This story, Counties ride population's ups, downs | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/article/3219012/1206082018) , 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 (http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/CO-EST2007-01.html) . A subset of the spreadsheet, showing Oklahoma and the counties in the metro, reflects the following data:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/misc/2007population.jpg

This story, Counties ride population's ups, downs | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/article/3219012/1206082018) , 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 (http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/CO-EST2007-01.html) . A subset of the spreadsheet, showing Oklahoma and the counties in the metro, reflects the following data:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/misc/2007population.jpgThese 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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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 (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763849.html)

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.

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.

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.

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

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 (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763849.html)

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.

Doh! People die!

In 1995, 32,431 people died in Oklahoma:

Resident Deaths by County, Race, and Sex, Oklahoma, 1995 (http://www.health.state.ok.us/program/phs/ohs/ohs95/t09.html)

45,365 were born.

Resident Births by County, Race, and Sex, Oklahoma, 1995 (http://www.health.state.ok.us/program/phs/ohs/ohs95/t08.html)

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.

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

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

Are we even growing faster than the national average?

Thats a great question. Are we?

CensusScope -- Population Growth Ranking (http://www.censusscope.org/us/rank_popl_growth.html)

That site has us listed as 26th in growth.

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

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

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%.

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

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.

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

No Kerry. That's the wrong approach.

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

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 (http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/CBSA-est2007-annual.html)

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

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 (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080327/census_growing_cities.html?.v=1)

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.

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

Isn't that Wal-Marts influence?

Yep.

Isn't that Wal-Marts influence?

Absolutely. And Tyson's. I also agree with JBrown's comment about it being a sprawling suburban mess . Just a few miles away is Eureka Springs and they're already worried about encroachment. That area is so beautiful that it's a shame to see the sprawl.

I really think it is a shame that Okc and for that matter Okla. , hasn't seen more of a pop growth. Especially with Texas and even Ark getting in on the population boon in this part of the country. I am not sure what that says about Okla but I don't think it is good.

I am more concerned about wages in the state. If we can get our wages up people will move here.

I really think it is a shame that Okc and for that matter Okla. , hasn't seen more of a pop growth. Especially with Texas and even Ark getting in on the population boon in this part of the country. I am not sure what that says about Okla but I don't think it is good.

I read somewhere that in 2007, Oklahoma ranked 18th in growth. I don't know what we would rank if you took in growth figures for every year since 2000, but I'll take 18th.

I think the important thing to remember is that growth by itself says nothing about an area except theres a lot more people in your state than the last time you counted. For example California has always been a high-growth state, so you wouldn't realize that since 2000, nearly one million people have left that state. Thanks to immigrants and the fact that most new US citizens are baby-making machines, it makes CA's situation look a lot better than it is. Given the fact that TX has much more affordable housing I seriously doubt thats the case. But they do have a VERY high rate of immigration. And sorry, but theres just no way the rate of growth in NWA is sustainable. Its already is slowing down. My cousin lives over there and says real estate is dirt cheap because they overbuilt and have a 40 month supply of homes on the market.

I'm not trying to take away from what they have but I don't like getting caught up in growth rates. If you had to look at them, you should look at NET IN-MIGRATION because that actually shows that people from other parts of the nation are moving here. OK has a positive inmigration, which is saying something given the fact that this state has been plagued with a negative inmigration. Yeah its not high, but you got to start somewhere.

Its more important that a community is economically viable and healthy, and you have a strong but steady rate of growth instead of just being the "flavor of the week" with everyone and their grandma moving to your town until the next hot spot emerges and your back to your old slow-growth slump.

Just my 0.02

I really think it is a shame that Okc and for that matter Okla. , hasn't seen more of a pop growth. Especially with Texas and even Ark getting in on the population boon in this part of the country. I am not sure what that says about Okla but I don't think it is good.

It's a good question. I think we know that Texas just has a better reputation for people coming in, and better liquor laws, and higher salaries, etc. NWA has the beauty, even if it's still as backwards as us in many ways. You'd think with Devon and Chesapeake and Sandridge growing as they are, and Tinker expanding, you'd see more increase here. I don't know why we don't. But ultimately there have to be jobs for these people coming in.

Wal-Mart, a tiny little chicken operation called Tyson and a wee trucking company called J.B. Hunt. Err, make that the largest (discount) department store in the world, the largest food processor in the world and the largest transport company in the U.S. Damn, those hillbillies know how to make money. I guess this is what the end of prohibition did to the moonshine business.

It's a good question. I think we know that Texas just has a better reputation for people coming in, and better liquor laws, and higher salaries, etc. NWA has the beauty, even if it's still as backwards as us in many ways. You'd think with Devon and Chesapeake and Sandridge growing as they are, and Tinker expanding, you'd see more increase here. I don't know why we don't. But ultimately there have to be jobs for these people coming in.

It's a question that's easy to answer. First, let me stress that people don't move to Texas because of better liquor laws. They move to Texas for the jobs and the climate.

Now, to explain Oklahoma City's situation. It's all about reputation. Oklahoma City's companies have to work harder to lure people from other states because of our image. It's easier to tell your wife and kids 'we are moving to Texas' than it is to tell them 'we are moving to Oklahoma'. On the same token, Dallas has over 6.1 million people, so natural growth as well as people moving to the area both work hand in hand. You have to look at the components of population change. It's very complex.

But, when you look at the hard data, it's comforting to at least know Oklahoma is one of the twenty states that are gaining domestic residents versus the thirty or so that are losing domestic residents by the thousands, and rely solely on natural growth and immigration for growth.

California alone lost 1.4 million domestic residents from 2000 to 2007. Immigration and natural growth accounted for California's increase.

Bottom line... WE NEED MORE NATIONAL EXPOSURE.

I have always thought that we should do more to lure CA residents to Okla. I have met quite a few that live here now that once lived in CA. People that sold their homes in CA for huge amounts of money , then moved to Okla. bought a new house for a fraction of the price and are living the good life.

I also think that Okc could do more to entice Asian-Americans to Okc.

Ditto those thoughts okclee, especially the Asian-American thought.

Back here on the East Coast, Northern Arkansas is getting a lot of attention. Just in the past five years, I've noticed that my clients' families are starting to move through that area. Since I work with disadvantaged, low income families, I tend to see a lot of their members who sort of drift here and there. The ones who come back typically don't like it (or they wouldn't return). I think it is too much of a culture shock. The jail in Benton is absolutely booming. It has a nice website that tells you, daily, who is there. That may not mean as much to some as it does to me. Interestingly, many of them report that they just can't find work in Arkansas. Of course, a lot of them also report that they don't want to work at a chicken plant.

What is interesting to me, from my end, is that when I speak to immigrants to Oklahoma/Oklahoma City, so many of them are practically shocked that they like it so well. It is a jewel if you aren't set on mountains or the ocean. It is growing and when I compare it to even ten years ago, it is really impressive. So many areas of the country are economically depressed. Personally, I wouldn't stress too much about getting bodies here for the sake of population. One of the most attractive things about OKC is that it isn't jammed. I live in an area with so many people you can't stir them with a stick. With the downturn in the ecomony, the lower income folks really get slammed and that increases the costs to the local government and seems to increase crime. As the economy slows down, so do the lower paying jobs, construction and the like.

instead of focusing on the population boom our best and most realistic goal is to fill in the blanks from OKC to Tulsa and combine metros...... I have a dream that 1 day okcitians and tulsans will put aside their diffrences and join hands in the enevitable I-44 love train ......

First, let me stress that people don't move to Texas because of better liquor laws. They move to Texas for the jobs and the climate.

Now, to explain Oklahoma City's situation. It's all about reputation.


You're contradicting yourself. Is it just about where the jobs are, or where there's a good reputation? Because we obviously have jobs here, but people don't want to move here because they hear about things Sally Kern and the fact that liquor isn't sold in grocery stores, and just generally that we're a dust bowl. All that can be changed, it just takes time.

Yet we can see more job growth. I know you moved to Houston because of a job opportunity that you didn't have here. But I think a larger problem is people leaving after high school and college because they don't like it here, and people just not wanting to move here. My dad had a job interview at OU Med School in Tulsa, and he was told that another man from the east coast who was considering the job didn't even come interview because the moment his wife heard Tulsa, Oklahoma, she said now way no how.

My dad had a job interview at OU Med School in Tulsa, and he was told that another man from the east coast who was considering the job didn't even come interview because the moment his wife heard Tulsa, Oklahoma, she said now way no how.

I hear this kind of thing way too often. When I travel, I spend so much time "explaining" why I am in Oklahoma City. The fact is, and it's just the truth, is that people have a stereotyped misperception of Oklahoma City and many can't imagine anybody actually wanting to live here because we actually like it! When I tell them a few facts and figures - it's always, "I had no idea." So, JBrown is right, the whole perception/reputation thing is still very much alive. It is changing, I would like to think, but it's still there.

I hear this kind of thing way too often. When I travel, I spend so much time "explaining" why I am in Oklahoma City. The fact is, and it's just the truth, is that people have a stereotyped misperception of Oklahoma City and many can't imagine anybody actually wanting to live here because we actually like it! When I tell them a few facts and figures - it's always, "I had no idea." So, JBrown is right, the whole perception/reputation thing is still very much alive. It is changing, I would like to think, but it's still there.

yeah its like that here in florida when I tell um I'm from OKC its always 1. the bombing 2. tornadoes 3. O.U.................... they think its a flat tree lesstown (that part is true) and that its some prarie where u still take your woman out on the town in a surry with the fringe on top... I think at least the floridians are still mad at how oklahoma beat FSU in the orange bowl in there home state comin off a p-season

. they think its a flat tree lesstown (that part is true)

Not really.

jbrown I know we got trees just not a lot wish we had more.

instead of focusing on the population boom our best and most realistic goal is to fill in the blanks from OKC to Tulsa and combine metros...... I have a dream that 1 day okcitians and tulsans will put aside their diffrences and join hands in the enevitable I-44 love train ......I'm OK with putting aside any differences there may be, and getting along. But combining the two metros. That would be one helluva metro.

I'm OK with putting aside any differences there may be, and getting along. But combining the two metros. That would be one helluva metro.

your right andy. I really think that if we fill in the blanks the MSA will have to figure out where each metro ends.That will happen before each metro joins. Even if the OKC metro grows without tulsa.

instead of focusing on the population boom our best and most realistic goal is to fill in the blanks from OKC to Tulsa and combine metros...... I have a dream that 1 day okcitians and tulsans will put aside their diffrences and join hands in the enevitable I-44 love train ......

I like that dream too. It is true that the two CMSAs abut each other, since Lincoln County is in OKC's CMSA and Creek County is in Tulsa's. However at the common boundary the land is overwhelmingly rural. Furthermore, OKC is growing north, west, and south, but very little east, while Tulsa is growing mostly south and east, but not much west. Thus the two metros are growing away from, not toward, each other. So I'm afraid the dream will have to remain just that. Let's just concentrate on making each metro bigger and better.

You're contradicting yourself.

How am I contradicting myself? Yes, OKC has jobs, and as both you and I stated, getting people to move to Oklahoma is more of a challenge than getting people to move to Texas.

The reason why I said that people don't move to Texas because of better liquor laws is becuase they don't. When people move to Oklahoma, they are oblivious to our liquor laws until they run out to make their first purchase.

Now, people from Oklahoma tend to move to Texas for several reasons... liquor laws being one of them.

You are correct, all of that can be changed. And I wouldn't worry about Sally Kern. Indeed, she got the nation talking, but from speaking to people here in Houston, many of them don't care about Sally Kern, much less who she is and what she said.

But honestly, if you up and relocate to another state based solely over a difference in liquor laws, not all of your dogs are barking.

Before you can join OKC and Tulsa you have to get rid of that stupid Turner Turmpike. You cannot build on a turnpike.

We are still trying to fill in the blanks between OKC and Norman. I do not think that any of us will live long enough to fill in the blanks between OKC and Tulsa.

Do we really want to turn Stroud into sprawl?

Do we really want to turn Stroud into sprawl?Right after we finish with Wellston.

But honestly, if you up and relocate to another state based solely over a difference in liquor laws, not all of your dogs are barking.


Liquor laws were just an example of the less-than-progressive attitude that still exists and holds us back in many ways.

Before you can join OKC and Tulsa you have to get rid of that stupid Turner Turmpike. You cannot build on a turnpike.

We are still trying to fill in the blanks between OKC and Norman. I do not think that any of us will live long enough to fill in the blanks between OKC and Tulsa.

hey your right. I really was speaking from a future of 2050 or so. I think that it will eventually happen but not to the point were they're merged, but the MSA will have to figure out were our metro actually ends.Like when they finally added shawnee