Tables (all tables are in Excel format)

Table 1: Annual Estimates of the Population for the United States and States, and for Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005

Table 2: Cumulative Estimates of Population Change for the United States and States, and for Puerto Rico and State Rankings: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005

Table 3: Cumulative Estimates of the Components of Population Change for the United States and States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005

Table 4: Population Estimates and Population Change for the U.S., Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: July 1, 2004 to July 1, 2005

SUMMARY OF NEW STATE POPULATION ESTIMATES, 2000-2005

New population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau indicate that Michigan’s population has continued to increase from 2004 to 2005, but at a slightly slower rate than in other recent years.  The state’s estimated population for 2005 is 0.2 percent higher than in 2004. Michigan’s estimated population has increased by 1.8 percent (182,380 people) since the 2000 Census.

Michigan’s population has increased in every year since the population losses that occurred during the recession years of the early 1980’s. Click here to view Chart: Population Trend

Comparison with Other States

According to the new figures, the nation’s fastest-growing states since 2000 have been Nevada, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and Utah.    Areas with lower estimated growth rates than Michigan since 2000 are New York, Iowa, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Massachusetts, West Virginia, North Dakota, and the District of Columbia.   Four jurisdictions—Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia—have lost population since last year. Michigan continues to be the 8^th largest state, with just over one million more residents than 9^th ranked Georgia. 

Although Michigan’s population has increased in recent years, its rate of growth has been slower than that of the U.S. as a whole.   Michigan's share of the nation’s population peaked at 4.4% from 1954 to 1960 and again from 1967 to 1970.   Click here to view Population Share.   It then dropped rapidly in the 1970's and the early 1980's.  However, this statistic has dropped by only about two hundredths of a percentage point per year since the mid-1980's.  Michigan had 3.53% of the nation's population in April 2000, and an estimated 3.41% in July 2005.

There are several reasons why Michigan has continued to grow more slowly than the U.S. as a whole since 2000:

• 48% of the difference is explained by a net loss of residents to other states;
• 29% of the difference is explained by a lower rate of immigration from other countries;
• 20% of the difference is explained by a lower rate of natural increase (i.e. the difference between the number of births and the number of deaths). 
• 3% is explained by residual adjustments made by the Census Bureau to compensate for estimate revisions that have been made in response to local challenges of previous estimates, special censuses, etc.

Since first-generation immigrants tend to have somewhat higher birth rates than the native-born population, Michigan’s lower rate of natural increase can be considered an indirect effect of receiving fewer international immigrants than other states.  Thus, the direct and indirect effects of lower rates of immigration from abroad may account for roughly half of the gap between Michigan's growth rate and that of the U.S. as a whole.

Comparison with Other Years

Since the mid-1980’s, Michigan’s population flow to other states has been roughly offset in most years by net immigration from other countries.  The state’s population growth has therefore been driven primarily by natural increase.

Although none of the components of population change has changed in a dramatic fashion, each factor has recently been contributing to a lower rate of population growth:

• The number of deaths has been rising as the population ages.  (This factor also affects the nation as a whole.).
• There has been a small decrease over the past several years in Michigan’s number of births.  In contrast, the number of births for the U.S. as a whole has risen somewhat due to a large number of young immigrants from other countries.
• The number of new foreign immigrants has been decreasing over the past few years.  (This factor also affects the nation as a whole).
• The number of net migrants from Michigan to other states has risen.  This reflects demographic factors as well as economic factors:  major categories of out-migrants from Michigan include students, retirees, and military personnel.  Unlike the 1970’s and early 1980’s, when economic factors were the dominant factor driving migration patterns, unemployment rates have had only a modest effect upon migration in recent years. The gap between the highest and lowest unemployment rates among the states is currently quite small by historic standards. Click here to view Unemployment Comparison Chart.   Moreover, many of the states with the lowest unemployment rates in 2004 were rural states that do not normally attract a large number of job-seekers from Michigan.  Several of the larger states, such as California, Texas, Illinois, and Ohio, had unemployment rates within one percentage point of Michigan’s.
• Michigan’s population is also affected by changes in the number of military personnel on active duty.   Because Michigan does not have any large military bases, almost all active-duty personnel are counted elsewhere.  Those in the U.S. are counted in the state where they are stationed.  Those serving abroad are counted as part of the nation’s “overseas population.”

-- Kenneth Darga, State Demographer

    Library of Michigan

    DargaK@michigan.gov

Updated 12/22/05.