Multi-California, Part 1
On August 11, 2005, The United States Bureau of the Census issued a press release announcing Texas as the latest state to become a “Majority-Minority” state, joining Hawaii, New Mexico and California. Along with the release, the Census Bureau provided updated race/ethnicity population estimates for all fifty states and for counties with populations of 1 million or more. Major newspapers around the country – from New York, Chicago, Houston, San Francisco, Dallas, Boston, D.C., Atlanta, Miami, etc. - all ran stories based on this release whether commenting on their respective state’s or county’s demographic data or simply mentioning the Texas milestone. Curiously, the Los Angeles Times chose not to run a story from this Census release despite the report’s relevance to Los Angeles and California. Real Perspective’s Multi-California, Part 1 will address of racial/ethnic trends in California based on population data as provided by the Census Bureau including that of its recent release.California is ground zero for demographic diversity in the United States. No other state has been so transformed over the past few decades by racial/ethnic population shifts. Table 1 shows the depth of these changes. (Numbers reflect official Census Bureau counts [1970-2000] and estimates [2004]).
Table 1. California Population by Race/Ethnicity
(Click Table to enlarge)As Table 1 shows, California’s White population has dropped from more than three-fourths of the state population in 1970 to less than half today. This percentage decrease is primarily a result of the tremendous growth of the Hispanic/Latino and Asian population. Also, concurrent with these shifts California’s Black population has remained notably consistent as a percentage of state population – between 7 and 8%. Census data in Table 1 and in the Bureau’s August 11th release also reveal the following:
• During the past 34 years Whites are the only major racial/ethnic group in California to have experienced a decennial population decrease - dropping by over 1.2 million between 1990 and 2000. That represented a loss of 7% of the state’s White population.
• As a percentage of state population, California's White population percentage decreased by 10 for each decade from 1970 to 2000.
• Over the 34 year period, Whites have been the most populous of the racial/ethnic groups while Hispanics have been the second most populous. However Blacks were the third most populous until the mid-80s. During that period Asians became the third most populous group.
• Compared to other states, California has the second highest percentage of Asians (behind Hawaii) and the second highest percentage of Hispanics (behind New Mexico). California has the third lowest percentage of Whites; only Hawaii and New Mexico have lower percentages.
• California's White population has only increased by approximately 750,000 (net) - fewer than 1 million - over the past 34 years. From 1980 to 2000, the net increase in White population was only 53,000. In comparison, the Black population has increased by 1.2 million, Hispanic by almost 10 million, and Asian/Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian by 4.5 million since 1970. Consequently, 95% of the population growth in California since 1970 has come from Hispanic, Asian, Black, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and American Indian/Alaska Native population increase and 98% of the state’s growth since 1980 has come from these same groups.
• California’s diversity is deeper than that of the other “Majority-Minority” states. Unlike those in Hawaii, New Mexico, and Texas, all four of California’s major racial/ethnic population groups represent at least 5% of the overall population. In Texas, Asians are less than 5% of the population; the same applies to Blacks in Hawaii, and Blacks and Asians in New Mexico.
• According to Census Bureau estimates, from 2000 to 2004 California’s White and Black populations have increased by approximately the same amount - 166,000 increase in White population and 171,000 increase in Black population. Hispanic population is estimated to have grown by over 1.4 million during the same period, and combined Asian and Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian population has grown by over half a million.
The population shifts and diversity are even more evident on a county level. Table 2 provides a population breakdown for California counties of 1 million or more residents as of July 1, 2004 based on Census Bureau estimates.
Table 2. Racial/Ethnic Population by County as of July 1, 2004
(Click Table to enlarge)As Table 2 illustrates, 6 of California’s top 8 counties are “Majority-Minority.” The other two are likely to gain this distinction within 5 to 10 years.
Although the significant growth in Hispanic and Asian population is well documented, far less examined are the state’s changes in White population and how it factors into diversification, particularly in comparison to all other groups in the state (as in Table 1) or to demographic trends in other states. Table 3 takes a look a California’s White population changes from 1990 to 2000 in comparison to the other states that are amongst the top ten largest in the U.S.
Table 3. White Population Change by State, Top Ten States
(Click Table to enlarge)As Table 3 shows, California experienced both the largest numerical loss and the largest percentage loss of its White population out of the ten largest states. In fact, California is the only "Sunbelt" state to experience net loss of White population. The others - Florida, Georgia, and Texas - gained between 500,000 and 1 million Whites each during the same period. Certainly, California’s White population loss hastened its move towards becoming a “Majority-Minority” state almost a full decade before another state (Texas) would join it with that distinction.
Data such as that in Table 1 still doesn’t show the full depth of California’s diversity. In Census population counts, there are a wide range of people from different ethnic, national origin, and ancestral backgrounds who are included in the numbers for “White” population, including those with Middle Eastern or North African background. Arguably, California has a much higher percentage – if not the highest percentage – of “Whites” of non-Western European background out of the 50 states. Table 4 shows a sampling of the population changes from 1990 to 2000 of selected ancestries for which all or most persons would be classified as White.
Table 4. Population Change for Selected Ancestries in the United States
(Click Table to enlarge)A more detailed analysis of Census data would be required to determine how much of the growth of these groups occurred in California, but as much as California has been a historical destination and residence choice for a disproportionate number of immigrants, it’s safe to say that a significant amount of these populations are in California and further contribute to its diversity.
Massive state-level “White Flight” experienced during the 1990s coupled with un-ebbing international immigration and natural increase from “non-White” population has transformed California into multi-racial/multi-ethnic society unparalleled in the United States and throughout much of the world. At the same time, California is not only the most populous U.S. state, but it is also considered bellwether for U.S. trends. To better understand these trends and their ramifications for the United States, in Part 2 of Multi-California Real Perspective will analyze beyond the numbers and take a look at how and why these changes occurred and what implications have arisen as a result.
Note: In this report, the term "White" is congruent with the Census categorization of "White Alone, Non-Hispanic". For tables in which population percentages are provided, percentage totals might not equal 100 for a number of reasons including: as of 2000, Census respondents were allowed to choose more than one race category; persons of Hispanic origin can designate themselves as any Census defined race or race combination; some categorizations such as American Indian/Alaska Native are not included in table. Population gains and losses are the result of a number of factors including natural increase (births minus deaths) and net migration (the number of people moving into a geographic area minus the number of people moving out).
posted by Real Perspective @ 12:00 PM
10 comments
