The best news in this column is that you were able to get the data for this. I work with librarians who use the US Census data a lot in their work, and the recent weeks have been stressful.
Spent about an hour this week getting backups of every ACS PUMS file, and ordering reports to chase down various other backups. The American Association of Public Opinion Researchers message board has been lit up with people banding together to cross-stitch their own archives and sets. It's been a heck of a week for everyone, to seemingly no purpose other than to convince people to be worried about it.
The reasoning for counting non-citizens is that even though non-citizens can't vote, they do consume public services. And there's not a House district in the country that doesn't get funds of some kind from the Federal government. Undercounting the actual population can result in insufficient money going to districts with high numbers of non-citizens (a feature not a bug for GOP).
But by not counting non-citizens the theory (and in practice likely) is there will be more GOP House seats proportionately.
I think the reasoning for counting non-citizens is that the Constitution prescribes it. It has been done since the nation's founding, long before federally funded public services were even a thing. In the distant past, it allowed slave-owning states to artificially inflate their voting strength by (partially) counting persons who were otherwise legally regarded as livestock, as well as counting women.
"Because it's the law" is an under-appreciated explanation.
I think it would be fine to live in a country where you only count citizens, or adults, or active voters, or people not in jail, or -- well, basically anything that doesn't distinguish using race and sex.
But our law is to count everyone, so that's what we do.
I would prefer if the statistical agency was supposed to count everyone, regardless of whether the law says that representation goes with one number or another! (There are good cases to be made for basing representation on total number, on number of citizens, on number of citizens over 18, on number of registered voters, on number of votes cast in the last election, and probably some other things I haven’t thought of, even just based on the metaphor of “one person, one vote”.)
Basing representation on the number of actual votes cast is something that's done by my state's Democratic Party. Basically each county gets 1 point per 100 votes (rounded) for the Democratic candidate for Governor from their county when voting on things like the state party's platform. They could use number of registered Democrats but this is a good way of filtering "do you actually care about this?"
Remember, non-citizens includes a lot of legal immigrants. They don't vote but they do consume services, police/fire, and use infrastructure, water/sewer/roads, and pay into SS and taxes.
I think often times when people see non-citizens they automatically think illegal immigrants.
There’s a strand of conservatism that has a fixation on a certain kind of privacy that is incompatible with modern statistics. They treat disease surveillance the same way they treat crime or military surveillance (or worse).
Anecdotally, employment in my area (SF Bay Area) for at least some types of white collar (tech/pharma) jobs feels worse than at any time in the past 10 years - not just a constant drumbeat of layoffs and hiring freezes but people I know who have lost their jobs are needing months (and in some cases years) to find new ones.
Where would be the best place to find data that could confirm/debunk this type of impression?
I have exactly the same question. “Comfortably cool” is not how it feels around here, where we’re supposedly right at the inflection point in building the most transformative new tech since fire…
Maybe new transformative tech doesn't need very many people...just a few very wealthy and powerful people who all all knowing, kind and have everyone's best interests at heart.
The best single single argument against the importance of identity politics is that southern evangelicals and rural midwesterners love a New York Yankee casino builder who never goes to church.
"In January, the unemployment rate for native-born workers was 4.3%, up from 4.0% a year ago; for foreign-born workers, it was 4.6%, up even more from 4.5% a year ago."
Typo in here? I can't see why a move from 4.5 to 4.6 is "even more" than a move from 4.0 to 4.3.
Thanks for today's post -- solid information and good analysis. A good break from the steady diet of fact-free vibes and impressionistic mood-pieces that Yglesias offers.
Dumb question but I hope someone can help me understand something.
How was there a miss in payroll expectations despite a reduction in the unemployment rate coupled with an increase in the LFPR? Would love to learn more here if someone can help elucidate.
They're estimated by two different surveys, so while they show a similar picture overall, if you're focusing on very small changes, they can go in different directions.
The biggest category of employment increases were government and healthcare (a significant share of which is funded by the government). Despite all the "industrial policy", manufacturing employment declined. Meanwhile, the trade deficit hit a new record, and the budget deficit is hanging in there at close to two trillion.
And despite all the noise, under Trump nothing will really change. We will continue to have a big party, running up the credit card, consuming more than we produce.
The best news in this column is that you were able to get the data for this. I work with librarians who use the US Census data a lot in their work, and the recent weeks have been stressful.
So very stressful.
Spent about an hour this week getting backups of every ACS PUMS file, and ordering reports to chase down various other backups. The American Association of Public Opinion Researchers message board has been lit up with people banding together to cross-stitch their own archives and sets. It's been a heck of a week for everyone, to seemingly no purpose other than to convince people to be worried about it.
Re: Census Data
I've seen the reporting on this, and I gotta say it confirms something I (as as a demographics geek/hobbyist) had been fearing.
What do Republicans have against counting people?
Some people don't count.
Don’t or can’t?
It's basically all about this
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/07/24/how-removing-unauthorized-immigrants-from-census-statistics-could-affect-house-reapportionment/
There are places like Texas that could probably benefit from counting illegal immigrants for purposes of House seat apportionment*. But in general, despite increasing presences in more far flung "red" areas which is a huge part of anti-immigrant backlash (the now famous Springfield Ohio, voted overwhelmingly for Trump. https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/11/06/clark-county-election-results-springfield-trump-2024-ohio-immigration-haiti/76088048007/), migrants in general still end up in larger "blue" cities for the same reason people in general end up in cities; it's where the jobs are.
The reasoning for counting non-citizens is that even though non-citizens can't vote, they do consume public services. And there's not a House district in the country that doesn't get funds of some kind from the Federal government. Undercounting the actual population can result in insufficient money going to districts with high numbers of non-citizens (a feature not a bug for GOP).
But by not counting non-citizens the theory (and in practice likely) is there will be more GOP House seats proportionately.
I think the reasoning for counting non-citizens is that the Constitution prescribes it. It has been done since the nation's founding, long before federally funded public services were even a thing. In the distant past, it allowed slave-owning states to artificially inflate their voting strength by (partially) counting persons who were otherwise legally regarded as livestock, as well as counting women.
"Because it's the law" is an under-appreciated explanation.
I think it would be fine to live in a country where you only count citizens, or adults, or active voters, or people not in jail, or -- well, basically anything that doesn't distinguish using race and sex.
But our law is to count everyone, so that's what we do.
I would prefer if the statistical agency was supposed to count everyone, regardless of whether the law says that representation goes with one number or another! (There are good cases to be made for basing representation on total number, on number of citizens, on number of citizens over 18, on number of registered voters, on number of votes cast in the last election, and probably some other things I haven’t thought of, even just based on the metaphor of “one person, one vote”.)
True, having the data is good.
Basing representation on the number of actual votes cast is something that's done by my state's Democratic Party. Basically each county gets 1 point per 100 votes (rounded) for the Democratic candidate for Governor from their county when voting on things like the state party's platform. They could use number of registered Democrats but this is a good way of filtering "do you actually care about this?"
Remember, non-citizens includes a lot of legal immigrants. They don't vote but they do consume services, police/fire, and use infrastructure, water/sewer/roads, and pay into SS and taxes.
I think often times when people see non-citizens they automatically think illegal immigrants.
There’s a strand of conservatism that has a fixation on a certain kind of privacy that is incompatible with modern statistics. They treat disease surveillance the same way they treat crime or military surveillance (or worse).
Yes. It's all very tinfoil hatty. But it's a drag to those of us who browse population statistics for fun and relaxation.
Anecdotally, employment in my area (SF Bay Area) for at least some types of white collar (tech/pharma) jobs feels worse than at any time in the past 10 years - not just a constant drumbeat of layoffs and hiring freezes but people I know who have lost their jobs are needing months (and in some cases years) to find new ones.
Where would be the best place to find data that could confirm/debunk this type of impression?
The tech industry has had bad employment vibes since late 2022, when the pandemic surge started ebbing, and AI changed everything.
Interest rates went up.
I have exactly the same question. “Comfortably cool” is not how it feels around here, where we’re supposedly right at the inflection point in building the most transformative new tech since fire…
Maybe new transformative tech doesn't need very many people...just a few very wealthy and powerful people who all all knowing, kind and have everyone's best interests at heart.
The best single single argument against the importance of identity politics is that southern evangelicals and rural midwesterners love a New York Yankee casino builder who never goes to church.
"In January, the unemployment rate for native-born workers was 4.3%, up from 4.0% a year ago; for foreign-born workers, it was 4.6%, up even more from 4.5% a year ago."
Typo in here? I can't see why a move from 4.5 to 4.6 is "even more" than a move from 4.0 to 4.3.
Maybe 4.5 s/b 3.5?
Apologies. The language is a brain-fart. The numbers are correct. Good catch and thank you.
Now fixed.
Thanks for today's post -- solid information and good analysis. A good break from the steady diet of fact-free vibes and impressionistic mood-pieces that Yglesias offers.
(I keed! I keed!)
Ha! I did a doubletake and almost posted a short reply of, why are you here then. But then saw it was dysphemistic ..
DT is an unreliable narrator.
He pretends to be critical of Yglesias' fact-free mood-pieces, when in fact those are the main thing that keeps him coming back.
Many people are saying
Dumb question but I hope someone can help me understand something.
How was there a miss in payroll expectations despite a reduction in the unemployment rate coupled with an increase in the LFPR? Would love to learn more here if someone can help elucidate.
They're estimated by two different surveys, so while they show a similar picture overall, if you're focusing on very small changes, they can go in different directions.
BLS has a page dedicated explaining:
https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_cps_trends.htm
I love a good nerd-out.
Looking at the BLS overall summary for 2024....
The biggest category of employment increases were government and healthcare (a significant share of which is funded by the government). Despite all the "industrial policy", manufacturing employment declined. Meanwhile, the trade deficit hit a new record, and the budget deficit is hanging in there at close to two trillion.
And despite all the noise, under Trump nothing will really change. We will continue to have a big party, running up the credit card, consuming more than we produce.