for imskelley1

Individual Project

Unit 2

Total Population of USA was increased by 25% during 1980 to 2000 while our Territory Population was increased 12.5%

Household income was increased greatly by 178% of USA while our Territory’s Household income was increased 372%.

Census Trends

One of the primary purposes of the U.S. Census is to measure population distribution and change. Although the nation as a whole has continued to expand, growth has been far from uniform. Between 1990 and 2000, 684 of the nation's 3142 counties reported a population loss, many of these in the Great Plains states. At the same time, five counties (three in Colorado and two in Georgia) more than doubled their population, and another 80 counties experienced growth rates greater than 50 percent. Altogether, 1109 of the nation's counties reported growth that exceeded the national growth rate of approximately 13 percent between 1990 and 2000. 

I find the comparison especially interesting because we were told by so many experts in the years around 1980 that America's best days were behind us and that we could look forward to little more than stagnation. It hasn't turned out that way. The nation's population rose 31 percent between 1980 and 2005, from 226 million to 296 million. But growth was uneven. Only a few states grew at about the national average percentage rate: Maryland (33), Hawaii (32), and Tennessee (30). Some grew much more: Nevada (202�that's not a misprint) and Arizona (119) more than doubled; growth was robust as well in Florida (83), Utah (69), Georgia (66), Alaska (65), Colorado (61), Texas (61), California (53), and Washington (52). Two states, West Virginia (-7) and North Dakota (-2), and the District of Columbia (-14) lost population.

As in the 2000� period, growth was fastest in the Rocky Mountains, on the southern Atlantic Coast, and on the Pacific Coast. No state in the Midwest grew faster than the national average; only three comparatively small states in the East did: New Hampshire (42), Delaware (42), and Maryland (33)

2

In labor Force for USA was increased by 10.87% while our Territory’s In Labor force was only increased by 4.53%.

USA’s 14.1% employment were work in manufacturing while on the other side only 5.8% working in manufacturing.

15.30% of USA were working in Office and Administrative Support while 9.20% of our Territory work in this industry.

Occupation & Employment

America increase 4.5 million, or 14%, of its manufacturing jobs in the during 1980 2000s. This is a rate of increased unprecedented in U.S. history—better than in the 1980s, when Business Week warned of deindustrialization and worse than the rate of manufacturing job loss experienced during the great depression, while U.S. manufacturing has clawed back.

This report examines the public policies, economic development strategies, and private business strategies that were designed help industrial metropolitan areas replace lost manufacturing jobs during the period 1980–2000. During this period the nation as a whole increased about 4.5 million manufacturing jobs, or about 14 percent of its manufacturing employment. The 1980–2000 period includes two major episodes of large-scale manufacturing job increased.

3

15.20% of our Territory employment were working in Finance and Insurance market.

7.80% of our Territory employment were working in Education department

Occupation & Employment

37% of total population of USA were Household with the per capita income of $21,587

55% of total population of our Territory were Household with the per capita income of $64,426

10.2% of USA Household have the income of $60,000 to $99,999

11.47% of our Territory have the income of $60,000 to $99,999

Income Summary

Increases in household income inequality have been largely driven by changes in the distribution of wages and salaries, which account for 75% of household incomes among working-age adults. With very few exceptions, the wages of the 10% best-paid workers have risen relative to those of the 10% lowest paid. This was due to both growing earnings’ shares at the top and declining shares at the bottom, although top earners saw their incomes rise particularly rapidly. Earners in the top 10% have been leaving the middle earners behind more rapidly than the lowest earners have been drifting away from the middle.

The empirical evidence as to the key drivers of inequality remains largely inconclusive and is made more so by a lack of precise definitions and concepts used in different studies. When assessing the possible causes of increased inequality, three main issues require particularly precise definition. They are: i) inequality itself, ii) globalization, and iii) reference populations.

5