2007 Population Estimates

[Doug Loudenback]

This story, Counties ride population's ups, downs | NewsOK.com , led me to the 2007 Census Estimates and I downloaded the spreadsheet from the census bureau's website, Annual Estimates of the Population for Counties: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007 . A subset of the spreadsheet, showing Oklahoma and the counties in the metro, reflects the following data:

[andy157]

This story, Counties ride population's ups, downs | NewsOK.com , led me to the 2007 Census Estimates and I downloaded the spreadsheet from the census bureau's website, Annual Estimates of the Population for Counties: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007 . A subset of the spreadsheet, showing Oklahoma and the counties in the metro, reflects the following data:

These figures seem to show that people are not leaving our great State in droves. As some would like us to believe. This is wonderful news.

[BDP]

I don't think that shows how many people are leaving. You could be right, but you can't tell it from that.

[OKCDrummer77]

It just shows that if people are leaving in droves, other people are arriving in even bigger droves.

On edit: What is a "drove", anyway?

[andy157]

It just shows that if people are leaving in droves, other people are arriving in even bigger droves.

On edit: What is a "drove", anyway?

Just looking at the bottom line. Whats a "drove" you ask. You must not be from around here I'm guessing. It's an old Cherokee Indian word.

[redland]

The Combined Metropolitan Statistical Area for Oklahoma City includes the following counties: Canadian, Cleveland, Grady, Lincoln, Logan, McClain, Oklahoma, and Pottatatomie. The population for the metroplitan area is as follows:
Census 2000: 1,160,942
Estimate 2006: 1,240,977
Estimate 2007: 1,264,027
(The basic metro statistical area consists of all the above counties with the exception of Pottawatomie.)

The comparable figures for the combined Tulsa Metroplitan Statistical Area (Creek, Okmulgee, Osage, Pawnee, Rogers, Tulsa, Wagoner, and Washington) are as follows:
Census 2000: 908,528
Estimate 2006: 946,903
Estimate 2007: 955,643
(Note: The basic Tulsa area does not include Washington county.)

Thus, since the 2000 census, the Oklahoma City area has gained almost 104,000, while the Tulsa area has increased by just over 47,000.

[BDP]

It just shows that if people are leaving in droves, other people are arriving in even bigger droves.

I don't even know if you can tell that. It could just be the people that are already here are reproducing.

This says 51,283 people were born in Oklahoma in 2004 alone.

Births, Birth Rates, and Fertility Rates by State, 2004 — Infoplease.com

That's about a third of the population increase of 166,662 over 6 years in just one year. If we were to accept 51,283 as an average year for births over those 6 years (there's no real good reason to do this, but it's the only data I have), that would be 307,698 births in those six years. That would mean that, net of births, there was actually a population decrease of 141,036. And, obviously, people are coming into the state in ways other than the delivery room, so that means that even more people actually left (births + migration into state - people leaving = 166,662).

I don't know what number constitutes a drove, but it would be safe to say that a number of people at least the size of the overall population increase migrated out of the state during that period. Another way to look at it would be if people were moving into the state at the exact same rate as they were leaving, we should have seen a population increase of around 300,000, not 166,000, just from the births.

In contrast, and using the same (possibly specious) method, Texas had a population growth of 3,052,560 over that same time period. Extrapolating from the 2004 birth figures, they had an estimated 2,306,334 births in that time period. That means they had a population increase of 746,226 over those 6 years, net of births.

So, without having birthrates for each year, it's still impossible to tell the migration rates for the state just by looking at population estimates. However, it's pretty safe to say that the numbers don't really dispute the claim that people are leaving in "droves". More likely, the numbers actually prove that claim out. Of course, that really all depends on the agreed upon measure of a drove would be.

[BDP]

Thus, since the 2000 census, the Oklahoma City area has gained almost 104,000, while the Tulsa area has increased by just over 47,000.

What's interesting about that is that it puts OKC's population increase during that period almost right at the state's birthrate, but it puts Tulsa's increase at about half the birthrate.

To be fair, that's using the state's birth rate and not the birthrate for those counties, so it's still tough to say with any accuracy what the migration rate is. Also, to ballpark it, I was just using the 2000 census numbers and the 2007 estimates with the 2004 birth rate to compare against the population increases. So, there's obviously problems with that, but whatever problems were in one number were in the other, so you can still get enough to make a hypothesis. To really develop a theory on the differences in migration rates between the two metro areas, we'd need more data, specifically the birthrates for those counties for each year.

[OKCDrummer77]

Just looking at the bottom line. Whats a "drove" you ask. You must not be from around here I'm guessing. It's an old Cherokee Indian word.

Actually, I did grow up in Oklahoma, and I've heard that phrase many times. I just haven't bothered to find out what it means until today.

[Kerry]

BDP - Don't forget that some people leave the state without a forwarding address. They die.

[chuckdiesel]

I don't even know if you can tell that. It could just be the people that are already here are reproducing.

This says 51,283 people were born in Oklahoma in 2004 alone.

Births, Birth Rates, and Fertility Rates by State, 2004 — Infoplease.com

That's about a third of the population increase of 166,662 over 6 years in just one year. If we were to accept 51,283 as an average year for births over those 6 years (there's no real good reason to do this, but it's the only data I have), that would be 307,698 births in those six years. That would mean that, net of births, there was actually a population decrease of 141,036. And, obviously, people are coming into the state in ways other than the delivery room, so that means that even more people actually left (births + migration into state - people leaving = 166,662).

I don't know what number constitutes a drove, but it would be safe to say that a number of people at least the size of the overall population increase migrated out of the state during that period. Another way to look at it would be if people were moving into the state at the exact same rate as they were leaving, we should have seen a population increase of around 300,000, not 166,000, just from the births.

In contrast, and using the same (possibly specious) method, Texas had a population growth of 3,052,560 over that same time period. Extrapolating from the 2004 birth figures, they had an estimated 2,306,334 births in that time period. That means they had a population increase of 746,226 over those 6 years, net of births.

So, without having birthrates for each year, it's still impossible to tell the migration rates for the state just by looking at population estimates. However, it's pretty safe to say that the numbers don't really dispute the claim that people are leaving in "droves". More likely, the numbers actually prove that claim out. Of course, that really all depends on the agreed upon measure of a drove would be.

Wouldn't the death rate offset a large portion of the birthrate? People are born and people die every day maintaining somewhat of a balance I would think.

[BDP]

Doh! People die!

In 1995, 32,431 people died in Oklahoma:

Resident Deaths by County, Race, and Sex, Oklahoma, 1995

45,365 were born.

Resident Births by County, Race, and Sex, Oklahoma, 1995

So, around 13k net, times 6 is 78k or about half of the population increase for that period. That makes it look a lot better, it'd still be interesting to know ho wmany people leave every year. Even if we net a gain, we still lose resources in the people that leave.

...dam, that means a lot of people are moving to Texas! Makes you wonder who's losing all of these people.

[Harvey Hudson]

What does it take to add a congressman back. We used to have six.

[OU Adonis]

What does it take to add a congressman back. We used to have six.

Are we even growing faster than the national average?

[Harvey Hudson]

Thats a great question. Are we?

CensusScope -- Population Growth Ranking

That site has us listed as 26th in growth.

Encarta/MSN has the U.S. growing at a rate of .88%.

[andy157]

What does it take to add a congressman back. We used to have six.

Population. I believe.

[OU Adonis]

I found the answer. Oklahoma is growing at half the national average. The national average is 7.18% and Oklahomas growth from 2000 to 2007 has been 4.83%.

[Harvey Hudson]

Well this brings up another question. At what point do you loose congressman?

[Kerry]

If we could just get Texas, California, Nevada, Florida, Ohio, and Arizona to stop county illegals in the Census then Oklahoma would get back another congressman. Yes illegals are counted as part of the census that determine congressional seats. I would love it if congressional seats were based on the number of registered voters or US Citizens but it isn't.

[okcpulse]

Check components of population change under state estimates on the Census website. Oklahoma's components are as follows:

FROM 2000 to 2007:

Total change (net increase): 166,662
Net natural increase: 120,981
Total births: 372,792
Total deaths: 251,811

Population growth from people moving to or from the state:
Net growth: 54,047
Total immigration (net increase): 42,146
Total domestic migration (net increase): 11,901

Compare this to the state of New York:

Total change (net increase): 320,908
Net natural increase: 698,971
Total births: 1,820,204
Total deaths: 1,121,233

Population growth from people moving to or from the state:
Net decrease: -589,175
Total immigration (net increase): 859,994
Total domestic migration (net decrease): -1,449,169

[HOT ROD]

No Kerry. That's the wrong approach.

What we need to do is have Oklahoma START counting our illegals instead of putting them down!

[Doug Loudenback]

Just in case this link hasn't been posted (I didn't look closely), here are the 2007 estimates for cities: Annual Estimates of the Population of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas

In the 2nd table there, it shows this for CSA's ... Combined Statistical Areas:
Oklahoma City-Shawnee, OK 1,262,027

In the 1st table, it shows this for Population of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas
Oklahoma City, OK 1,192,989

[solitude]

Did anybody see the story about Texas? DFW is the fastest growing metropolitan area in the country (from '06-'07).
4 Texas Cities Among Top 10 in Growth: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance

As for the census estimates, it shows something else that's worth mentioning here if only for its proximity to Oklahoma: Northwest Arkansas. Serious boom going on north of Fayetteville. Here's a stunner - The Springdale-Rogers-Bentonville area (now considered part of the Fayetteville MSA), all lumped together as "Northwest Arkansas" is now home to a half-million people! (60 mile radious of Bentonville.) That used to be a collection of tiny towns that had countryside between towns. Anybody who has been there recently knows it's now lined with office parks, hotels, restaurants and fancy subdivisions.

[jbrown84]

That area is nice, but it's not going to be nice anymore if they keep knocking it down for more suburbia.

[OU Adonis]

Isn't that Wal-Marts influence?