Population Shifts After Ten Years: 2002-2003 and 2012-2013

According to the U.S. Census, population shift has occurred for the following reasons:

Spurred in part by growth of the energy sector, some metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas in North Dakota and west Texas are now experiencing rapid population gains, while growth has slowed or halted for some formerly fast-growing areas in the South and West.

What you immediately notice are the dark green shaded areas (representing 3+ percent growth), many of which that were, of course, where the height of the madness was occurring during the real estate boom. Some of these areas were the southwest states and especially California (generally anywhere east of the San Andreas Fault). As well as selected areas in southern states, and even a few high-growth inland areas that saw a tremendous ramp up during the early to mid-2000s such as Idaho.

The last ten seconds of the video shows a contra trend, practically wiping out growth area by area in the same manner that it appeared ten years prior. Corresponding to the quote above regarding the impetus for the current migration in recent years, you see 3+ percent growth in North Dakota as well as the current popularity of Texas. Another very interesting shift is from the north western, Reno area of Nevada to the north eastern area of the same state. What was driving that growth?

At the risk of sounding a bit like Pudd’nhead Wilson for pouring over such things, additional data sets and customizable maps for metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas can be found here, the interactive map here.

The Myth and Romance of Los Angeles – Available at Last

What is ostensibly the best documentary on the City of Los Angeles (and a 95/90 Tomatometer) has at long last, been scheduled to be released on DVD. If you had not heard of the film, there is this, and little else according to IMDB,

In this documentary, Thom Andersen examines in detail the ways the city has been depicted, both when it is meant to be anonymous and when itself is the focus. Along the way, he illustrates his concerns of how the real city and its people are misrepresented and distorted through the prism of popular film culture. Furthermore, he also chronicles the real stories of the city’s modern history behind the notorious accounts of the great conspiracies that ravaged his city that reveal a more open and yet darker past than the casual viewer would suspect.

In addition to being an excellent descriptive paragraph, that’s the kind of stuff myth is made of.

But what is really driving the cult status is the film’s elusive nature as noted in a post today:

Los Angeles Plays Itself is a story of how L.A. has been portrayed on screen, its thesis unfolding through hundreds of iconic film clips. But the biggest reason that Thom Andersen’s legendary documentary has reached a near-cult status is that, due to copyright issues, the film has never been properly released in theaters or on DVD. Until now.

In a remarkable statement, the post goes on to punctuate just how interesting this film is, “it’s probably the most important media study ever conducted on the city—maybe any city!—and no one has been able to see it.” It’s remarkable that business and legal wranglings could eclipse something like this, for a decade.

 

The Sociology of Californians and Wealth Disparity

No matter what your background, leaning, or even possibly, previously held beliefs, there is no denying what many people sense anecdotally at a minimum, and now backed up by a growing body of data: income inequality is on people’s minds. Every economic forum I have attended in the last three years has made mention of this, whether the event was delivered by an economist, politician or business leader. The Field Research Corporation released a study with the following findings,

Majorities of Californians are dissatisfied with the way income and wealth in the state are distributed and believe the gap between the rich and the rest of the population is greater now than in the past. Yet, the public is divided about the extent to which government should try to reduce the wealth gap. In addition, Californians are evenly split when asked about raising the state minimum wage beyond its already scheduled increases.

Regarding the last section cited above, the results are exactly as expected when dealing with any public policy issue that involves the two major parties. Quite honestly, I think that is the part of the poll that most people are least interested in, due to the cynicism and general lack of civility in the discussion of public policy when either party stands to gain or lose as a result of an issue.

There is a very interesting note to this poll as it relates to U.S. born California residents versus foreign-born immigrants,

U.S.-born Californians are more likely to report dissatisfaction with the wealth gap and feel it is greater than in the past. However, they are less apt to feel that government should be doing a lot to try to reduce the gap, and a majority opposes increasing the state minimum wage beyond its already scheduled increases than the foreign-born public.

Foreign-born immigrants, on the other hand, are not nearly as dissatisfied with the way income is distributed in California and are less apt to feel it is greater now than in the past. Yet, a plurality supports government taking a more active role to reduce the wealth disparity, and a majority supports increasing the state minimum wage.

So there is an odd, inverse relationship of opinion among all respondents depending on where they were born and how they feel about the variance in income distribution. And that very same inverse relationship exists among the same respondents on the role of government in resolving this problem. In an interesting footnote to this discussion, the Field Poll found the same pattern to be true among the California Latino population, “majorities of California Latinos born in the U.S. say they are dissatisfied with the way income and wealth are distributed, while Latinos born outside the U.S. are more likely to be satisfied.”

The material point of the survey is the margin of majority who hold these views, cutting across a number of sociological backgrounds as shown in the table below:

Field Poll Income Inequality