Does the United States have a mainly positive
or negative influence in the world?
Percent answering "positive"...
Americans: 57 percent
Everyone else: 32 percent
Source: BBC survey of 26,381 people in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Russia, South Korea, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United States, WorldPublicOpinion.org
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Monday, January 22, 2007
The Oldest Congress Ever
How do the demographics of Congress compare with those of the average American? This Congressional Research Service report (pdf) can tell you. It examines the age, occupations, education, religion, sex, race, Hispanic origin, nativity status, and military service of House and Senate members.
The Senate has never been older, with an average age of 60. House members are aged 55, on average, which also may be a record high (data on the age of House members has been collected only since 1907). The 109th Congress has a record number of women (85), blacks (43), and Hispanics (30), but the minority and female share is still far from representative of the U.S. population as a whole. There are 218 lawyers in Congress, as well as 13 medical doctors, 6 ministers, 2 FBI agents, and one television talk show host. Ten members of Congress were born outside the United States. This Congress has 139 veterans, 13 fewer than in the 108th Congress.
The Senate has never been older, with an average age of 60. House members are aged 55, on average, which also may be a record high (data on the age of House members has been collected only since 1907). The 109th Congress has a record number of women (85), blacks (43), and Hispanics (30), but the minority and female share is still far from representative of the U.S. population as a whole. There are 218 lawyers in Congress, as well as 13 medical doctors, 6 ministers, 2 FBI agents, and one television talk show host. Ten members of Congress were born outside the United States. This Congress has 139 veterans, 13 fewer than in the 108th Congress.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Evolution at Work
The 51 percent majority of Americans believe in evolution. A smaller 42 percent adhere to the notion of creationism, according to the Pew Research Center. In the years ahead, belief in evolution should strengthen as better educated younger generations replace older, less educated adults. Here is a look at who believes in evolution by age:
aged 18 to 25: 63%
aged 26 to 40: 57%
aged 41 to 60: 47%
aged 61 or older: 42%
Source: Pew Research Center
aged 18 to 25: 63%
aged 26 to 40: 57%
aged 41 to 60: 47%
aged 61 or older: 42%
Source: Pew Research Center
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Bet You Didn't Know
Percentage of 18-to-25-year-olds who think
their generation is unique: 68.
Source: Pew Research Center
their generation is unique: 68.
Source: Pew Research Center
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Global Warming?
Percentage of Americans who think home air conditioning
is a necessity, not a luxury they could do without:
1996: 51%
2006: 70%
Source: Pew Research Center
is a necessity, not a luxury they could do without:
1996: 51%
2006: 70%
Source: Pew Research Center
Monday, December 11, 2006
Demographic Trend of the Year Award
Move over Academy Awards, Grammies, Emmys, Tony Awards, Nobel Prizes, and Time Magazine Man of the Year. Make room for the Demographic Trend of the Year Award, given in recognition of the demographic trend that has caused the most consternation during the past twelve months (proving once and for all that demography is not dull). Not wanting to keep anyone in suspense, we are announcing herewith the winner of the 2006 award: The Hispanic Population.
The Hispanic Population consists of the 43 million residents of the United States whose country of birth or ancestry is one of the Spanish-speaking nations of the world. The Hispanic Population has official Washington in a fence-building furor, and its impact on Lou Dobbs's ratings has been nothing short of phenomenal. The relatively traditional lifestyle of Hispanics is confusing the pundits and has set off another round of debate about whether women are returning to the home. Even small town America is jumping into the fray, sparring with the constitution by enacting laws that make life even more difficult for undocumented immigrants—most of whom are Hispanic.
The Hispanic Population wins the Demographic Trend of the Year Award after sweeping all five Demographic Melodrama categories. Here is a run-down of the results:
1. Fastest Growing Demographic Segment
Between 2000 and 2005, The Hispanic Population grew by an enormous 21 percent. At the same time, the number of non-Hispanic whites increased by a miniscule 1 percent.
2. Demographic Segment Getting the Biggest Bang for the Buck
The Hispanic Population accounts for only 14 percent of the total U.S. population. Because of its strategic location, however, its influence is far greater than a 14 percent share. In California and Texas, the two most-populous states, Hispanics are fully 35 percent of the population, which amplifies their influence.
3. Demographic Segment with the Greatest Reach
The age structure of The Hispanic Population makes it a powerhouse in the all-important youth market. The median age of The Hispanic Population is just 27 compared with a median age of 40 for non-Hispanic whites. Because of their relative youth, Hispanics account for a disproportionate share of newborns (nearly one in four), public elementary schoolchildren (one in five), and workers in many entry-level jobs. Thirty-eight percent of the nation's construction laborers are Hispanic.
4. Demographic Segment Confusing the Most Pundits
The talking heads who yearn for a return to the traditional family are touting signs of its comeback, but they are being fooled by the statistical impact of The Hispanic Population on the nation's demographic trends. Example: Between 2000 and 2005, the number of newborns who were third- or higher-order births increased by more than 50,000. Hispanics, with their large families, account for the entire increase. Similarly, the small decline in the labor force participation rate of young women over the past few years does not herald a return of the stay-at-home mom but is a consequence of the relatively low labor force participation rate of Hispanic women. Among women aged 20 to 24, only 63 percent of Hispanics work compared with 72 percent of non-Hispanic whites. As Hispanics constitute an ever-growing share of young adults, the labor force participation rate of young women is slipping.
5. Demographic Segment Enraging the Most Politicians
Yes, the political battle is over immigrants, not The Hispanic Population. But with Hispanics accounting for 51 percent of immigrants and an even larger share of the undocumented, they have become the political target du jour. The consequence is not just fence building along our border with Mexico, but an effort to make English the official language (Arizona became the 28th state to do so in the November election), federally mandated limits on Medicaid coverage for newborns (who are automatically U.S. citizens) until their immigrant parents file an application to "prove" their child's citizenship status, and laws enacted by communities across the country to penalize landlords who rent to undocumented immigrants or employers who hire them.
After sweeping all five Demographic Melodrama categories, The Hispanic Population is the hands-down winner of The Demographic Trend of the Year Award. For all the 2006 runners-up—The Gays, The Single Mothers, Boomers Who Refuse to Save for Retirement, and Young Adults Who Spend Too Much Time Texting Their Friends, mark your calendar for the 2007 awards competition, and better luck next time.
The Hispanic Population consists of the 43 million residents of the United States whose country of birth or ancestry is one of the Spanish-speaking nations of the world. The Hispanic Population has official Washington in a fence-building furor, and its impact on Lou Dobbs's ratings has been nothing short of phenomenal. The relatively traditional lifestyle of Hispanics is confusing the pundits and has set off another round of debate about whether women are returning to the home. Even small town America is jumping into the fray, sparring with the constitution by enacting laws that make life even more difficult for undocumented immigrants—most of whom are Hispanic.
The Hispanic Population wins the Demographic Trend of the Year Award after sweeping all five Demographic Melodrama categories. Here is a run-down of the results:
1. Fastest Growing Demographic Segment
Between 2000 and 2005, The Hispanic Population grew by an enormous 21 percent. At the same time, the number of non-Hispanic whites increased by a miniscule 1 percent.
2. Demographic Segment Getting the Biggest Bang for the Buck
The Hispanic Population accounts for only 14 percent of the total U.S. population. Because of its strategic location, however, its influence is far greater than a 14 percent share. In California and Texas, the two most-populous states, Hispanics are fully 35 percent of the population, which amplifies their influence.
3. Demographic Segment with the Greatest Reach
The age structure of The Hispanic Population makes it a powerhouse in the all-important youth market. The median age of The Hispanic Population is just 27 compared with a median age of 40 for non-Hispanic whites. Because of their relative youth, Hispanics account for a disproportionate share of newborns (nearly one in four), public elementary schoolchildren (one in five), and workers in many entry-level jobs. Thirty-eight percent of the nation's construction laborers are Hispanic.
4. Demographic Segment Confusing the Most Pundits
The talking heads who yearn for a return to the traditional family are touting signs of its comeback, but they are being fooled by the statistical impact of The Hispanic Population on the nation's demographic trends. Example: Between 2000 and 2005, the number of newborns who were third- or higher-order births increased by more than 50,000. Hispanics, with their large families, account for the entire increase. Similarly, the small decline in the labor force participation rate of young women over the past few years does not herald a return of the stay-at-home mom but is a consequence of the relatively low labor force participation rate of Hispanic women. Among women aged 20 to 24, only 63 percent of Hispanics work compared with 72 percent of non-Hispanic whites. As Hispanics constitute an ever-growing share of young adults, the labor force participation rate of young women is slipping.
5. Demographic Segment Enraging the Most Politicians
Yes, the political battle is over immigrants, not The Hispanic Population. But with Hispanics accounting for 51 percent of immigrants and an even larger share of the undocumented, they have become the political target du jour. The consequence is not just fence building along our border with Mexico, but an effort to make English the official language (Arizona became the 28th state to do so in the November election), federally mandated limits on Medicaid coverage for newborns (who are automatically U.S. citizens) until their immigrant parents file an application to "prove" their child's citizenship status, and laws enacted by communities across the country to penalize landlords who rent to undocumented immigrants or employers who hire them.
After sweeping all five Demographic Melodrama categories, The Hispanic Population is the hands-down winner of The Demographic Trend of the Year Award. For all the 2006 runners-up—The Gays, The Single Mothers, Boomers Who Refuse to Save for Retirement, and Young Adults Who Spend Too Much Time Texting Their Friends, mark your calendar for the 2007 awards competition, and better luck next time.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Know Your Data
Back in the old days, when I was just a kid pretending to be a demographer (the fire ant Census was particularly difficult, by the way), the Census Bureau issued its data in an old-fashioned but remarkably useful medium known as paper. This meant page after page of eyesight-challenging numbers. At the time it seemed like a huge amount of data. How naive we were!
But paper, youngsters, is a more limiting medium than cyberspace. The data released by the Census Bureau had to fit into the paper volumes they published and mailed out to eager data miners. These limitations still shape much of what the Census Bureau publishes on the Internet, since users often want to be able to see trends over time, and maintaining the same data sets (and presentation formats) makes it easier to do this.
But some data, such as population statistics, is now available in basically raw form. This means that rather than five-year age groups, you can get monthly population estimates by single year of age. This provides data users with the opportunity to create their own age groups, such as 18-to-49 year olds, but it also means that if you want five-year age groups, you will have to add them up yourself. (Or—shameless plug alert—get them from New Strategist Publications. Motto: “Be Glad We Can Add.”)
As the amount and level of data detail swells, it also becomes a bit trickier to navigate through all the different data sets and sources. You might not know, for example, that a particular data set on the Census website was discontinued years ago and is now obsolete. (Household projections.) Or you might be confused about which set of population estimates to use since they are now available monthly.(Use the July 1 estimates.)
As yet another service to all eight of our loyal readers, we are instituting a new feature: Know Your Data. This series will answer your burning questions (ACS or CPS??) as well as questions you never thought to ask (Who created the original poverty threshold?). Feel free to email questions you would like us to address. And stay tuned for our first fact-filled offering in the series, appearing on this blog just as soon as the boss stops looking over this way.
But paper, youngsters, is a more limiting medium than cyberspace. The data released by the Census Bureau had to fit into the paper volumes they published and mailed out to eager data miners. These limitations still shape much of what the Census Bureau publishes on the Internet, since users often want to be able to see trends over time, and maintaining the same data sets (and presentation formats) makes it easier to do this.
But some data, such as population statistics, is now available in basically raw form. This means that rather than five-year age groups, you can get monthly population estimates by single year of age. This provides data users with the opportunity to create their own age groups, such as 18-to-49 year olds, but it also means that if you want five-year age groups, you will have to add them up yourself. (Or—shameless plug alert—get them from New Strategist Publications. Motto: “Be Glad We Can Add.”)
As the amount and level of data detail swells, it also becomes a bit trickier to navigate through all the different data sets and sources. You might not know, for example, that a particular data set on the Census website was discontinued years ago and is now obsolete. (Household projections.) Or you might be confused about which set of population estimates to use since they are now available monthly.(Use the July 1 estimates.)
As yet another service to all eight of our loyal readers, we are instituting a new feature: Know Your Data. This series will answer your burning questions (ACS or CPS??) as well as questions you never thought to ask (Who created the original poverty threshold?). Feel free to email questions you would like us to address. And stay tuned for our first fact-filled offering in the series, appearing on this blog just as soon as the boss stops looking over this way.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Monday, November 20, 2006
TV's "Coveted" Demographic
For the life of me, I will never understand why television advertisers are so fixated on the 18-to-49 demographic. This morning, as I perused various online news sources, I came across an article on MSNBC headlined Baby boomers upset TV isn't all about them.
Although the headline suggests this is just more whining from spoiled Boomers, it is clear from the article that the television industry (and I would argue the entertainment industry in general) suffers from myopia when it comes to "older" viewers. Advertisers are charged higher rates for television programming that attracts viewers under age 50, and in particular those under age 40. This means that when Boomers get home from a hard day at the office, turning on the television may not be the relaxing experience they desire. Rather, it may be an exercise in frustration as they wade through program after program aimed at a much younger audience.
The theory seems to be that capturing young adults as customers will create a cadre of loyal buyers for life. But this is ridiculous in the 21st century when "brand loyalty" is an oxymoron. Rather, marketers need to look at who has the inclination and the bucks to buy their products. More often than not, this means the 40-plus age group. Not that I really expect the entertainment industry to suddenly change its focus. But eventually, advertisers may change their minds for them as they become more conscious of the need to appeal to older customers.
Although the headline suggests this is just more whining from spoiled Boomers, it is clear from the article that the television industry (and I would argue the entertainment industry in general) suffers from myopia when it comes to "older" viewers. Advertisers are charged higher rates for television programming that attracts viewers under age 50, and in particular those under age 40. This means that when Boomers get home from a hard day at the office, turning on the television may not be the relaxing experience they desire. Rather, it may be an exercise in frustration as they wade through program after program aimed at a much younger audience.
The theory seems to be that capturing young adults as customers will create a cadre of loyal buyers for life. But this is ridiculous in the 21st century when "brand loyalty" is an oxymoron. Rather, marketers need to look at who has the inclination and the bucks to buy their products. More often than not, this means the 40-plus age group. Not that I really expect the entertainment industry to suddenly change its focus. But eventually, advertisers may change their minds for them as they become more conscious of the need to appeal to older customers.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Smack Dab in the Middle
If you draw two lines—one running North-South, the other East-West—so that each divides the population in half, the point of intersection is known as the "median center," or put more plainly, Smack Dab in the Middle. Located in what East and West Coasters like to call Fly-Over Country, the precise location of Smack Dab has been shifting since the nation's early days when most folks lived east of the Mississippi River. For a long time it was located in Ohio, but since 1950 it has moved steadily southwest. As of the last Census in 2000, Smack Dab had relocated to Daviess County, Indiana.
Curious about the real Smack Dab, I googled Daviess County, Indiana. It might be the center of the U.S. in a very strict sense, but it seems it could hardly be further from the center of U.S. culture. This is Amish Country. Its Visitor's Bureau promotes a tour of an Amish Village and a visit to the Black Buggy Amish Restaurant and Bakery. You can shop at country stores and take home a handsewn quilt.
While this gives you a quite charming picture of the of nation's median center, if you are seeking more prosaic enlightenment, you will want to turn to the Census Bureau, a treasure trove (or impenetrable jungle, depending on your viewpoint) of information. There is a QuickFacts site, for example, where you get a U.S. map, ripe for the clicking. Click on Indiana and up pops an informative data table. If you need information on a more specific location within Indiana, there are buttons at the top of the page that allow you to select a specific city or county. The Daviess County data table doesn't tell you that it is “Amish Country,” but it does reveal that there are 30,466 inhabitants residing in 10,894 households. More than two-thirds own their homes and the county's median household income is $35,967. The table includes statistics for all of Indiana for comparison.
Or you could just turn to Wikipedia, where you would discover that in April 2006 Daviess County switched time-zone allegiance. But then, it does seem more fitting that the center of the U.S. population would set its clocks to Central Time rather than Eastern Time.
Curious about the real Smack Dab, I googled Daviess County, Indiana. It might be the center of the U.S. in a very strict sense, but it seems it could hardly be further from the center of U.S. culture. This is Amish Country. Its Visitor's Bureau promotes a tour of an Amish Village and a visit to the Black Buggy Amish Restaurant and Bakery. You can shop at country stores and take home a handsewn quilt.
While this gives you a quite charming picture of the of nation's median center, if you are seeking more prosaic enlightenment, you will want to turn to the Census Bureau, a treasure trove (or impenetrable jungle, depending on your viewpoint) of information. There is a QuickFacts site, for example, where you get a U.S. map, ripe for the clicking. Click on Indiana and up pops an informative data table. If you need information on a more specific location within Indiana, there are buttons at the top of the page that allow you to select a specific city or county. The Daviess County data table doesn't tell you that it is “Amish Country,” but it does reveal that there are 30,466 inhabitants residing in 10,894 households. More than two-thirds own their homes and the county's median household income is $35,967. The table includes statistics for all of Indiana for comparison.
Or you could just turn to Wikipedia, where you would discover that in April 2006 Daviess County switched time-zone allegiance. But then, it does seem more fitting that the center of the U.S. population would set its clocks to Central Time rather than Eastern Time.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Generation Gap
Median age of the U.S. population by race and Hispanic origin:
(the median is the age at which half are older and half are younger)
White non-Hispanic 40.4
Asian 35.1
Black 31.3
Hispanic 27.2
Source: Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey
(the median is the age at which half are older and half are younger)
White non-Hispanic 40.4
Asian 35.1
Black 31.3
Hispanic 27.2
Source: Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey
Monday, November 06, 2006
Rankings: Born in State
Take a guess: Among the 50 states, which one ranks first in the proportion of (native-born) residents who were born in the state? The surprising answer is New York. According to the Census Bureau's 2005 American Community Survey rankings, 82.3 percent of New York's residents were born in-state. Other states with populations staying close to home are Louisiana (82.0 percent), Michigan (80.5 percent), Pennsylvania (80.1 percent), and Ohio (77.9 percent).
The national average is 67.5 percent. In other words, two-thirds of Americans born in the United States live in the state in which they were born. The state with the fewest residents born in-state is Nevada, with only 26 percent of residents born there. Also close to the bottom are Florida (40.9 percent), Arizona (41.1 percent), Alaska (42.7 percent), and Wyoming (43.1 percent).
The national average is 67.5 percent. In other words, two-thirds of Americans born in the United States live in the state in which they were born. The state with the fewest residents born in-state is Nevada, with only 26 percent of residents born there. Also close to the bottom are Florida (40.9 percent), Arizona (41.1 percent), Alaska (42.7 percent), and Wyoming (43.1 percent).
Monday, October 30, 2006
Bet You Didn't Know
Percentage of people aged 18 to 65 who have not been to a doctor or other health care professional in the past year, by health insurance status:
With health insurance: 15 percent
Without health insurance: 46 percent
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2005
With health insurance: 15 percent
Without health insurance: 46 percent
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2005
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Feeling Worse
Why don't Americans feel as good as they once did? The percentage of adults aged 18 or older who say they are in "excellent" or "very good" health fell from 59 to 54 percent between 1995 and 2005, according to the government's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.
The aging of the population explains some of the decline, since older Americans are less likely to report being in tip-top shape. But an examination of the data by age group reveals young adults to be the ones with the biggest decline in health status. The percentage of 25-to-34-year-olds who say they are in excellent or very good health fell by nearly 8 percentage points between 1995 and 2005—from 70 to 62 percent. In contrast, among people aged 65 or older, the percentage reporting excellent or very good health fell by less than 1 percentage point, declining from 37.2 to 36.5 percent during those years.
Every demographic segment was less likely to report being in excellent or very good health in 2005 than in 1995, but some recorded bigger declines than others. By race and Hispanic origin, Hispanics experienced the sharpest drop in health status—down an eyebrow raising 17 percentage points. By income group, those in the middle saw the biggest decline in health status. The percentage reporting excellent or very good health fell by 11 to 12 percentage points for those with household incomes ranging from $15,000 to $49,999. By education, high school graduates and those with only some college experienced a larger decline in health status than those without a high school diploma or a college degree.
One possible explanation for our worsening health status is the decline in health insurance coverage. The groups experiencing the biggest losses in health insurance coverage are also the groups with the biggest declines in health status. The percentage of people aged 25 to 34 without health insurance grew from 23 to 26 percent between 1995 and 2005—the biggest increase among age groups, according to the Census Bureau. This is also the age group reporting the biggest decline in health status. The only age group with universal health insurance coverage—people aged 65 or older—experienced the smallest change in health status during those years. Likewise Hispanics, the group most likely to be without health insurance, saw the biggest decline in health status. Middle-income groups—with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid (the government's health insurance program for the poor) and too poor to afford employer-provided or private health insurance—also experienced the biggest declines in self-reported health status.
If the lack of health insurance is behind Americans' growing unease about their health, then we're likely to feel even worse in the years ahead as health insurance costs climb and coverage falls.
The aging of the population explains some of the decline, since older Americans are less likely to report being in tip-top shape. But an examination of the data by age group reveals young adults to be the ones with the biggest decline in health status. The percentage of 25-to-34-year-olds who say they are in excellent or very good health fell by nearly 8 percentage points between 1995 and 2005—from 70 to 62 percent. In contrast, among people aged 65 or older, the percentage reporting excellent or very good health fell by less than 1 percentage point, declining from 37.2 to 36.5 percent during those years.
Every demographic segment was less likely to report being in excellent or very good health in 2005 than in 1995, but some recorded bigger declines than others. By race and Hispanic origin, Hispanics experienced the sharpest drop in health status—down an eyebrow raising 17 percentage points. By income group, those in the middle saw the biggest decline in health status. The percentage reporting excellent or very good health fell by 11 to 12 percentage points for those with household incomes ranging from $15,000 to $49,999. By education, high school graduates and those with only some college experienced a larger decline in health status than those without a high school diploma or a college degree.
One possible explanation for our worsening health status is the decline in health insurance coverage. The groups experiencing the biggest losses in health insurance coverage are also the groups with the biggest declines in health status. The percentage of people aged 25 to 34 without health insurance grew from 23 to 26 percent between 1995 and 2005—the biggest increase among age groups, according to the Census Bureau. This is also the age group reporting the biggest decline in health status. The only age group with universal health insurance coverage—people aged 65 or older—experienced the smallest change in health status during those years. Likewise Hispanics, the group most likely to be without health insurance, saw the biggest decline in health status. Middle-income groups—with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid (the government's health insurance program for the poor) and too poor to afford employer-provided or private health insurance—also experienced the biggest declines in self-reported health status.
If the lack of health insurance is behind Americans' growing unease about their health, then we're likely to feel even worse in the years ahead as health insurance costs climb and coverage falls.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Bet You Didn't Know
Percentage of children in 4th through 8th grade who take part in organized activities (not including after-school programs) by family income level:
incomes below poverty level: 30 percent
incomes 200% or more above poverty level: 66 percent
Source: America's Children in Brief: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2006
incomes below poverty level: 30 percent
incomes 200% or more above poverty level: 66 percent
Source: America's Children in Brief: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2006
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Married Couples a Minority
The New York Times reports today that married couples are now a minority of households. The Times' analysis of the Census Bureau's 2005 American Community Survey (ACS) shows that married couples account for 49.7 percent of households, down from 51.7 percent in 2000. The Census Bureau's other trend-tracking survey still puts married couples in the majority, however. The 2006 Current Population Survey (CPS), taken in March, estimates that married couples accounted for 50.9 percent of households. The difference in the two figures is most likely due to the inherent variation in estimates based on population samples.
It does not matter whether married couples are a slight majority or a bare minority of households. The fact is, living arrangements in the U.S. are very different from what they once were and will change even more as the baby-boom generation ages into the empty-nest years and beyond. Here's how living arrangements rank today, from most to least popular according to both surveys:
1. Married couples without children under age 18 living at home (most are empty-nesters)
ACS 28.0%
CPS 27.1%
2. People living alone (most are women and many are widowed)
ACS 27.1%
CPS 26.6%
3. Married couples with children under age 18 at home
ACS 21.7%
CPS 23.8%
4. Female-headed families (about two-thirds include children)
ACS 12.6%
CPS 12.3%
5. People living with nonrelatives (many are cohabiting couples)
ACS 6.0%
CPS 5.7%
6. Male-headed families (only half include children)
ACS 4.6%
CPS 4.5%
As boomers age and many become widowed, living alone is destined to become the most common lifestyle in the U.S.
It does not matter whether married couples are a slight majority or a bare minority of households. The fact is, living arrangements in the U.S. are very different from what they once were and will change even more as the baby-boom generation ages into the empty-nest years and beyond. Here's how living arrangements rank today, from most to least popular according to both surveys:
1. Married couples without children under age 18 living at home (most are empty-nesters)
ACS 28.0%
CPS 27.1%
2. People living alone (most are women and many are widowed)
ACS 27.1%
CPS 26.6%
3. Married couples with children under age 18 at home
ACS 21.7%
CPS 23.8%
4. Female-headed families (about two-thirds include children)
ACS 12.6%
CPS 12.3%
5. People living with nonrelatives (many are cohabiting couples)
ACS 6.0%
CPS 5.7%
6. Male-headed families (only half include children)
ACS 4.6%
CPS 4.5%
As boomers age and many become widowed, living alone is destined to become the most common lifestyle in the U.S.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Bet You Didn't Know
Percentage of homeowners with no public transportation available in their area: 50 percent.
Source: Bureau of the Census, 2005 American Housing Survey
Source: Bureau of the Census, 2005 American Housing Survey
Friday, October 06, 2006
How Many Illegals are in the U.S.?
According to a government report, 10.5 million unauthorized immigrants were living in the U.S. in 2005, up from 8.5 million in 2000—a 24 percent increase. Fifty-seven percent are from Mexico, followed by much smaller numbers from El Salvador (4 percent), Guatemala (4 percent), India (3 percent), China (2 percent), and other countries.
These figures come from the Department of Homeland Security. They were calculated using the "residual method" of population estimation. Researchers in the Office of Immigration Statistics subtracted the number of legal foreign-born residents (based on administrative data at the Department of Homeland Security) from the total number of foreign-born (based on estimates from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey), and the difference—or residual—is the number of illegals in the U.S.
The number of unauthorized immigrants is growing by 408,000 per year, according to the report.
Not surprisingly, California is home to the largest number of unauthorized immigrants—2.8 million or 26 percent of the total in 2005. Other states in the top five are Texas (1.4 million), Florida (850,000), New York (560,000), and Illinois (520,000). But the number of illegals is growing the fastest in Georgia, where it has more than doubled between 2000 and 2005—climbing from 220,000 to 470,000 between 2000 and 2005.
These figures come from the Department of Homeland Security. They were calculated using the "residual method" of population estimation. Researchers in the Office of Immigration Statistics subtracted the number of legal foreign-born residents (based on administrative data at the Department of Homeland Security) from the total number of foreign-born (based on estimates from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey), and the difference—or residual—is the number of illegals in the U.S.
The number of unauthorized immigrants is growing by 408,000 per year, according to the report.
Not surprisingly, California is home to the largest number of unauthorized immigrants—2.8 million or 26 percent of the total in 2005. Other states in the top five are Texas (1.4 million), Florida (850,000), New York (560,000), and Illinois (520,000). But the number of illegals is growing the fastest in Georgia, where it has more than doubled between 2000 and 2005—climbing from 220,000 to 470,000 between 2000 and 2005.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Bet You Didn't Know
Percent moving between 2004 and 2005...
All ages: 14 percent
Aged 20 to 24: 30 percent
Aged 62 to 64: 6 percent
Percent moving out of state...
All ages: 19 percent
Aged 20 to 24: 16 percent
Aged 62 to 64: 34 percent
Source: Census Bureau, Geographic Mobility: 2004 to 2005
All ages: 14 percent
Aged 20 to 24: 30 percent
Aged 62 to 64: 6 percent
Percent moving out of state...
All ages: 19 percent
Aged 20 to 24: 16 percent
Aged 62 to 64: 34 percent
Source: Census Bureau, Geographic Mobility: 2004 to 2005
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
If Cell Phones Could Talk
Eighty-two percent of Americans say they have been annoyed by the cell phone use of others in public places, according to a survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project. But for demographers and others who love to track the trends, cell phones are more than an annoyance. They are an astonishing technological marvel that has revealed one of our deepest needs.
Before the cell phone, who knew Homo sapiens wanted to talk so much? Our prehistoric ancestors might have known, since they were the last to be within shouting distance of everyone they knew almost all the time. The African savannahs might have been humming with conversation as ancient humans discussed the latest hunt and gather. Then, as our species populated and migrated to distant lands without any means of communication with those left behind, we were forced to repress our need to stay in touch. Perhaps out of this melancholy longing art was born. We told stories, wrote ballads and poems, and drew pictures to mourn our loss of communication with loved ones far away. Finally, we invented the snail mail system to maintain some vestige of contact, however inadequate.
It has been thousands of years since we could strike up a conversation at will with any friend or family member. Only in the past ten years, as cell phones proliferated and the cost of using them dropped to pennies in our pocket, have we rediscovered our addiction to continuous communication with those we care about.
The cell phone's evolution over the past decade, from clunky and expensive accessory to sleek and cheap necessity, has revealed talk to be one of our most powerful urges. What we say is far less interesting than the act of saying it, all the time: "Where are you?" "What are you doing?" "Where should we meet?" "How about this for a plan?"
The cell phone's overarching importance is revealed not just by anecdotes, but in the spending statistics collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in its annual Consumer Expenditure Survey. In the past decade, the cell phone's significance has grown more than any other household item. In 1997, only 10 percent of households spent on cell phone service. In that year, in a ranking of items on which the average household spends the most, cell phone service was lost in the crowd at 112th place. In 2004 (the latest data available), 46 percent of households spent on cell phone service, boosting it to a lofty 28th place. Cell phone service now ranks higher in our spending priorities than prescription drugs and is not far below cable TV and alcoholic beverages.
Interestingly, while 82 percent of the public has gotten annoyed with someone else's cell phone use, only 8 percent of cell phone users say they have annoyed others with their cell phone calls. They must have been too busy talking to notice.
Before the cell phone, who knew Homo sapiens wanted to talk so much? Our prehistoric ancestors might have known, since they were the last to be within shouting distance of everyone they knew almost all the time. The African savannahs might have been humming with conversation as ancient humans discussed the latest hunt and gather. Then, as our species populated and migrated to distant lands without any means of communication with those left behind, we were forced to repress our need to stay in touch. Perhaps out of this melancholy longing art was born. We told stories, wrote ballads and poems, and drew pictures to mourn our loss of communication with loved ones far away. Finally, we invented the snail mail system to maintain some vestige of contact, however inadequate.
It has been thousands of years since we could strike up a conversation at will with any friend or family member. Only in the past ten years, as cell phones proliferated and the cost of using them dropped to pennies in our pocket, have we rediscovered our addiction to continuous communication with those we care about.
The cell phone's evolution over the past decade, from clunky and expensive accessory to sleek and cheap necessity, has revealed talk to be one of our most powerful urges. What we say is far less interesting than the act of saying it, all the time: "Where are you?" "What are you doing?" "Where should we meet?" "How about this for a plan?"
The cell phone's overarching importance is revealed not just by anecdotes, but in the spending statistics collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in its annual Consumer Expenditure Survey. In the past decade, the cell phone's significance has grown more than any other household item. In 1997, only 10 percent of households spent on cell phone service. In that year, in a ranking of items on which the average household spends the most, cell phone service was lost in the crowd at 112th place. In 2004 (the latest data available), 46 percent of households spent on cell phone service, boosting it to a lofty 28th place. Cell phone service now ranks higher in our spending priorities than prescription drugs and is not far below cable TV and alcoholic beverages.
Interestingly, while 82 percent of the public has gotten annoyed with someone else's cell phone use, only 8 percent of cell phone users say they have annoyed others with their cell phone calls. They must have been too busy talking to notice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)