their populations are so small that often sample surveys are forced to meld them with the general US population.

In contrast, Asians, who inhabit roughly a third of the world’s land area and a majority of the world’s population are odd to put together in one category. The OMB listing strangely manages to ignore polyglot Indonesia, about 280 million, and the Philippines, 116 million, both immense populations. Asians are approximately only five percent of the current US population but the diversity of their countries of origin and distinct cultural and demographic makes labelling them together of little sense.

What does all of this accomplish? At best it creates a handy 6 categories clumping together of world groups that tell us little about the nation’s true demographic structure. Based on incomes and education, Asians far exceed the US White population, and the MENA could be second putting Whites third. So, should we compare the various population groups to Asians the highest income race/ethnicity grouping? I found this useless in my work, so I compared groups to the total population not to the White or Asian portion.

At worst it divides up America into strangely assembled groups that will compete for public benefits and power not as citizens or individuals but as members of some bureaucratically assembled clumps of people. A bonus for the country’s booming racing industry. Sometimes comic: sometimes tragic this seems a step back both from the reality on the ground, and the notion that we come from a real place and aspire to become Americans all.

Alan Pisarski studies transportation as the collision of demography with geography – with a little technology and social values added.

Comparing Canadian and U.S. Metropolitan Areas

Wendell Cox — Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:28:58 -0400

Canada and the United States are among a minority of national governments that formally designate metropolitan areas. Metropolitan areas are labor and housing markets which include a core urban area (built up or developed area) as well as rural territory from which workers commute in large numbers to jobs in the urban area. The concept is illustrated in Figure 1, which uses Paris as an example. Other countries, such as Japan, Brazil, and France also formally designate metropolitan areas.

Metropolitan Areas: More Rural than Urban

Usually the land area of metropolitan areas is overwhelmingly rural, with only a small portion being in the core urban area. According to data from the 2021 census, 87% of the land area in Canada’s metropolitan areas was rural, with only 13% being urban development. Similarly, the data from the 2010 Census indicated that 81% of the land in US major metropolitan areas was rural, with only 19% being urban development. The Paris metropolitan area was 83% rural and 17% urban in the early 2010s.

This article compares Canadian and US major metropolitan areas (1,000,000 plus population) analyzing the last five years of available data (2017 to 2022). In 2022, 190 million people lived in the major metropolitan areas of the United States, while 18.5 million lived in Canada’s metropolitan areas (“census metropolitan areas”). Thus, about 10 times as many people live in major US metropolitan areas as in Canada. Moreover, there are 56 major metropolitan areas in the United States and six in Canada, a similar 10 to 1 ratio.

The Largest Metropolitan Areas

The largest metropolitan area in Canada or the United States is New York, with a population of 19.6 million in 2022. Los Angeles is second, at 12.8 million. Chicago is third at 9.4 million and has been losing population in recent years, raising questions about whether the metropolitan area will ever achieve megacity status (10 million). Dallas-Fort Worth ranks 5th, at 7.9 million, with nearby Houston at 7.3 million. Toronto is the only Canadian metropolitan area ranking in the top 10, with a population of 6.7 million (Figure 2).

Measured in population, Toronto is more significant in relation to Canada than New York is to the United States. The Toronto metropolitan area has 17.3 percent of Canada’s population. The New York metropolitan area has 5.8% of the US population, two-thirds less of the national population share than Toronto (Figure 3).

Population Gains and Losses

Dallas-Fort Worth is the fastest growing major metropolitan area in the two nations, adding 606,000 new residents in the last five years. Toronto was the second fastest growing metropolitan area, adding 468,000 residents. The Dallas-Fort Worth annualized growth rate was 1.60% from 2017 to 2022, slightly above the Toronto rate of 1.46%. Over the last year (2021-2022), Dallas-Fort Worth retained the lead, adding 170,000 residents compared to Toronto’s 138,000 and retaining its slim lead in percentage population gain of 2.19% to 2.11%.

Houston was close behind Toronto, at 441,000. Atlanta, Austin, New York, and Phoenix gained more than 250,000. Vancouver was the second Canadian metropolitan area in the top ten, ranking ninth, with an increase of 226,000 (Figure 4).

Four Canadian metropolitan areas ranked among the top ten in percentage growth. Austin had largest percentage population increase from 2017 to 2022 at an annual rate of 2.77%. Jacksonville and Raleigh followed Austin. Calgary was the highest ranking Canadian metropolitan area, ranked fourth, with a annual population growth rate of 1.98%. Orlando gained 1.87%. Edmonton ranked sixth with a 1.76% rate, followed by Nashville, at 1.75%. Vancouver ranked eighth at 1.67%, Dallas-Fort Worth, at 1.60% and Ottawa-Gatineau ranked 10th at 1.59% (Figure 5). Toronto, Canada’s largest metropolitan area, ranked 12th in percentage population growth, at 1.46% annually.

California accounted for four of the five largest population losses. Los Angeles lost 394,000 people between 2017 and 2022. This is a stunning result for metropolitan area that had grown quickly for decades. San Francisco lost the second largest population loss (132,000), while Chicago lost 72,000. San Jose and San Diego had the fourth and fifth largest population losses. No Canadian metropolitan areas were among the those with the smallest gains (Figure 6).

California similarly dominated the lowest percentage population changes. Los Angeles had an annual population loss rate of 0.60%. San Francisco’s loss rate was 0.57% and the San Jose loss rate was 0.57%, New Orleans lost 0.40% annually. San Diego lost 0.26%. No Canadian metropolitan areas were in the bottom 10 in percentage change (Figure 7).

Prospects

According to Statistics Canada, Canada was the fastest growing G-7 nation in 2022, and had a 2.7% annual growth rate in calendar 2023. This was the first year that Canada added more than one million residents in its history (1,050,000). Meanwhile, population growth was significantly muted in the United States in calendar year 2023, adding 1.571 million residents, with a growth rate of only 0.5%. One factor was Canada’s increased immigration targets.

But both countries are experiencing a significant movement of people out of the larger metropolitan areas to smaller areas and even rural areas. In the United States (Figure 8), domestic migration has shifted strongly away from the largest metropolitan areas (with some notable exceptions, such as Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, and Phoenix). In Canada, the census metropolitan areas (over 100,000 population) lost a net 252,000 internal migrants from 2017 to 2022. while the census agglomerations (populations from 10,000 to 100,000) gained 125,000. The big surprise was that the largest gain was in the under 10,000 category, where the gain was 127,000 (Figure 9). Both national trends are in contrast to nearly opposite trends before the middle of the last decade.

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.

Photo: Peace Arch, Blain, Washington and Surrey, British Columbia. By U.S. Embassy and Consulate, via Flickr, in public domain.

Nurturing California Industries - Report

Heather Gonzalez - Sougata Poddar - Marshall Toplansky — Sun, 21 May 2023 20:28:58 -0400

California has the opportunity to maintain and grow industries that can provide future jobs to middle class citizens and make the state more competitive. Below is an excerpt from this newly released report.

The focus of this joint project between The Chapman Center for Demographics and Policy and the New California Coalition lies in trying to create better employment opportunities for Californians. We look at which industries our states still maintain strategic advantages that we can build on. This will require some major changes in how the state operates, particularly on the regulatory side. It will also require a ratcheting up of state economic development and skills training programs.

Our focus is not primarily a typical “pro-business” agenda in that our primary interest lies in creating conditions that benefit the bulk of Californians. If the majority thrives, so too will most business. An economy that enriches only a few and offers little to others is, in the most fundamental way, unsustainable for the long-term future.

Read/download the full report here

About the authors:

Heather Gonzalez is an independent policy analyst with over two decades of experience in federal and state government. She served as a specialist with the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), where she advised Members of Congress and their staff on the America COMPETES Act(s) and U.S. competitiveness and innovation-related programs, funding, and policies. At the state level, she worked on issues related to technology and education as senior staff to two Silicon Valley state senators (Vasconcellos and Simitian). Gonzalez graduated Phi Beta Kappa with a B.A. in Anthropology from the University of California, Santa Cruz and has a master’s in public policy from Pepperdine. She lives in San Francisco.

Sougata Poddar has taught Economics, Statistics and Business in various leading universities worldwide for several years. His areas of research interest are Applied Economic Theory, Industrial Organization and Competition Policy. He has published widely in the field of Technology Transfer and Licensing, Economics of Digital Piracy and Copyright Issues. His publications appeared in Economic Theory, Economics Letters, International Journal of Industrial Organization, Oxford Economic Papers, Review of Industrial Organization among other leading journals of economics and generated significant research impact and citations. His main research focus is to understand and analyze the impact of consumer behavior, firm strategies, emerging technologies and technology trends in the decision-making process of firms and competition policies from government agencies. Sougata is an economics faculty at the Argyros School of Business and Economics in Chapman University. He lives in Irvine, California.

Marshall Toplansky is an award-winning Innovation Professor of Management Science at the Argyros School of Business and Economics at Chapman University. He is a research fellow at the Center for Demographics and Policy and is director of the school’s Analytics Accelerator program. He and co-author Joel Kotkin recently published an economic and social policy brief entitled, “Restoring the California Dream”, which discusses the issues the state faces in maintaining home ownership for the middle class and rebuilding a positive business climate. Marshall is also co-host of “The Feudal Future Podcast”, which is seen twice monthly by viewers around the world.

Editor:

Joel Kotkin is the RC Hobbs Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures and author of eleven books, including The City: A Global History, The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us and, most recently, The Rise of Neo-Feudalism: A Warning to the Global Middle Class. He writes a regular column for Quillette, the American Mind, the National Post (Canada) and Spiked. He also writes for Unherd, National Review, the Los Angeles Times, and the Spectator. He has written extensively on issues on class and housing in Europe, North America and East Asia.

Los Angeles Slips Below 2010 Population: New State of California Estimates

Wendell Cox — Tue, 09 May 2023 20:28:58 -0400

The state Department of Finance (DOF) has reported, in its official population estimates, that California continued to lose population during calendar year 2022, with a population of 39,840,000 on January 1, 2023, down from 138,000 from its January 1, 2022 population. This is more than the previous year’s loss of 118,000.

However, population losses are unusual in a state that has historically enjoyed steady and sometime exceptional growth. But for more than two decades, an exodus has been mounting and often questioned by exodus deniers. More than 1,000,000 more people moved to somewhere else in the United States in both the 2000s and the 2010s, and just since the 2020 census, another nearly 900,000more residents left than arrived. The total reported Census Bureau net domestic migration loss was 3.475 million — more than the combined 2022 population of the cities of Chicago and Washington, DC. This is an astounding development in a state that had, between 1950 and 2020, gained approximately as many residents as the second largest state, Texas had in 2020 (29 million).

Los Angeles County

California’s largest losses have been in the nation’s most populous county, Los Angeles. The dominance of Los Angeles County has been remarkable. Since 1950, the county’s population rose from 4.151 million to 10.014 million, its gain being larger than the population that lives in the second ranked county in the nation — Cook in Illinois, where Chicago is located. With about one-quarter of the state’s population, Los Angeles County has accounted for nearly two thirds of the state’s net domestic migration loss since 2000 (2,230 million).

According to the new state estimates, the Los Angeles County population has fallen below its 2010 census count (down 58,000 from 9.810 million in 2010 to 9.761 million in 2023, a 0.046 percent annual loss). The loss since the 2020 census has been 253,000 (minus 2.5 percent).

The population loss in the last year has been pervasive in Los Angeles County — only 5 of the 88 cities (municipalities) gained population between 2022 and 2023.

City of Los Angeles

The city of Los Angeles has less than 40 percent of the county population. Its recent losses have been marginally greater than that of Los Angeles County. Like Los Angeles County, the city of Los Angeles has fallen below its 2010 census population, to 3.766 million in 2023 from 3.793 million in 2010, a loss of 132,000 since the 2020 census. Since 2010, the population has declined an average of 0.056 percent, slightly more than the Los Angeles County rate.

The city of Los Angeles has been nearing 4 million residents for more than 15 years. The State Department of Finance estimated the city’s population at 4.046 million in 2007, yet the subsequent 2010 census registered a count about 250,000 lower. According to the US Census Bureau, the city’s population peaked at 3,983 million in 2019.

Outside the City of Los Angeles

Areas in Los Angeles County outside the city account for more than 60 percent of the population, with 5.995 million residents. This is a loss of 31,000 from the 2020 Census, below the percentage loss of the city of Los Angeles.

Orange County

The Los Angeles metropolitan area includes both Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Orange County lost 50,000 residents from the 2020 census to 2023, for an annual loss rate of 1.6 percent, less than Los Angeles County but shocking for what has long been a major growth regime. Ten of the county’s 34 cities had population increases between 2022 and 2023. This is also better than Los Angeles County, but still illustrates pervasive losses.

Two of the three largest cities in Orange County have fallen below their 2010 census population. Anaheim has dropped from 336,000 in 2010 to 329,000 in 2023, for an annual loss rate of 0.165 percent. Santa Ana, the third largest city, and one of the densest in the United States, has fallen from 325,000 in 2010 to 299,000 in 2023, losing an average of 0.625 percent annually. Both of these loss rates are greater than the city of Los Angeles.

The second largest city in Orange County is Irvine, which had a 2.8 percent annual growth rate from 2010 to 2023. This high growth rate was made possible by the city’s substantial greenfield area and the continuing preference by households of comparatively lower densities as well as the city’s strong schools, low crime rate and ample open space.

San Francisco Bay Area

In the San Francisco Bay Area, the combined statistical area (CSA) as defined by the federal government, the counties close or on the coast all lost population, including Napa, Sonoma, Solano, Santa Cruzall lost population. Two of the three counties added to the CSA since 2010 gained population, San Joaquin [Stockton] and Merced gained, while Stanislaus (Modesto) lost.

San Francisco, which is both a city and a county, also lost between 2022 and 2023, falling from 837,000 to 832,000. San Francisco’s population is now more than 40,000 below its 2020 Census figure of 874,000. All of the other counties in the San Francisco metropolitan area also lost population, including Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin and San Mateo.

The city of San Jose, the third largest city in the state, peaked with a population of 1,037,000 in the middle 2010s. In 2023, San Jose is estimated to have a population of 960,000, down 78,000 from its peak. This 7.5% loss from peak was the largest of any city in the state with more than 200,000 residents.

The Interior

The one part of the state that has not experienced pervasive population loss is the interior, which we labeled the “Interior and Valleys” in a recent article examining the modern history of California population growth. This is the central valleys from Shasta County to Kern County as well as San Bernardino, Riverside and Imperial Counties. There were 11 Interior and Valleys counties that gained population last year, out of the total of 25. This 40 percent of the Interior and Valleys counties gaining population overshadows the one of 11 (6 percent) Coastal counties (Santa Rosa to San Diego County), in which only one county gained (San Benito). None of the other counties in the area had gains.

Where Growth Will Occur?

If population growth returns to California, it seems likely that it will occur in the interior, where recent population trends have been the least unfavorable, and nearly all the growth last year (albeit modest). A principal factor lies in the fact that the cost-of-living crisis there is considerably less severe than on the Coast.

Note: The California Department of Finance population estimates are reconciled to US Census Bureau figures in decennial census, but differ at other times, since the methodologies differ.

Photo: Largest Interior Valley — San Joaquin Valley from the north (by author).

California Growth and Domestic Migration: Changing Trends

Wendell Cox — Wed, 19 Apr 2023 20:28:58 -0400

For nearly all the 20th century, California was the national growth leader. In every census from 1930 to 2000, California added more residents than any other state. In 1900, California ranked 21st in population in 1900, but by 1970 secured the top position, which it has occupied since then. But much has changed. US Census Bureau estimates indicate that California’s population has declined three years in a row, after having never reporting a population loss since statehood in 1850s. U.S. Census Bureau data also indicates that there has been a net outflow of residents to other states of 3.5 million since 2000, as housing affordability has deteriorated and the cost of living has become more challenging.

Historically, most of California’s population growth has occurred along the Pacific Coast from Santa Rosa County to the Mexican border (called the “Coast: Bay to Border” in this analysis. This area peaked (post-war) with 79.8% of the state’s population in 1970 and 78.9% of state growth between the 1950 and 1960 censuses. By the 1990-2000 period, the share of state growth in this area had fallen to 57.1%.

This shift began in the 1970s as people began migration to what is referred to as the “Interior & Valleys,” which includes the counties between the Coast ranges on the west and the Sierra and Cascade ranges in the east. This includes the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys as well as San Bernardino, Riverside and Imperial Counties. This area includes two of the state’s six major metropolitan areas, Sacramento and Fresno.

In 1970, the Interior & Valleys accounted for 21.3% of the population, having added 20.1% of the California’s population growth between the 1960 and 1970 censuses. By 2000, the Interior Valleys had 28.1% of the population, but had more than doubled their 10-year growth share (1990-2000) to 41.2%.

During the 2000s, the Interior & Valleys, for the first time (post-war), accounted for a majority of the state’s population growth (51.3%). This increased to 55.6% in the next decade. In the first two years of the 2020s, the Interior & Valleys grew by 120,000 residents, while the Bay to Border lost 621,000 residents even as the state lost 509,000 during this period. Figure 1 illustrates these figures annualized.

Within the last decade, and in response to the much faster population growth of the San Joaquin Valley (in the Interior Valleys), the US Office of Management and Budget added counties with a strong commuting relationship with other Bay Area counties to the San Jose-San Francisco combined statistical area. These include San Joaquin County, Stanislaus County and Merced County, which remarkably has a border with Fresno County, near the middle of the Valley.

Coincidentally, in the peak year of Coastal population share (1970) all of the major housing markets in the state (the Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, San Jose and Fresno metropolitan areas) retained strong housing affordability, with median house prices under 3.0 times the median household income.

Since 2000, the state has lost 3.5 million net domestic migrants (people who move from one county to another) to other states. This is equal to 8.9% of the state’s 2022 population. The largest losses have occurred in markets with the most severe housing affordability. The Bay to Border lost net domestic migrants equal to 16.9% of their 2022 population, while the Interior & Valleys gained 6.7%. The other areas of the state — mostly lower populated areas in the North and to the east of the Sierras — lost net domestic migrants equal to 1.6% of their 2022 population.

Among the larger counties, the greatest net domestic migration losses relative to their 2022 population were Santa Clara, at minus 26.6%, San Mateo, at minus 23.3%, Los Angeles, at 22.9%, and San Francisco, at 22.0%.

In contrast, the counties of the Interior &Valley counties enjoyed strong net domestic migration between 2000 and 2009, at 734,000. But this dropped to 114,000 in between 2010 and 2020, an annual average of 11,400. In the first two years of this decade, annual net domestic migration dropped to a mere 7,000. This drop in net domestic migration corresponds with rapidly deteriorating housing affordability during the period (Figure 2).

Finally, the State Department of Finance 2060 population estimates anticipate further dominance by the Interior & Valleys. The projection was made before the population losses had been reported, and the next set of projections will take into consideration later trends. However, the Bay and Border population is projected to grow by 1.8 million from 2022 to 2060. The Interior & Valleys population is expected to grow nearly twice as much, at 3.4 million. The other parts of the state are projected to lose about 40,000 residents. In 2060, the Interior & Valleys share of the state population would reach 37.1%, up 85% from the 1970 share of 20.1%.

The changing dynamics of California population growth has caught the state government by surprise. As late as 2007, the Department of Finance was projecting a 2050 population of 60 million. The most recent projections call for 44.2 million residents, ten years later (2060). To the extent that California has growth potential, most of it is expected to occur in the Interior & Valleys. The days of the great coastal boom are over, and with it, an epoch in American demographics has come to an end. Go west has gone to the east, at least in California and perhaps some other states as well.

Photo: Fresno City Hall by ‘Model Citizen’ via Wikimedia under CC 3.0 License.

California Has a Population Problem – At a Minimum

Jerry Sullivan — Mon, 13 Mar 2023 20:28:58 -0400

There’s not much reason to expect more than a churn of mediocrity from the Los Angeles Times these days.

Too harsh?

Then consider this claim under an op-ed column with the headline "No, California doesn’t have a population crisis":

“California’s population story also varies by the types of migrants entering or leaving the state. When it comes to domestic migrants — people who move from one U.S. state to another — California lost 406,982 residents between 2021 and 2022. But it’s a different trajectory for international migrants who come from other countries. In that period, 90,314 more people arrived from abroad than the number of Californians who left the U.S.”

That string of data points came in the L.A. Times print edition of February 26, and you can check the whole thing here if you want to get full context. The piece was written by Irene Bloemraad, a University of California professor who serves as faculty director of the Berkeley Interdisciplinary Migration Initiative, along with Ethan Roubenoff, identified as a doctoral candidate in demography. It’s fair to presume that at least one of the four editors listed for the “Editorial Page/Opinion” section of the L.A. Times vetted the offering from the two academics.

The piece nevertheless reads like a disingenuous and botched attempt to twist data to counter news that California recently has––for the first time in its recorded history––been losing population.

Here's the disingenuous part: The column cites the net loss of 406,982 residents of California from 2021 to 2022 owing to domestic migration—more people moving to other states than coming in—as a bogeyman to be debunked. Then it attempts to debunk the bogeyman by pointing out that the state saw 90,314 more individuals come to the state from abroad than the total number of California residents who “left the U.S.”

That, taken with the headline and other setups the authors concocted, is presented as reason enough to lay to rest any concerns about overall population loss.

Just not for anyone who insists on engaging reality and notices that the authors switched their point of reference in mid paragraph, going from a larger loss on domestic migration to the smaller gain of international immigration. There are numerous reasons to consider and value both categories, but make no mistake—the shift of 406,982 individuals from California to other states in the U.S. overwhelmed both the inflow of immigrants from abroad and the natural increase driven by birth rates throughout the state.

Read the rest of this piece at The Pulse on LinkedIn

Jerry Sullivan is National Managing Editor at The Real Deal. You can follow him @SullivanSaysSC

Image courtesy The Pulse.

California: Most Urban and Densest Urban State

Wendell Cox — Mon, 23 Jan 2023 20:28:58 -0500

The 2020 Census reveals California to have both the highest urban population density and the highest urbanization share of total population among the states. The urban areas of California have a population density of 4.790 per square mile, above second ranked New York, at 4,645. A total of 94.2% of California residents live in urban areas, slightly above number two Nevada, at 94.1%.

This reflects a substantial change in the Census Bureau’s urban versus rural definition. From 1910 to 2010, urbanization was defined as settlements of 2,500 or more residents.From 1950 to 1990, larger areas of continuous urbanization were designated as “urbanized areas” based on density criteria. The “building blocks” of “urbanized areas” before 2000 were municipalities. Sometimes these municipalities included substantial undeveloped land (such as Los Angeles, which extended through the wilderness to the crest of the San Gabriel Mountains or New Orleans with its eastern wetlands extension). Further, settlements that did not qualify as “urbanized areas” could qualify under the minimum population criteria of 2,500.

In 2000, the Census Bureau started delineating continuously developed urban areas by computer, using the smallest census geography, the census block. This eliminated largely undeveloped areas like the Los Angeles and New Orleans cases referenced above. Overall, an urban area had to have a density of 2,500 or more. This rendered the urbanized areas of 2000 and 2010 incomparable with those before.

In 2020, a further revision required urban areas to meet either a 5,000 population or a 2,000 housing unit criteria as well as other changes. The actual urban areas are built up from census blocks using housing rather than population densities.

In 2020, the urban population of the United States was 265.2 million, 80.0% of the total. This is up from 249.3 million in 2010, when the urban population share was 80.7% of the population. The small decline in the urban percentage resulted principally from the revised density criteria.

The table below summarizes elements of urban density by state.

Highest Urban Density and Urbanization

The top 15 states in urban population density and percentage of urbanization are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2.

Nine of the 15 states with the highest urban densities are located in the west, including California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Colorado, Utah. Arizona, Washington and Idaho.

California, with the densest urbanization, has 70 of the 100 densest urban areas. California also has 35 of the 43 urban areas (81%) with population densities exceeding 5,000. California has the three densest urban areas with more than 500 ,000 population.

New York, with the second densest urbanization in the nation (4,645 per square mile), is largely driven by the part of the New York urban area in the state. New York state ranks ninth in the percentage of its population living in urban areas.

Hawaii has the third densest urbanization, largely due to the Honolulu urban area, which ranks fourth in density among the urban areas over 500,000 population (5,886).

Nevada has the fourth densest urbanization, at 3.715 per square mile, driven by Las Vegas, the sixth densest urban area, with 5,046 per square mile. The Las Vegas urban area has 71 percent of Nevada’s population.

Oregon has the fifth densest urbanization, at 3,209 per square mile. The Portland urban area most of which is located in Oregon has a density of 4,052, ranking 13th among the urban areas with more than 500,000 population.

New Jersey has the sixth densest urbanization (3,178), with largely suburban development in the New York and Philadelphia urban areas. New Jersey ranks third in its percentage of population in urban areas, at 93.8%.

Colorado has the seventh densest urbanization (3,119) where Denver, with about 4,200 per square mile ranking 11th out of those over 500,000.

Utah has an urban density of 3,119 per square mile, the ninth highest. Utah has the seventh highest percentage of its residents living in urban areas, at 89.8%.

Illinois has the tenth densest urbanization, at 3,007 per square mile. Illinois also has the 10th highest urbanization rate, at 86.9%.

Lowest Urban Density and Urbanization

The 15 states with the lowest urban population density and percentage of urbanization are illustrated in Figures 3 and 4.

The states with the lowest urban population densities are in the Northeast and South. New Hampshire has the lowest density, at 1,274 per square mile. Much of the state is in the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT combined statistical area, including its largest city (Manchester). New Hampshire also has the ninth lowest urban population share, at 58.3 percent.

Maine, adjacent to New Hampshire has similar urban population characteristics, with the second lowest urban population density (1.303) and the second lowest urbanization, at 38.6 percent of the population.

Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina are ranked third through fifth in urban density. Mississippi has the fourth lowest urbanization rate.

Only one western state, Alaska, is among the states with the 5th lowest urban density. Two eastern states, Vermont and Connecticut also have among the lowest urban densities.

Seven of the 15 states with the lowest urban densities are in the south, including West Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Louisiana and Delaware. North Carolina and Georgia are particularly notable, as two of the fastest growing states, both of which have recently reached a population of 10 million.

Vermont is the least urbanized state, with only 35.1 percent of its population in urban areas. Maine is a close second, with only 38.6 percent of its population in urban areas.

Rankings by Urban Land Share of Total Land

The 15 states with the largest and smallest percentage of total land are illustrated in Figures 5 and 6.

The four states with the largest share of land that is urban are all located in the Northeast. New Jersey has the highest share of its land in urbanization, at 37.3%. Nearly all of New Jersey’s urbanization is in the suburbs of New York and Philadelphia. Massachusetts nearly equals the urbanized land share of New Jersey, at 37.1%. Rhode Island ranks a close third, with 36.7% of its land urbanized. Connecticut ranks fourth, at 34.6% of its land urbanized. Both Rhode Island and Connecticut have portions have extensions of urbanization from Massachusetts urban areas (Boston and Worcester). Each of these five states with the greatest percentage of urban land is among the smallest geographically in the nation.

Delaware, with two of its three counties in suburban Philadelphia has 22.0% of its land urbanized. Maryland, with its extensive suburbs of Washington, DC and the large Baltimore urban area ranks sixth, at 18.8%. Florida has an urban land share of 14.8%.

There are nine states with urbanized land shares less than one percent, including Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho,New Mexico, Nebraska and Nevada.

One of the reasons that the urban area criteria was changed was so that the Census Bureau could provide complete urban area estimates (population, land area and population density) between censuses, using its master file of addresses. At the same time, the Census Bureau indicated that, while it now has that ability, it has no plans to do so at this time (Note).

The dominance of the West among the states with the highest urban densities may be surprising, given their historically lower urban core densities than in the Northeast and Midwest. But while western cities have experienced some decline in their cores, the losses in the rest of the country have been greater. Today there are only four major metropolitan areas in the West that have large (100,000 or more) and These losses, but much more the suburban expansion of these metros explain much of the ascendance of the West in urban density.

Note 1: As a matter of interest, Canada, which used criteria very similar to that of the US Census Bureau for its own urban areas (called “population centres”) in the 2016 and 2021 censuses. On important difference was that rather than having a minimum population of 2,500, Canada’s population centres are required to have a minimum population of 1,000.

Note 2: Derived from Census Bureau data and unpublished data from the Demographia City Sector Model.

Photo: Las Vegas Urban Area, with 71% of Nevada’s population, it is the 5th densest major urban area in the United States as of 2020 (following San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Jose, New York and Honolulu. Credit: Stan Shebs, downtown Las Vegas, Nevada via Wikimedia under CC 3.0 License.

Table 1 (back to reference)

Urbanization by State (& DC) 2020 Census
State	Total Population	Urban Population	Urban Share	Rank	Total Land Area	Urban Land Area	Share of Total Land	Rank	Urban Density	Rank
Alabama	5,024,279	2,900,880	57.7%	43	50,645	2,093	4.1%	23	1,386	47
Alaska	733,391	475,967	64.9%	36	570,641	324	0.1%	50	1,467	45
Arizona	7,151,502	6,385,230	89.3%	8	113,594	2,164	1.9%	33	2,951	10
Arkansas	3,011,524	1,670,677	55.5%	45	52,035	1,088	2.1%	31	1,536	43
California	39,538,223	37,259,490	94.2%	1	155,779	7,779	5.0%	20	4,790	1
Colorado	5,773,714	4,966,936	86.0%	13	103,642	1,577	1.5%	37	3,150	7
Connecticut	3,605,944	3,110,153	86.3%	11	4,842	1,673	34.6%	4	1,859	37
Delaware	989,948	817,817	82.6%	17	1,949	430	22.0%	5	1,903	36
Dist. of Columbia	689,545	689,545	100.0%		61	61	100.0%		11,281
Florida	21,538,187	19,714,806	91.5%	4	53,625	7,952	14.8%	7	2,479	18
Georgia	10,711,908	7,933,986	74.1%	23	57,513	4,662	8.1%	11	1,702	39
Hawaii	1,455,271	1,252,450	86.1%	12	6,423	302	4.7%	21	4,142	3
Idaho	1,839,106	1,273,437	69.2%	31	82,643	478	0.6%	45	2,662	14
Illinois	12,812,508	11,137,590	86.9%	10	55,519	3,704	6.7%	18	3,007	9
Indiana	6,785,528	4,829,686	71.2%	29	35,826	2,425	6.8%	16	1,991	32
Iowa	3,190,369	2,014,831	63.2%	38	55,857	977	1.7%	35	2,062	30
Kansas	2,937,880	2,124,059	72.3%	26	81,759	976	1.2%	39	2,176	24
Kentucky	4,505,836	2,644,856	58.7%	41	39,486	1,379	3.5%	25	1,918	35
Louisiana	4,657,757	3,332,237	71.5%	28	43,204	1,951	4.5%	22	1,708	38
Maine	1,362,359	526,309	38.6%	49	30,843	404	1.3%	38	1,303	49
Maryland	6,177,224	5,288,760	85.6%	14	9,707	1,828	18.8%	6	2,893	11
Massachusetts	7,029,917	6,416,895	91.3%	5	7,800	2,891	37.1%	2	2,219	22
Michigan	10,077,331	7,404,258	73.5%	24	56,539	3,514	6.2%	19	2,107	27
Minnesota	5,706,494	4,101,754	71.9%	27	79,627	1,647	2.1%	32	2,491	17
Mississippi	2,961,279	1,370,790	46.3%	47	46,923	1,017	2.2%	30	1,348	48
Missouri	6,154,913	4,275,663	69.5%	30	68,742	2,034	3.0%	28	2,102	28
Montana	1,084,225	579,177	53.4%	46	145,546	292	0.2%	48	1,982	34
Nebraska	1,961,504	1,432,003	73.0%	25	76,824	542	0.7%	43	2,640	15
Nevada	3,104,614	2,921,203	94.1%	2	109,781	786	0.7%	42	3,715	4
New Hampshire	1,377,529	803,420	58.3%	42	8,953	631	7.0%	14	1,274	50
New Jersey	9,288,994	8,708,779	93.8%	3	7,354	2,740	37.3%	1	3,178	6
New Mexico	2,117,522	1,578,552	74.5%	22	121,298	737	0.6%	44	2,143	25
New York	20,201,249	17,665,166	87.4%	9	47,126	3,803	8.1%	13	4,645	2
North Carolina	10,439,388	6,964,727	66.7%	34	48,618	4,523	9.3%	10	1,540	42
North Dakota	779,094	474,989	61.0%	40	69,001	215	0.3%	47	2,208	23
Ohio	11,799,448	9,001,099	76.3%	20	40,861	4,206	10.3%	8	2,140	26
Oklahoma	3,959,353	2,558,611	64.6%	37	68,595	1,288	1.9%	34	1,987	33
Oregon	4,237,256	3,410,984	80.5%	18	95,988	1,063	1.1%	41	3,209	5
Pennsylvania	13,002,700	9,941,070	76.5%	19	44,743	4,176	9.3%	9	2,380	20
Rhode Island	1,097,379	999,191	91.1%	6	1,034	380	36.7%	3	2,631	16
South Carolina	5,118,425	3,477,869	67.9%	32	30,061	2,426	8.1%	12	1,433	46
South Dakota	886,667	507,347	57.2%	44	75,811	246	0.3%	46	2,066	29
Tennessee	6,910,840	4,577,282	66.2%	35	41,235	2,888	7.0%	15	1,585	41
Texas	29,145,505	24,400,697	83.7%	15	261,232	9,052	3.5%	26	2,696	13
Utah	3,271,616	2,937,303	89.8%	7	82,170	942	1.1%	40	3,119	8
Vermont	643,077	225,850	35.1%	50	9,217	142	1.5%	36	1,595	40
Virginia	8,631,393	6,528,313	75.6%	21	39,490	2,642	6.7%	17	2,471	19
Washington	7,705,281	6,424,035	83.4%	16	66,456	2,334	3.5%	24	2,752	12
West Virginia	1,793,716	800,857	44.6%	48	24,038	540	2.2%	29	1,483	44
Wisconsin	5,893,718	3,953,691	67.1%	33	54,158	1,771	3.3%	27	2,232	21
Wyoming	576,851	357,750	62.0%	39	97,093	177	0.2%	49	2,024	31
United States	331,449,281	265,149,027	80.0%		3,531,907	103,872	2.9%		2,553
Source: US Census Bureau

How Big is the Working Class — and Why Does It Matter?

Jack Metzgar — Fri, 28 Oct 2022 20:28:58 -0400

Americans without bachelor’s degrees outnumber college grads 2 to 1. But if you and most people you know and have ever known are college graduates, you might not realize that most Americans are not like you and your cohort. As a result, you’re likely to think your class of people is much, much larger than it is.

That misunderstanding is crucial for American politics in the early 21^st century. As David Shor and others have pointed out, most political operatives and activists – and perhaps especially Democrats — are college grads who seem to assume that most voters are like them.

Likewise, most network and cable TV reporters and commentators also often seem to assume that almost everybody has been to college. They might get the right answer on a true-or-false question if somebody asked, but nobody does. And, thus, there is a feedback loop among the political and pundit class: they don’t realize that they are engaged in a public inter-class conversation that is code-restricted to those who have graduated from college – and maybe even only to those who have graduated from the most elite schools.

For the past two decades, Ruy Teixeira and a handful of other progressive Democratic analysts have been banging their heads against this wall, trying to convince Dems to pay more attention to working-class whites, defined as whites without bachelor’s degrees, and now raising alarms about the erosion of Black and Hispanic working-class voters as well. Teixeira’s latest effort on the coming mid-term elections shows how the political class shapes issues based on unconscious or semi-conscious class bias: focusing on abortion, Trump’s corruption, gun control, and January 6^th – issues top of mind among the college-educated – to the exclusion of economic issues, including inflation and its effects on real wages, that matter most to working-class voters of all colors.

I sympathize with Teixeira’s frustration with the class tilt of Democratic Party professionals and most of the media, but I think he presents too uniform a view of the party, one that may be accurate in the D.C. – New York corridor but much less so across the country. President Biden has repeatedly emphasized working-class issues, for example, as have several Democratic Congressional candidates, like Tim Ryan in Ohio.

But the party can’t ignore issues like abortion and Trumpian corruption for both principled reasons and because it is a cross-class, multi-racial coalition that cannot work without all of its parts.

Democratic data firm Catalist makes the challenge clear: Democrats are still a mostly working-class party, as 58% of Biden voters, all colors, did not have bachelor’s degrees. But the other 42% of the coalition did, and Democrats cannot ignore either group’s interests. The picture gets more complicated when we factor in race. Catalist groups Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and “Others” together as people of color (POC), and they made up 39% of the Biden coalition.

Read the rest of this piece at Working-Class Perspectives.

Jack Metzgar is a retired Professor of Humanities from Roosevelt University in Chicago, where he is a core member of the Chicago Center for Working-Class Studies. His research interests include labor politics, working-class voting patterns, working-class culture, and popular and political discourse about class. He is a former President of the Working-Class Studies Association.

Fertility in Canada’s Provinces and Metropolitan Areas: 2020

Wendell Cox — Mon, 12 Sep 2022 20:28:58 -0400

Canada, like virtually all regions classified as “more developed” by the United Nations (Europe, Canada, the United States, Japan, Australia and New Zealand) is experiencing a dropping birth rate. The favored international indicator is the total fertility rate (TFR), the number of children that the average woman has during her child-bearing years.

The data for TFRs for Canada, the provinces and territories and the census metropolitan areas (CMAs) for 2020 was obtained from Statistics Canada (Note: Source), by Professor Don Kerr of Western University (University of Western Ontario), which he kindly provided. The Statistics Canada data, covers 36 CMAs (with Ottawa-Gatineau [ON-QC] separated into its Ontario and Quebec parts).

According to Statistics Canada, Canada’s TFR dropped to a record low of 1.40 in 2020, down from 1.47 in 2019. By comparison, overall the regions designated as “more developed” by the United Nations had a TFR of 1.51, very close to Canada’s rate. Australia had a higher TFR of 1.59 and the United States 1.64. A replacement rate TFR of 2.10 is required to maintain a nation’s population level, all things being equal.

Provinces and Territories

There is a wide variation in TFR among the provinces and territories (Figure 1). British Columbia has the lowest TFR, at 1.18. The four Atlantic provinces are among the six with the lowest TFRs, including Nova Scotia (1.24), Newfoundland and Labrador (1.26), Prince Edward Island (1.33) and New Brunswick (1.42). Ontario ranks fifth lowest, with a TFR of 1.34.

TFRs are somewhat higher in the Prairies, with 7th ranked Alberta, at 1.51, Manitoba, at 1.61 and Saskatchewan at 1.78. Quebec has a TFR of 1.52 and the Northwest Territories is at 1.64. Nunavut (territory) has by far the highest reported TFR, at 2.72 and is the only provincial level jurisdiction with an above replacement rate (2.10). Data was not reported for the Yukon (territory).

Major Metropolitan Area TFRs

Among the six major metropolitan areas (over 1,000,000 population), Vancouver has the lowest TFR, at 1.09. Toronto has a TFR of 1.21, ranked seventh lowest overall. The Ontario portion of Ottawa-Gatineau (with about three-quarters of the metropolitan area population) has a TFR of 1.25, ranked eighth lowest. Calgary, at a TFR of 1.33 and ranks 13th lowest overall. Edmonton and Montreal are tied at 18th lowest overall, with a TFR of 1.41. The Quebec portion of Ottawa-Gatineau has a TFR of 1.46, ranking 26th lowest.

While no overall Ottawa-Gatineau figure was reported, a “ball park” TFR can be estimated at about 1.30 based on population weighting (2020 estimates). This would produce an overall 11th ranking for the entire metropolitan area.

All six of the major metropolitan areas have a below replacement rate TFR, ranging from Vancouver’s 1.09 to Montreal and Edmonton at 1.41 (and likely Ottawa-Gatineau at about 1.30). Each of the six major metropolitan areas has a TFR below the lowest (San Francisco, at 1.49) of the 56 major metropolitan areas in the United States (Note: Metropolitan Areas).

Overall Metropolitan Area Rankings

Among all CMA’s, Victoria has the lowest TFR, at 0.95 (see Table). International metropolitan area TFRs are not routinely reported, but from the rates we have identified, the Victoria CMA seems likely to be among the lowest.The World Bank data estimates the 2020 Hong Kong TFR at 0.87, while Singapore, long known for its low fertility rate is at 1.10. Some metropolitan areas, however are reported to be even lower, with Shanghai and Beijing reported around 0.70 and Seoul at 0.73.

In addition to nearby major metropolitan Vancouver, four other CMAs have TFRs below 1.20, including (in order) Halifax (1.10), St. John’s (1.14), Kelowna (1.15) and Kingston (1.19). Along with majors Toronto and Ottawa-Gatineau (ON), two additional CMAs have TFRs under 1.30, Moncton (1.28) and London (1.29). Major metropolitan area Calgary and five other CMAs have TFRs below the national rate of 1.40, including Winnipeg (1.31), Sudbury (1.32), Thunder Bay (1.33), Peterborough (1.35) and Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo (1.37). Often referred to as Canada’s Silicon Valley, Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo has a TFR lower than that of California’s original Silicon Valley, which sprawls over San Jose (1.59) and San Francisco (Figure 2).

The highest TFR is in Brantford, at 1.67, well below the replacement rate of 2.10 (Figure 3). The second highest TFR is in Saguenay and Belleville, at 1.58. Six other CMAs have TFRs of 1.50 and above, Abbotsford-Mission (1.57), Lethbridge (1.54), Oshawa (1.53), Saint John (1.52), as well as Regina and Trois-Rivieres (1.50).

Comparison of Major and Smaller CMAs

The major CMAs have, with an average TFR of 1.29, lower than the 1.39 of the smaller CMAs. Both averages are below the national TFR of 1.40. Overall, the TFR in the rest of the nation is greater though there is no immediately available figure.

Part of the reason for higher TFRs outside the major metropolitan areas is lower house prices that attract younger households. This is especially true in British Columbia and Ontario, where there has been considerable net outmigration away from most unaffordable Vancouver and Toronto to other CMAs in the same provinces.

A Challenging Future

According to the United Nations World Population Prospects and Vienna’s Wittgenstein Centre the prospect is for world population to peak later in the century and then begin to drop. It is already dropping in Japan and is expected to soon decline in China, where with its current TFR of 1.18, the population could fall by 650 million by 2100. Canada is expected to continue growing, but at a much slower rate than in recent decades. This growth is expected to be largely from immigration.

Sitting in traffic congestion on Toronto’s “401” (MacDonald Cartier Freeway) or in other crowded situations, one might be tempted to applaud the looming slower population growth and declines. However, the nature of this population change creates substantial challenges. Not the least is that the population will get older, and newer generations smaller. The resulting much smaller workforce is likely to be hard pressed to pay the taxes required for the much greater social welfare needs of the larger older cohorts. This does not bode well for a world, and Canada, both of which already face a cost of living crisis.

Note: Source — Adapted from Statistics Canada, “Total Fertility Rate (live births) (children per woman), 2020, Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) Censusand Non-CMACAs, Canada: Standard Geographical Classification 2016.” This does not constitute an endorsement by Statistics Canada of this product.

Note: Metropolitan Areas — Criteria for delineating metropolitan areas varies by nation.

Photo: Vancouver: Major metropolitan area with lowest total fertility rate in Northern America (Canada and the United States). Photography by author.

Table 1(back to text)

Total Fertility Rate: Metros — San Francisco (Lowest) to Jacksonville (Highest)

Wendell Cox — Mon, 22 Aug 2022 20:28:58 -0400

As we previously reported, US total fertility rates have dropped markedly since 2010. The total fertility rate (TFR) is “the expected number of lifetime births per woman women given current birth rates by age.” Generally, the TFR needs to be at least 2.10 for a society to maintain its population.

Few of the nation’s 56 major metropolitan areas (more than 1,000,000 population) have retained TFRs above replacement rate based on data from the American Community Survey: 2016 to 2020 (Table). This is more than a measurement of pandemic effects and includes less than one year of the pandemic. The mid-point of this data is 2018.

While TFR data is available from the Centers for Disease Control at the state and national level, there little or no readily available data at the metropolitan, county or municipality level. But there is sufficient ACS data to perform the calculations. The TFR calculation method, used to derive the metropolitan area data, is described in this government of Singapore page. The average TFR among the 56 major metropolitan areas was 1.785 over the 2016 to 2020 period.

Major Metropolitan Areas with the Highest TFRs

Among the 15 major metropolitan areas with the highest total fertility rates, seven are located in the South and five in the Midwest. Three are located in the west and none are located in the Northeast The highest ranking major metro in the north east is Buffalo, with a TFR of 1.82. Pittsburgh ranks 25th, at 1.80.
(Figure 1).

Only three of the largest metropolitan areas have TFRs at or above the population replacement rate.

Jacksonville is the highest with a rate of 2.19 children per women of childbearing years.Tulsa with a TFR of 2.12 has the second highest total fertility rate. Honolulu ranks third with a TFR of 2.10.

The other 53 major metropolitan areas have total fertility rates at lower than replacement rate.

Fresno, one of the three recent additions to the list of major metropolitan areas (the others being Tulsa and Honolulu) ranked number four, with a TFR of 1.99.

Ten other major metros had TFRs of at least 1.90. This includes, in order, Grand Rapids, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Houston, Oklahoma City, Memphis, Salt Lake City, Detroit, Dallas Fort Worth, Columbus, and Birmingham.Salt Lake City’s 11th ranking may be surprising, located in the state of Utah, which has often had the highest TFR in the nation.

Only two of the nation’s nine metropolitan areas with more than 5 million residentsare ranked in the top 15--- Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth.

Major Metropolitan Areas with the Lowest TFRs

San Francisco had the lowest total fertility rate, at 1.49. It was closely followed by Los Angeles with a TFR of 1.52. In addition to these two, California also had the major metro with the 6th lowest TFR, in San Jose, at 1.59 (Figure 2).

Five other metros had total fertility rates of under 1.60, including Austin, Boston, Hartford, and Orlando.

The balance of the top 15 had total fertility rate of 1.70 or lower. These include (from lowest to highest) Denver, Portland, Miami, New York, Tampa-St. Petersburg, New Orleans, Washington and Las Vegas.

Additional Observations

California has large TFR differences between its broad regions, the coast and the interior. The four major metros on the coast (Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego and San Jose) have far lower TFRs, averaging 1.58, compared to the interior major metros (Riverside-San Bernardino, Sacramento and Fresno), which average 1.86, a different of almost 20%.

Raleigh (1.82) and Seattle (1.77) have stronger TFRs than other tech centers, such as San Francisco (1.49), San Jose (1.59), Austin (1.53), Denver (1.61) and Portland (1.62).

International Context

Total Fertility Rates have been declining in most areas of the world. The US TFR had declined to a level similar with those of European nations, as of 2020. The estimated US major metropolitan area TFR, averaging 1.79 remain healthier than that of metropolitan London (including East and Southeast England), at about 1.64 (derived from Office for National Statistics data). The USmajor metro TFR is far higher than that we have estimated for metro Tokyo (Tokyo, Kanagawa, Saitama and Chiba), at 1.21 and metro Seoul (Seoul, Gyeonggi and Incheon), based on Korea Statistical Information Service data, at 0.73. There are also reports that the TFRs of metropolitan Shanghai and metropolitan Beijing are even lower, at approximately 0.70 (Note). America may not be producing enough children, but it’s hardly doing worse than most of its prime competitors.

Note: The provinces, which are also the municipalities of Shanghai and Beijing include virtually all of the built-up urban areas and the commuting shed to the outside, and are thus metropolitan labor markets.

Photo: Jacksonville: US major metropolitan area with the highest estimated Total Fertility Rate (2016-2020), via Wikimedia under CC 4.0 License.