Population Growth

[joeDowntown]

11 hours ago, organsnyder said:

With all of this growth, any thoughts on how our congressional districts might be reconfigured in 2020?

Clever, but stay on topic. Thx. 

Joe

[arcturus]

Michigan:  2nd lowest population growth in the country 2007 - 2017 and 2nd lowest population growth in Midwest 2017.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/data-visualizations/2014/fiscal-50#ind10

[GRLaker]

35 minutes ago, arcturus said:

Michigan:  2nd lowest population growth in the country 2007 - 2017 and 2nd lowest population growth in Midwest 2017.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/data-visualizations/2014/fiscal-50#ind10

Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor, and Traverse City have done a good job attracting people. Detroit, Flint, and Lansing need to start doing their fair share in order for the state to start climbing in those rankings.

[MJLO]

2 hours ago, arcturus said:

Michigan:  2nd lowest population growth in the country 2007 - 2017 and 2nd lowest population growth in Midwest 2017.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/data-visualizations/2014/fiscal-50#ind10

Absolutely meaningless statistic.  What was happening in 2007 is completely different than circumstances in 2017.  Michigan lost people from 2007-2011 so of course it's going to perform badly when factoring in the great recession.  Michigan is currently running in the middle of the pack in terms of population growth since 2012,  and it's gains have been increasing every year. 

 

1 hour ago, GRLaker said:

Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor, and Traverse City have done a good job attracting people. Detroit, Flint, and Lansing need to start doing their fair share in order for the state to start climbing in those rankings.

Michigan started climbing in those rankings seven years ago.  If you've been paying attention to statistics you'd see that Lansing has performed above average in MSA growth since 2012.  The Detroit area has also been gaining people by increasing numbers since 2011.   The state as a whole has been better performing since the auto bailout.

Articles like this are misleading and do not portray accurately current conditions.   In the case of Michigan you're looking at diametrically opposite economic conditions on either end.   In 2009  Michigan was in full economic collapse(SE Michigan in particular).  In 2018 Michigan is in the top 3rd for economic growth. 

Growth stats for the 11 largest MSA in Michigan since 2010

[joeDowntown]

I'd also question whether the Detroit MSA includes some of the counties that still consider themselves part of Detroit, but are part of the outer suburbs. 

Whenever I travel to Detroit (and the surrounding areas), I'm amazed about the insane amount of construction going on. I don't know how they could sustain such growth if they're losing as many people as they're gaining (unless there is a mass exodus in some areas, and huge growth in others). 

Joe

[GRDadof3]

2 hours ago, joeDowntown said:

I'd also question whether the Detroit MSA includes some of the counties that still consider themselves part of Detroit, but are part of the outer suburbs. 

Whenever I travel to Detroit (and the surrounding areas), I'm amazed about the insane amount of construction going on. I don't know how they could sustain such growth if they're losing as many people as they're gaining (unless there is a mass exodus in some areas, and huge growth in others). 

Joe

Detroit (the city) is still estimated to be shedding 20 - 30,000 people per year or more, even though their declines have slowed in recent years. So the Metro Detroit burbs could be gaining 30,000/year and still only the metro netting a few thousand. Detroit MSA also includes Livingston and Macomb Counties which are pretty far flung from downtown D but are growing like crazy. 

[arcturus]

2 hours ago, MJLO said:

Absolutely meaningless statistic.

Of course it's meaningful and certainly no less than parsing it into smaller periods to suit one's bias.   It's using the latest census figures and a 10 yr look back ... a reasonable, common yardstick.   It encompasses both the drastic drop and subsequent rebound.  It tells the story about a state (not solely immune to the recession btw) that lost so much that it's remarkable it dragged itself nearly out of the hole.  Whats to say its recent growth has as much to do with the vacuum created (which is now filling) as it is with new growth had the recession not occurred?   There's a crapload of labor intensive road and infrastructure improvements and housing underway thanks to previous austerity measures and deferred maintenance that a 10 year look back will more accurately portray.

Tell you what .. if/when the next recession hits and it so happens the state is initially MORE immune then drops off the cliff in years 6 - 10 feel free to do a 180 and emphasize the 10 yr figure while dismissing the last few when its getting hammered.  It works both ways.

[GRDadof3]

2 minutes ago, arcturus said:

Of course it's meaningful and certainly no less than parsing it into smaller periods to suit one's bias.   It's using the latest census figures and a 10 yr look back ... a reasonable, common yardstick.   It encompasses both the drastic drop and subsequent rebound.  It tells the story about a state (not solely immune to the recession btw) that lost so much that it's remarkable it dragged itself nearly out of the hole.  Whats to say its recent growth has as much to do with the vacuum created (which is now filling) as it is with new growth had the recession not occurred?   There's a crapload of labor intensive road and infrastructure improvements and housing underway thanks to previous austerity measures and deferred maintenance that a 10 year look back will more accurately portray.

Tell you what .. if/when the next recession hits and it so happens the state is initially MORE immune then drops off the cliff in years 6 - 10 feel free to do a 180 and emphasize the 10 yr figure while dismissing the last few when its getting hammered.  It works both ways.

Numerous articles I've read put the next slow-down/recession at 2020 at the earliest, maybe 21 or 22. If that's the case, then a 10 year lookback to 2010 will look pretty good for Michigan.

[MJLO]

1 hour ago, arcturus said:

Of course it's meaningful and certainly no less than parsing it into smaller periods to suit one's bias.   It's using the latest census figures and a 10 yr look back ... a reasonable, common yardstick.   It encompasses both the drastic drop and subsequent rebound.  It tells the story about a state (not solely immune to the recession btw) that lost so much that it's remarkable it dragged itself nearly out of the hole.  Whats to say its recent growth has as much to do with the vacuum created (which is now filling) as it is with new growth had the recession not occurred?   There's a crapload of labor intensive road and infrastructure improvements and housing underway thanks to previous austerity measures and deferred maintenance that a 10 year look back will more accurately portray.

 

I disagree.  Where you say I'm biased, I think it's an intellectually dishonest representation.    When you look at how rapidly the state started losing people, and then how quickly that trend was reversed, you're not dealing with normal economic conditions, or population trends.  In a three year period(2007-2009) 135,000 residents fled the state.  That's 80% of the statistic that's driving your narrative, but only 30% of the time frame.   By 2020  those years will have been erased, the state will jump 23 spots or more in that same ranking.    No other state can claim that.  The economic period from 2007-2009 was not representative of normal economic patterns prior, nor does it account for the economic patterns since.   It is HIGHLY unlikely such dramatic conditions will be present in the next economic slowdown. 

Quote

Tell you what .. if/when the next recession hits and it so happens the state is initially MORE immune then drops off the cliff in years 6 - 10 feel free to do a 180 and emphasize the 10 yr figure while dismissing the last few when its getting hammered.  It works both ways.

Do you honestly think economic conditions  that extreme will present themselves to put the state in the same position?  Not to mention the Automakers were forced to reorganize away from the toxic conditions that put Michigan in there in the first place.  They are not the same companies.   If such a case does happen, I promise you Michigan wouldn't be alone in misery like it was in the events leading to 2007-2009.   It would not rank 50 out of 51 in that stat.

[joeDowntown]

1 hour ago, GRDadof3 said:

Detroit (the city) is still estimated to be shedding 20 - 30,000 people per year or more, even though their declines have slowed in recent years. So the Metro Detroit burbs could be gaining 30,000/year and still only the metro netting a few thousand. Detroit MSA also includes Livingston and Macomb Counties which are pretty far flung from downtown D but are growing like crazy. 

I stand corrected. Livingston was one of the counties that came to mind. It seems amazing to me that with all the growth in one area, there is that much exodus in another. Wow!

Joe

[GRDadof3]

4 hours ago, MJLO said:

I disagree.  Where you say I'm biased, I think it's an intellectually dishonest representation.    When you look at how rapidly the state started losing people, and then how quickly that trend was reversed, you're not dealing with normal economic conditions, or population trends.  In a three year period(2007-2009) 135,000 residents fled the state.  That's 80% of the statistic that's driving your narrative, but only 30% of the time frame.   By 2020  those years will have been erased, the state will jump 23 spots or more in that same ranking.    No other state can claim that.  The economic period from 2007-2009 was not representative of normal economic patterns prior, nor does it account for the economic patterns since.   It is HIGHLY unlikely such dramatic conditions will be present in the next economic slowdown. 

Do you honestly think economic conditions  that extreme will present themselves to put the state in the same position?  Not to mention the Automakers were forced to reorganize away from the toxic conditions that put Michigan in there in the first place.  They are not the same companies.   If such a case does happen, I promise you Michigan wouldn't be alone in misery like it was in the events leading to 2007-2009.   It would not rank 50 out of 51 in that stat.

One of the most encouraging stats to me is the switch from -negative net domestic migration in the GR MSA to positive net domestic migration (far right column):

 

[arcturus]

17 hours ago, MJLO said:

I disagree.  Where you say I'm biased, I think it's an intellectually dishonest representation.    When you look at how rapidly the state started losing people, and then how quickly that trend was reversed, you're not dealing with normal economic conditions, or population trends.  In a three year period(2007-2009) 135,000 residents fled the state.  That's 80% of the statistic that's driving your narrative, but only 30% of the time frame.   By 2020  those years will have been erased, the state will jump 23 spots or more in that same ranking.    No other state can claim that.  The economic period from 2007-2009 was not representative of normal economic patterns prior, nor does it account for the economic patterns since.   It is HIGHLY unlikely such dramatic conditions will be present in the next economic slowdown. 

Do you honestly think economic conditions  that extreme will present themselves to put the state in the same position?  Not to mention the Automakers were forced to reorganize away from the toxic conditions that put Michigan in there in the first place.  They are not the same companies.   If such a case does happen, I promise you Michigan wouldn't be alone in misery like it was in the events leading to 2007-2009.   It would not rank 50 out of 51 in that stat.

The discussion is Michigan relative to other states, many with a large manufacturing presence, none immune to the recession, all of which have rebounded to varying degree.  There were 2 stats, remember?  The economic conditions were an aberration to ALL states with equally compelling stories of woe.  I'm certain Michigan's rank will jump in 2020 but let's not forget the auto industry still plays an important part and it's the deep hole to begin with that boosts the ranking so please no lecture on 'intellectual dishonesty' ok?

As to what happens during a future recession I guess the good news is it won't impact the state as much ... the damage has deflated its susceptibility.  I mean what can a new recession do to Wyoming, MI a this point?  Besides, as it relates to population stats, it takes a back seat to baby boom migration anyway.  Despite some nice publicity touting GR and Traverse City as wonderful retirement meccas ... which might change 6 people's minds ... the shift continues south and west. It's nice to see a little net migration once again as the clash between new residents vs adios amigo! hits equilibrium.  Quite an accomplishment but nothing significant in the big picture. The state will gain in population slightly but will continue to fall in rank.

Another recession will hurt the state of course.  How it plays out relative to other states remains to be seen. 

[GRDadof3]

7 hours ago, arcturus said:

The discussion is Michigan relative to other states, many with a large manufacturing presence, none immune to the recession, all of which have rebounded to varying degree.  There were 2 stats, remember?  The economic conditions were an aberration to ALL states with equally compelling stories of woe.  I'm certain Michigan's rank will jump in 2020 but let's not forget the auto industry still plays an important part and it's the deep hole to begin with that boosts the ranking so please no lecture on 'intellectual dishonesty' ok?

As to what happens during a future recession I guess the good news is it won't impact the state as much ... the damage has deflated its susceptibility.  I mean what can a new recession do to Wyoming, MI a this point?  Besides, as it relates to population stats, it takes a back seat to baby boom migration anyway.  Despite some nice publicity touting GR and Traverse City as wonderful retirement meccas ... which might change 6 people's minds ... the shift continues south and west. It's nice to see a little net migration once again as the clash between new residents vs adios amigo! hits equilibrium.  Quite an accomplishment but nothing significant in the big picture. The state will gain in population slightly but will continue to fall in rank.

Another recession will hurt the state of course.  How it plays out relative to other states remains to be seen. 

You win... points scored .... and none of us feels any more intellectually better off. 

If you think only 6 people have migrated to Northwestern Michigan for retirement (snowbirds albeit) you are a fool and ignorant.  Sometimes you overreach with your light saber. 

[arcturus]

15 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

If you think only 6 people have migrated to Northwestern Michigan for retirement (snowbirds albeit) you are a fool and ignorant.  Sometimes you overreach with your light saber. 

Oh please .. if you think the comment was made without a bit of sarcasm look in the mirror.

[mjak68]

Please stop bickering.  It takes the joy out of the forum.  

[GRDadof3]

7 hours ago, mjak68 said:

Please stop bickering.  It takes the joy out of the forum.  

Haha, OK. I think hyperbole and trolling by some members does (not you) but who am I to point fingers.

[MJLO]

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/kalamazoocitymichigan,wyomingcitymichigan/PST045217

While doing my stats nerd population thing this morning I decided to check how close city of  Wyoming was to passing Kalamazoo in population.  According to the census bureau it already has.   I am checking my notes because I don't remember this happening in the last estimates.  I'm wondering if they revised upwards, or if I saw it and forgot about it which is entirely possible lol. 

Either way the two largest cities on the western side of the state are now in Kent County.

[GRLaker]

4 minutes ago, MJLO said:

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/kalamazoocitymichigan,wyomingcitymichigan/PST045217

While doing my stats nerd population thing this morning I decided to check how close city of  Wyoming was to passing Kalamazoo in population.  According to the census bureau it already has.   I am checking my notes because I don't remember this happening in the last estimates.  I'm wondering if they revised upwards, or if I saw it and forgot about it which is entirely possible lol. 

Either way the two largest cities on the western side of the state are now in Kent County.

Wyoming has the luxury of having its southwest panhandle that still has land to build on. Kalamazoo, on the other hand, is tapped out. The only way it can see growth going forward is if they go vertical. 

[MJLO]

Just now, GRLaker said:

Wyoming has the luxury of having its southwest panhandle that still has land to build on. Kalamazoo, on the other hand, is tapped out. The only way it can see growth going forward is if they go vertical. 

Ironically, if you look at the bottom of the chart in the link it shows the two cities land areas.  Wyoming covers a smidge less area than Kzoo, so while it has land in the panhandle it is statistically more dense than Kzoo.  I suppose that speaks to how dense the older parts of Wyoming  with all of those bungalows squeezed together really are.

[GRDadof3]

On 1/16/2019 at 11:05 AM, MJLO said:

Eh, Grand Rapids is still growing faster than average.  It’s outpacing some cities you might not expect like Tucson.  I don’t think anyone expects it to post sunbelt numbers.  It’s the fastest growing Midwestern metro that’s not a state capitol, or home to a major research university.  The fact that it’s posting the numbers that it is, should still be something of note IMO.  The term “one of the fastest growing” is of course subjective.   Given that there are almost 400 MSAs in the country it’s definitely in an upper echelon for growth.  I understand not wanting to over state what’s going on here, though I don’t think we should understate it either.

Back to this, you are correct. Of metros over a million, we're 25th fastest growing percentage wise; just ahead of Tucson AZ. 

I believe there are 53 MSAs over 1 Million, 54 if you count San Juan PR. 

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/popest/total-metro-and-micro-statistical-areas.html

It's sort of fascinating how many MSA's are not growing at all and even shrinking. Especially when you get down to metros around 100,000 - 200,000 people in States like Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, etc..  People give Michigan a hard time but almost every metro area in Illinois is shrinking, including Chicago. 

[egrguy]

20 minutes ago, GRDadof3 said:

Back to this, you are correct. Of metros over a million, we're 25th fastest growing percentage wise; just ahead of Tucson AZ. 

I believe there are 53 MSAs over 1 Million, 54 if you count San Juan PR. 

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/popest/total-metro-and-micro-statistical-areas.html

It's sort of fascinating how many MSA's are not growing at all and even shrinking. Especially when you get down to metros around 100,000 - 200,000 people in States like Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, etc..  People give Michigan a hard time but almost every metro area in Illinois is shrinking, including Chicago. 

Interesting data/the 1% GR growth is as you mentioned at 25th, pretty good.  That puts GR to pass Rochester by 2020? Probably Buffalo a few years later if that growth maintains and then GR would be in the top 50.

[GRDadof3]

23 minutes ago, jdkacz said:

Interesting data/the 1% GR growth is as you mentioned at 25th, pretty good.  That puts GR to pass Rochester by 2020? Probably Buffalo a few years later if that growth maintains and then GR would be in the top 50.

Probably. Rochester is 1.078 Million and not growing and we're at 1.048 Million and growing by about 10,000 every year. Buffalo is 1.134 Million and slightly growing. It'll take a decade to pass them unless our growth rate greatly increases. 

Here's something to ponder though. These are metro areas over 1 Million that aren't growing or are shrinking, in order from 0 growth to -growth.

St. Louis

Milwaukee

Hartford Ct

Rochester

Chicago

Cleveland

Honolulu

Pittsburgh

 

[egrguy]

Their data shows GR at 1,060,000 for 2017 (1.048M for 2016). Perhaps we'll pass Rochester by end of calendar year 2019? Data is fun to analyze.

Anyway, maybe we could wager a pint that GR passes Buffalo by 2023?  

[Pattmost20]

If 2010-2017 population trends hold, we would pass:

Rochester - 2019

Buffalo - 2025

Birmingham - 2029

Hartford - 2030

Salt Lake City - Never 

[GRDadof3]

2 hours ago, Pattmost20 said:

If 2010-2017 population trends hold, we would pass:

Rochester - 2019

Buffalo - 2025

Birmingham - 2029

Hartford - 2030

Salt Lake City - Never 

Danngggg!! Nice table, did you make that yourself? lol. 

3 hours ago, jdkacz said:

Their data shows GR at 1,060,000 for 2017 (1.048M for 2016). Perhaps we'll pass Rochester by end of calendar year 2019? Data is fun to analyze.

Anyway, maybe we could wager a pint that GR passes Buffalo by 2023?  

If I'm still alive and kicking, sure!