Unmarried male/female ratio by state

A NEW METHODOLOGY

The 2000 data has the largest sample size. Allegedly 5% of the U.S. population was surveyed in detail. Each person in the survey has a "person weight" which is supposed to represent the total number of people in the population that they represent. I seem to get a lower male/female ratio when I don't use the person weight, which means that the actual responses are biased in favor of less males responding. I hope the Census people know what they are doing, being that they are government employees.

We are looking at non-Hispanic whites, age 25-40, who are unmarried.

BY STATE

It’s easy to prepare a chart of the male/female ratio by state. It’s not as informative as looking at smaller geographic divisions, but it still tells us some useful stuff.

For the nation as a whole, the unmarried male/female ratio is 1.227. But there are considerable variations by state.

States most favorable for single males:

New Mexico, Rhode Island

States least favorable for single males:

Hawaii, North Dakota, Nevada, Alaska

2000 5% PUMS and Person Weight
Cells contain: -Row percent -N of cases		sex
		1 Male	2 Female	ROW TOTAL
statefip	1: Alabama	56.4 112,964	43.6 87,183	100.0 200,147
	2: Alaska	57.0 20,664	43.0 15,585	100.0 36,249
	4: Arizona	54.7 151,281	45.3 125,128	100.0 276,409
	5: Arkansas	55.4 71,173	44.6 57,322	100.0 128,495
	6: California	55.3 858,576	44.7 695,322	100.0 1,553,898
	8: Colorado	56.6 171,107	43.4 130,971	100.0 302,078
	9: Connecticut	54.8 117,986	45.2 97,423	100.0 215,409
	10: Delaware	54.2 23,866	45.8 20,205	100.0 44,071
	11: District of Columbia	52.6 19,007	47.4 17,110	100.0 36,117
	12: Florida	55.8 459,691	44.2 363,649	100.0 823,340
	13: Georgia	56.0 225,264	44.0 177,114	100.0 402,378
	15: Hawaii	59.0 16,852	41.0 11,697	100.0 28,549
	16: Idaho	55.5 39,104	44.5 31,326	100.0 70,430
	17: Illinois	55.0 378,141	45.0 309,718	100.0 687,859
	18: Indiana	54.9 211,028	45.1 173,187	100.0 384,215
	19: Iowa	55.2 100,080	44.8 81,215	100.0 181,295
	20: Kansas	55.7 80,322	44.3 63,991	100.0 144,313
	21: Kentucky	53.6 137,650	46.4 119,047	100.0 256,697
	22: Louisiana	54.7 107,980	45.3 89,551	100.0 197,531
	23: Maine	53.2 51,605	46.8 45,449	100.0 97,054
	24: Maryland	54.6 141,391	45.4 117,651	100.0 259,042
	25: Massachusetts	52.5 270,296	47.5 244,710	100.0 515,006
	26: Michigan	55.5 341,278	44.5 273,719	100.0 614,997
	27: Minnesota	55.0 192,922	45.0 157,955	100.0 350,877
	28: Mississippi	54.9 58,773	45.1 48,353	100.0 107,126
	29: Missouri	55.2 188,245	44.8 152,656	100.0 340,901
	30: Montana	56.2 30,725	43.8 23,975	100.0 54,700
	31: Nebraska	56.8 58,938	43.2 44,808	100.0 103,746
	32: Nevada	57.3 71,386	42.7 53,277	100.0 124,663
	33: New Hampshire	54.8 51,144	45.2 42,213	100.0 93,357
	34: New Jersey	54.6 240,044	45.4 199,969	100.0 440,013
	35: New Mexico	51.9 30,834	48.1 28,576	100.0 59,410
	36: New York	54.3 573,452	45.7 481,817	100.0 1,055,269
	37: North Carolina	56.4 228,912	43.6 177,022	100.0 405,934
	38: North Dakota	59.1 23,932	40.9 16,548	100.0 40,480
	39: Ohio	54.9 400,509	45.1 329,067	100.0 729,576
	40: Oklahoma	55.0 91,521	45.0 74,956	100.0 166,477
	41: Oregon	54.8 129,037	45.2 106,637	100.0 235,674
	42: Pennsylvania	54.9 422,953	45.1 347,397	100.0 770,350
	44: Rhode island	51.5 40,492	48.5 38,104	100.0 78,596
	45: South Carolina	56.3 102,680	43.7 79,568	100.0 182,248
	46: South Dakota	56.2 23,196	43.8 18,083	100.0 41,279
	47: Tennessee	55.4 183,914	44.6 147,996	100.0 331,910
	48: Texas	55.0 444,228	45.0 364,178	100.0 808,406
	49: Utah	55.7 61,209	44.3 48,776	100.0 109,985
	50: Vermont	53.3 25,496	46.7 22,381	100.0 47,877
	51: Virginia	55.3 213,812	44.7 173,146	100.0 386,958
	53: Washington	55.4 224,070	44.6 180,517	100.0 404,587
	54: West Virginia	55.0 63,451	45.0 52,019	100.0 115,470
	55: Wisconsin	56.1 202,345	43.9 158,331	100.0 360,676
	56: Wyoming	56.3 17,553	43.7 13,619	100.0 31,172
	COL TOTAL	55.1 8,503,079	44.9 6,930,217	100.0 15,433,296

Comments

[Jack]

That sucks pretty much all over, including in NY and DC. I really wonder about New Mexico, that is a shocker.

[Peter]

Are men in the bad-ratio states less likely to be married than their counterparts in states with better ratios? That's the real question.

[Hubbert]

I disagree that it is "the real question," Peter. There's a quality issue, which Philip Greenspun seems to have first brought up. If the ratio gets bad enough, a 75th percentile guy will have to settle for a below-average woman.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2004/12/15/best-undergrad-college-regardless-of-price/

It's a little like the housing bubble. It may not have affected home ownership rates between LA and, say, Harrisburg. But in LA an engineer would be paying 55% of his income for a 600 sq ft dump in Compton.

http://drhousingbubble.blogspot.com/search/label/real-homes-of-genius

Secondly, you've got some contingent probability. As this blog has discussed, many people form partnerships when young (Siggy is looking at the 25+ age bracket, but the average age at first marriage for women was 24 recently, and these days, that's often after a multi-year relationship). So the question is "assuming I am unattached (not merely unmarried) after college, what will my relationship options be in various cities?" I mean, a guy who finishes his masters' degree and takes a job in Birmingham, Alabama, will not be comforted by the fact that all his neighbors and co-workers are happily married to their high school sweethearts; he's just going to say "wow, the competition here really is brutal, and there are thousands of men in this town who are mathematically eliminated!"

[Jason]

I saw both quantity and quality of women in New Mexico on my road trip. What struck me was that even in gas stations or fast food places the employees were young attractive women. Most were Hispanic or Indian.
In other states I saw mostly butt ugly women in these type of lower level service jobs.

[meep]

I'm not getting the significance of the colors. Explanation there?

While I think age 25-40 is appropriate for the guys, I think you need to dip down to 20 or 18 for the women. And maybe cap the men's age a bit higher -- men in their 40s can still be competition in the primary marriage market. Women definitely have a lower "sell by" date, and the comparison should probably be made on those terms.