New Population figures

[TitosBuritoBarn]

I don't think we have to worry too much about it. I found this on the skyscraperpage.com forums. If the Census estimates in 2009 were completely accurate, Nebraska would have been the 9th fastest growing state in the country over the past year:

Here are the states (and DC) ranked by Growth Rate and Numeric Growth for the period from July 1, 2009 estimates to April 1, 2010 Census counts. I would imagine this gives a lot of insight into what has happened as a result of the recession? Or, does this just reflect inaccuracies of the Census estimates being corrected?

BY % GROWTH

1 HI 5.03%
2 ND 3.98%
3 WY 3.56%
4 NM 2.46%
5 NV 2.17%
6 WV 1.83%
7 OK 1.74%
8 AK 1.68%
9 NE 1.65%
10 NC 1.65%
11 CT 1.59%
12 AL 1.51%
13 VA 1.50%
14 MT 1.48%
15 TX 1.47%
16 DE 1.45%
17 FL 1.42%
18 ID 1.41%
19 SC 1.41%
20 MD 1.30%
21 IA 1.28%
22 KS 1.22%
23 NJ 0.97%
24 IN 0.94%
25 LA 0.92%
26 AR 0.92%
27 WA 0.91%
28 TN 0.79%
29 CA 0.79%
30 PA 0.77%
31 ME 0.76%
32 MN 0.72%
33 VT 0.64%
34 KY 0.59%
35 WI 0.57%
36 MS 0.52%
37 DC 0.34%
38 SD 0.22%
39 OR 0.14%
40 CO 0.09%
41 MO 0.02%
42 OH -0.05%
43 RI -0.06%
44 NH -0.61%
45 IL -0.62%
46 MA -0.70%
47 UT -0.74%
48 NY -0.84%
49 MI -0.86%
50 GA -1.44%
51 AZ -3.09%

BY NUMERIC GROWTH 09-10

1 TX 363,259
2 CA 292,292
3 FL 263,341
4 NC 154,599
5 VA 118,434
6 PA 97,612
7 NJ 84,155
8 MD 74,074
9 AL 71,028
10 HI 65,123
11 OK 64,301
12 SC 64,122
13 IN 60,689
14 WA 60,345
15 NV 57,466
16 CT 55,809
17 TN 49,851
18 NM 49,508
19 LA 41,296
20 IA 38,499
21 MN 37,711
22 KS 34,371
23 WV 33,217
24 WI 32,212
25 NE 29,722
26 AR 26,468
27 ND 25,747
28 KY 25,254
29 ID 21,781
30 WY 19,356
31 MS 15,301
32 MT 14,426
33 DE 12,812
34 AK 11,758
35 ME 10,060
36 OR 5,417
37 CO 4,448
38 VT 3,981
39 DC 2,066
40 SD 1,797
41 MO 1,347
42 RI -642
43 OH -6,141
44 NH -8,105
45 UT -20,687
46 MA -45,958
47 IL -79,777
48 MI -86,087
49 GA -141,558
50 NY -163,351
51 AZ -203,761

[Erik]

I don't think we have to worry too much about it. I found this on the skyscraperpage.com forums. If the Census estimates in 2009 were completely accurate, Nebraska would have been the 9th fastest growing state in the country over the past year:

Here are the states (and DC) ranked by Growth Rate and Numeric Growth for the period from July 1, 2009 estimates to April 1, 2010 Census counts. I would imagine this gives a lot of insight into what has happened as a result of the recession? Or, does this just reflect inaccuracies of the Census estimates being corrected?

BY % GROWTH

1 HI 5.03%
2 ND 3.98%
3 WY 3.56%
4 NM 2.46%
5 NV 2.17%
6 WV 1.83%
7 OK 1.74%
8 AK 1.68%
9 NE 1.65%
10 NC 1.65%
11 CT 1.59%
12 AL 1.51%
13 VA 1.50%
14 MT 1.48%
15 TX 1.47%
16 DE 1.45%
17 FL 1.42%
18 ID 1.41%
19 SC 1.41%
20 MD 1.30%
21 IA 1.28%
22 KS 1.22%
23 NJ 0.97%
24 IN 0.94%
25 LA 0.92%
26 AR 0.92%
27 WA 0.91%
28 TN 0.79%
29 CA 0.79%
30 PA 0.77%
31 ME 0.76%
32 MN 0.72%
33 VT 0.64%
34 KY 0.59%
35 WI 0.57%
36 MS 0.52%
37 DC 0.34%
38 SD 0.22%
39 OR 0.14%
40 CO 0.09%
41 MO 0.02%
42 OH -0.05%
43 RI -0.06%
44 NH -0.61%
45 IL -0.62%
46 MA -0.70%
47 UT -0.74%
48 NY -0.84%
49 MI -0.86%
50 GA -1.44%
51 AZ -3.09%

BY NUMERIC GROWTH 09-10

1 TX 363,259
2 CA 292,292
3 FL 263,341
4 NC 154,599
5 VA 118,434
6 PA 97,612
7 NJ 84,155
8 MD 74,074
9 AL 71,028
10 HI 65,123
11 OK 64,301
12 SC 64,122
13 IN 60,689
14 WA 60,345
15 NV 57,466
16 CT 55,809
17 TN 49,851
18 NM 49,508
19 LA 41,296
20 IA 38,499
21 MN 37,711
22 KS 34,371
23 WV 33,217
24 WI 32,212
25 NE 29,722
26 AR 26,468
27 ND 25,747
28 KY 25,254
29 ID 21,781
30 WY 19,356
31 MS 15,301
32 MT 14,426
33 DE 12,812
34 AK 11,758
35 ME 10,060
36 OR 5,417
37 CO 4,448
38 VT 3,981
39 DC 2,066
40 SD 1,797
41 MO 1,347
42 RI -642
43 OH -6,141
44 NH -8,105
45 UT -20,687
46 MA -45,958
47 IL -79,777
48 MI -86,087
49 GA -141,558
50 NY -163,351
51 AZ -203,761

That's why I said the impact of migration exaggeration in Omaha would be minimized.  Because of the understating of the decade census (again).  Still though, look at Texas.  They ended up with a low-ball 2009 estimate, but the major cities ended up with much less people than expected and their rural areas with more than expected.  El Paso ended up with more than expected, but that is an exception.

It is a wait and see game right now, but there is a real possibility that Omaha may only meet the 2009 numbers MSA-wise and a real chance the city limit proper was over-estimated.

[Garrett]

I thought that the MSAs did grow, just the city propers were overestimated.

[Erik]

I thought that the MSAs did grow, just the city propers were overestimated.

Both were over-estimated for most locations.  It's not that they didn't grow, they just were a little optimistic on exactly how fast they grew. They were all too pessimistic on the rural declines, at least up to this point.  Omaha's city proper very well could be bigger than 454,000 (the 2009 estimate), but to grow from 390,007 from the official 2000 count to 440,000 for the official 2010 count is still a substantial increase.  

No matter how we look at it, we grew by a lot this decade.  And until the official numbers come out, we are mainly just speculating.  I like to look for trends, and so far the trend is that most cities end up below or near the 2009 estimate.  It appears the ones they over-estimated are mainly the cities they estimated that grew the fastest, while the ones that grew at a slower-mid range pace tended to fair better.  The rural areas of each state have fared much better so far. but there have been some exceptions and we may very well be one of those.

[Garrett]

Well next week comes Nebraska, can't wait!