Saturday, November 5, 2011
Census 2010 data
Scroll down to the bottom and access several maps about the US population based on the most recent census. Spend a few minutes to review the maps and then write a response based on something you discovered. Please be sure to site the map you used as you discuss whatever it was you thought was significant
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Looking at the 2010 US Census Data, the ratings of population density came as a surprise to me. D.C. is number 1? What? I suppose it makes sense when considering that D.C. is solely an urban area, as opposed to nearly every state which will most likely all have some rural areas. For number two, though, I would have guessed either California or New York. New Jersey is ranked number two for population density. This also surprised me.
ReplyDelete--Josh Rackham
While I was looking at the 2010 Census Data, the map that stood out to me was the national population map. I wasn't surprised that Texas and California were still the greatest population by a long shot, but I was surprised that Nevada had grown the most since the last census. I get that Las Vegas is there, but I didn't expect that to grow more than any other state. I also thought it was cool that they showed the percent of population of all the different races from each state. It is cool to be able to see how much of one race each state has. I thought that was interesting.
ReplyDelete-Christina Block
One thing that I discovered that I did not know before was Puerto Rico also counts, and it seems that they are losing people along with Michigan. I guess the reason why people move ou tof Puerto Rico is because of they want to get better jobs. As for Michigan, people that live there might feel like moving east or west because of the climate. Either way, our country's population is increasing, and is moving towards the coast.
ReplyDelete-Danh Vo
I was looking at the 2010 Census Data, and the map that surprised me the most was the national population map. There was not a single state that decreased, and most of the states increased by about 10% atleast. The thing i found most surprising was that Navada had more than a 30% increase in population, I'm assuming this has to do with jobs. There must be more jobs in Navada than in other States. I was also suprised by the 13% increase in population made in Alaska. I feel like Alaska can't have much to offer job wise, and it would be an incredibly difficult place to live. There is also no big urban areas in Alaska, which typically attracts people. CAlifornia didn't have a huge increase, just over 10%, and I'm assuming that this is because there are already so many people living there, there really isn't room for more. Not to mention finacially Californina is doing aweful. Texas had a 20% increase, and I'm guessing that this is because of all the Urban areas, and all the jobs. Overall, I was surprised that our population grew so much, especially in areas where people wouldn't expect.
ReplyDelete-Christyn Price
While I was looking at the 2010 Census Data, the map that stood out to me was the national population map. I was surprised that Nevada had grown the most since the last census. Even though Las Vegas is there, but I didn't expect it to attract more people then any other state. I also thought that how they showed the percent of population of all the different races from each state was very interesting. To be able to see how much of one race each state has really caught my attention. It interested me most because i thought i knew more then i actually do.
ReplyDelete-McKenzie Eggert
While i was looking at the 1940 census data, I was looking at the apportionment data and found it interesting that in 1940 Oklahoma,Kansas,Nebraska,South dakota, North dakota (which would be a straight row of states) all lost 2.5 - 7.2 of their population
ReplyDelete-Kevin Benson
While i was looking at the 2010 population density, and found it strange that California is not on the top density state. Then looking at the eastern coast states, I am surprised that New Jersey is the 2nd most density state. Maybe the density may have to do with the size of the state, because New Jersey is a smaller state, the people are compact compare to California which is a larger state and the people can spread out into different areas.
ReplyDeleteWhile i was looking at the 2010 population density, and found it strange that California is not on the top density state. Then looking at the eastern coast states, I am surprised that New Jersey is the 2nd most density state. Maybe the density may have to do with the size of the state, because New Jersey is a smaller state, the people are compact compare to California which is a larger state and the people can spread out into different areas.
ReplyDeleteKong Thao
As I was looking at the 2010 Census Data map, and it caught my eye that Nevada had grown the most since the last census. Just because everyone knows Las Vegas is there, I wasn't really expecting that state to attract more people than any other beacause there are deffinatly more attracting places in the U.S. than just Nevada. Because other than Las Vegas theres not much else there. Not only did that stand out to me but the races in each state. Because looking and where different people like to live and where they are atrracted to suprised me beacause I would have thought differently and it shows how people spread out among the areas.
ReplyDeleteAs I was looking at the 2010 Census Data map, and it caught my eye that Nevada had grown the most since the last census. Just because everyone knows Las Vegas is there, I wasn't really expecting that state to attract more people than any other beacause there are deffinatly more attracting places in the U.S. than just Nevada. Because other than Las Vegas theres not much else there. Not only did that stand out to me but the races in each state. Because looking and where different people like to live and where they are atrracted to suprised me beacause I would have thought differently and it shows how people spread out among the areas.
ReplyDeleteMaranda Brennan
I observed the "National Population Change Per State" and I noticed that of all of the states Michigan was the only state to decrease in population percentage-wise, I was curious to why and the map showed that in the past few decades, Michigan had Decreased their percentage before. Michigan seems to be one of the states that stay the same pretty consistantly. The one thing that truly surprised me is that Texas has a very high increase in population compared to other states. The reason this shocked me was because I didn't think that Texas could get bigger in population.
ReplyDelete-Joey Jensen
I was looking at the 2010 Census Interactive Population Map. While looking at the total population map I was not surprised to see that a lot of the U.S.'s population is in the east. I am not surprised because the east has more people because of the original colonies starting there. The state in the west with the greatest population is California and that is because of the beaches, celebrities and weather. While looking at all the states they all had an increase in population since the last census. This is because of all the young families having more and more kids. Also, California has much more of a majority of races compared to Nevada. I think this is because of the main religion of Nevada vs. the diversity of California.
ReplyDeleteHannah Eckerman
while looking at the United States National population map one of the things i found very interesting was how few people live in North Dakota. There are a couple of counties that have under 800 people living there. The rest of the counties populations seem to be between 1000 and 15000 people living in them,with a few exceptions.
ReplyDeleteLogan Matzke
I looked at the American Indians and Alaska Natives in the United States Wall Map. I found out that there are none living in Alaska they are all living in the lower 48. The natives are spred across the northern US boarder and in the New mexico, Southern California and Northern California area.
ReplyDeleteTim Hanenberger
I overviewed the Age & Sex population changes of 2000 and 2010. Most of the results in population have stayed the same up to the age of 55, yet something I found interesting was that in 2000 there was only a record of females living up to the age of 90 years old. I am not sure why this is but it was also the start of how our age ranges would be now in 2011, because very few male and females make it to the age of 90. Its reviewed in the above text about this graph that the age range of 18-44 is over 36% of our population today, and its only increasing ever year. Its recorded that females live longer than males which surprised me because cancer in females today is becoming more commom, from breast cancer to heart disease. My curiosity is wondering why males are dying at a younger age than women. Maybe its because we are smarter and can survive longer :) haha just kidding, well sort of . Kelly Fredericksen
ReplyDeleteWhile I was looking at the 2010 Census Data, I looked at the U.S population change. Michigan is the only state that is on loss. It's a little surprise for me because it was one of the greatest states but i guess not any more. Many retired people go to the west of the U.S and not just the retired people ofcourse. However, Nevada has the highest change for population. And the increasing population's percentage in Nevada is for all races. I don't know why people are going there but I bet its good there. :)
ReplyDeleteMohamed Alshammari
I looked at the apportionment table data thingy. I was not suprised that michigan lost people because no one ever hears about michigan so I assume nothing interesting ever happens there. The people of michigan probably get bored in their states and decide to go else where. I am suprised however, that puerto rico was on this table. this suprised me because puerto rico is not a state and I thought the census was only important in states for electoral votes and I dont think puerto rico has any choice on who the US president is. I guess what caught my attention the most about puerto rico is the fact that they bothered to even put it in the census data, maybe puerto rico will become a state in the next decade or so.
ReplyDelete~bishoy barsoum
The map that I looked at was the Apportionment of the House seats for the 2010 census data. I thought it was interesting the Washington had gained a seat. Apportionment is based on the population of the state, so it would make sense that Washington would loose seats because a good portion of the US's population is moving down south and Washington is on the boarder of Canada. It should be either growing slowly or slightly declining with population, but it is growing enough to gain a seat even with Texas and Florida gaining multiple seats.
ReplyDelete-Alex Dahl
Not that I didn't know that our population has gone up in the past decade, but I was amazed by how much. I was looking at the apportiment map when I read this. The world's elderly population is going up and the child and baby have decreasing since the past decade.
ReplyDelete-Sebastian Niesche
When i looked at the population density map of the United States , i discovered that there is a high population density on the east coast . This makes sense considering that most of that space is all urban area . I also noticed that some spots along the west coast have high density too . This also made sense because of the big cities such as LA that are located over there . I really wasn't surprised to see that western part of the united states has less population density because it is very rural area and a lot of it is farm land . I think it would be interesting to look at this map again in 50 years to see if there are any shifts in where people choose to live .
ReplyDelete* Makaila Olson 2nd hr