HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2010, 8:01 AM
hudkina hudkina is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
House seats are facts too, its math!
Well considering that the number of seats are based on population, the fact that the Midwest with about 67 million people lost 6 seats, while the Northeast with about 55 million people lost 5 seats means that the loss for each region was proportional. Each region basically lost 1 seat for every 11 million residents... In fact, the loss was marginally "harder" on the Northeast, when you account for total population...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2010, 1:04 PM
TonyAnderson's Avatar
TonyAnderson TonyAnderson is offline
.
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Salt Lake City | Utah
Posts: 2,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by hudkina View Post
But it is interesting to see just how off the estimates were. The 2009 estimate for Arizona was 6,595,778 yet the official count found only 6,392,017. In 2007 the state had an estimated population of 6,362,241, and despite all indications that the state had seen its population growth slow to a crawl during the recession, the Census Bureau continued to estimate massive population gains over the following two years. Assuming that the estimates for 2007 were remotely accurate, it seems that Arizona has been relatively stagnant during the recession.

It's interesting because the Census Bureau was relatively accurate with (if not underestimating) Nevada. Between 2007 and 2009 they estimated growth of 75,333, or under 38,000 per year. However, after the official count, they found that the 2010 results were 57,466 above the 2009 estimates. Assuming the estimates for 2007 were relatively accurate, Nevada performed slightly better through the recession than the Census Bureau estimated.

Another state with inflated estimates was Georgia. The 2009 estimate had the population at 9,829,211 but the official count found 9,687,653. It seems as if the estimates were looking for a population of roughly 10 million for 2010, but found far fewer.
I'm kind of impressed with how accurate the estimates are considering how they're done. Going from estimating for ten years straight to counting each person individually each ten years seems like you'd have some really eschewed numbers. I think they were off by 20,000 for Utah (of a 500,000 10 year increase). Not bad.
__________________
Instagram | Twitter

www.UtahProjects.info
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2010, 1:28 PM
Chase Unperson's Avatar
Chase Unperson Chase Unperson is offline
Freakbirthed
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Papa Songs.
Posts: 4,329
Here is the NYT's breakdown and analysis of the change in house seats.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/us....html?_r=1&hpw

What are the states in the south and west doing that's making them more successful and getting people to move there. How are they able to provide better job opportunities (which obviously is the main reason someone would move).
__________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2010, 1:43 PM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 40,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chase Unperson View Post
What are the states in the south and west doing that's making them more successful and getting people to move there. How are they able to provide better job opportunities (which obviously is the main reason someone would move).
Retirees don't work, but serving them employs a lot of people.

That's not the only reason but it's definitely a contributing factor. A lot of growth in retail and construction here is related to the ageing population.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2010, 1:57 PM
novawolverine novawolverine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chase Unperson View Post
Here is the NYT's breakdown and analysis of the change in house seats.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/us....html?_r=1&hpw

What are the states in the south and west doing that's making them more successful and getting people to move there. How are they able to provide better job opportunities (which obviously is the main reason someone would move).
Cost of living is lower and the land is cheaper, generally speaking. "Better" weather also contributes. Many locales in the South and West have developed more recently and that "newness" is desirable to a lot of people.

To become more competitive, some states in the South and West have had to undercut the Northeast and Midwest in certain industries so that costs, like labor, and taxes are lower along with less regulations. There's other corporate welfare as well. Many southern states have auto manufacturing plants these days. The trade-offs, like less money for gov't services, is worth it for many people.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2010, 2:19 PM
BG918's Avatar
BG918 BG918 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Architect2010 View Post
Yes this is so true. Here's a population chart of Oklahoma's population from 2000-2010. It portrays exactly what you have said; this Great Plain states are growing at a healthy clip. The most recent year suggests Oklahoma is about to start adding some hefty numbers to it's population. I suspect within Oklahoma, the overwhelming majority of the growth will be within the two urban areas, Oklahoma City and Tulsa.

OKLAHOMA
Total Pop POPULATION Numeric change % change
April 1, 2010 ... 3,751,351 ... 64,301 ... 1.74%
July 1, 2009 ... 3,687,050 ... 43,025 ... 1.18%
July 1, 2008 ... 3,644,025 ... 31,839 ... 0.88%
July 1, 2007 ... 3,612,186 ... 37,852 ... 1.06%
July 1, 2006 ... 3,574,334 ... 41,565 ... 1.18%
July 1, 2005 ... 3,532,769 ... 18,320 ... 0.52%
July 1, 2004 ... 3,514,449 ... 15,762 ... 0.45%
July 1, 2003 ... 3,498,687 ... 13,933 ... 0.40%
July 1, 2002 ... 3,484,754 ... 20,025 ... 0.58%
July 1, 2001 ... 3,464,729 ... 10,786 ... 0.31%
July 1, 2000 ... 3,453,943...
Oklahoma has seen modest growth in its two large metros. I would suspect the rural areas, especially the Plains counties in the west and Panhandle, all lost population except for Lawton which has been growing rapidly due to BRAC and Fort Sill army base.

While Plains states are showing positive population growth, I would bet most of it is in the larger cities and that rural farm towns are continuing to empty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2010, 2:27 PM
KB0679's Avatar
KB0679 KB0679 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
In terms of shifting the balance of power politically, you've got to remember that while these shifts mean that Republican states are gaining population and political clout, they're also becoming less Republican. The growth is coming from Northern transplants, immigrants, and minorities that lean Democratic.
Not in all cases. In some states, a lot of the growth is coming from retirees and suburbanites (Northern and other) who trend conservative, like in SC, Utah, and probably Arizona.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2010, 3:22 PM
Buckeye Native 001 Buckeye Native 001 is offline
E pluribus unum
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by KB0679 View Post
Not in all cases. In some states, a lot of the growth is coming from retirees and suburbanites (Northern and other) who trend conservative, like in SC, Utah, and probably Arizona.
Bingo. The idiots from suburban Chicagoland, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Minnesota and Iowa moving to Arizona in droves is only turning the state a brighter shade of red.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2010, 3:29 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
House seats are facts too, its math! That's true! Popultion growth (which in Michigan is negative) and raw numbers (which in Michigan is negative) don't tell the whole story.
The definition of insanity applied in these forums. Despite being presented with clear evidence to the contrary, a forumer remains hard-headedly fixated on his conclusion in perpetuity,
__________________
Eat less
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2010, 3:31 PM
urbanactivist's Avatar
urbanactivist urbanactivist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 3,269
Just one point of clarification...

"Republican" states and areas may have grown, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Republicans gained in the number of actual voters. The country as a whole is still becoming more liberal. The economy of course has grayed the trend for a bit, but I still think it's apparent. Hopefully, some of the new seats gained by Conservative states will still have a more liberal base.
__________________
Photo Threads for Memphis, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Galveston (before Ike), Kansas City,Houston, more Houston
Little Rock, and New Orleans, cont'd.

For politics, check out my blog Texas Leftist
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2010, 3:36 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
House Seats

Midwest - 6
Northeast - 5

Midwest also has a state that is losing population. Not one bit absurd. Just because the Midwest is gaining more poupation doesn't mean that population isn't under more stress.
So now you are changing your argument. This is the original statement by to which we are all responding:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
The Midwest is sagging behind everyone else in growth, probably something that won't change by 2050, at least not in the heart of the rust belt.
After being shown evidence to the contrary, you changed your point to focus entirely on House seats (as well as on Michigan--judging a vast region on the performance of one State). Looks like your personal biases have won you over more than logic, so no point arguing any further.
__________________
Eat less
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2010, 4:30 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chase Unperson View Post
Here is the NYT's breakdown and analysis of the change in house seats.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/us....html?_r=1&hpw

What are the states in the south and west doing that's making them more successful and getting people to move there. How are they able to provide better job opportunities (which obviously is the main reason someone would move).
Quality of life is a huge part of it. That might be a mix of weather, cheap housing, strong inner cities, great scenery, etc. With quality of life, people will show up before they get jobs, and then look, vs. finding a job and then moving. Also, companies will relocate to your city without "incentives."

In the case of Washington, one of the "misc" factors is the military factor -- not just the bases themselves, which are growing on average, but also the fact that many people stationed here decide to come back later.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2010, 4:33 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by novawolverine View Post
Cost of living is lower and the land is cheaper, generally speaking. "Better" weather also contributes. Many locales in the South and West have developed more recently and that "newness" is desirable to a lot of people.

To become more competitive, some states in the South and West have had to undercut the Northeast and Midwest in certain industries so that costs, like labor, and taxes are lower along with less regulations. There's other corporate welfare as well. Many southern states have auto manufacturing plants these days. The trade-offs, like less money for gov't services, is worth it for many people.
Some of that I agree with. But the west coast grows despite being expensive and lacking incentive funds, as well as growth being more regulated typically.

The newness point is a good one. I wonder what will happen to sunbelt cities with five or six years of aging. Of course other places age too...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2010, 4:35 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Quality of life is a huge part of it. That might be a mix of weather, cheap housing, strong inner cities, great scenery, etc.
"quality of life" probably does play a part, but if americans were actually interested in strong inner cities, then the northeast would be blowing all other regions out of the water. nothing comes close to the bos-wash when it comes to strong inner cities. the vast majority of americans still seem to want cheap large homes in the suburbs, that's part of the reason why states where that type of arrangement predominates (even within the city propers through most of the sunbelt) are seeing the largest amount of growth. texas, for a state its size, has precious little of what i would classify as "city" in the traditional sense, and yet it's exploding.
__________________
He has to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2010, 4:35 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by BG918 View Post
Oklahoma has seen modest growth in its two large metros. I would suspect the rural areas, especially the Plains counties in the west and Panhandle, all lost population except for Lawton which has been growing rapidly due to BRAC and Fort Sill army base.

While Plains states are showing positive population growth, I would bet most of it is in the larger cities and that rural farm towns are continuing to empty.
We don't have 2009-2010 comparison numbers. The difference you show might be partially "correction" between two counting methods, not an actual difference. Though Oklahoma apparently is doing well due to oil prices.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2010, 4:43 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
quality of life probably does play a part, but if americans were actually interested in strong inner cities, then the northeast would be blowing all other regions out of the water. nothing comes close to the bos-wash when it comes to strong inner cities. the vast majority of americans still seem to want cheap large homes in the suburbs, that's part of the reason why states where that type of arrangement predominates (even within the city propers through most of the sunbelt) are seeing the largest amount of growth.
Strong inner cities doesn't have to mean New York. West Coast inner cities are generally growing, not only despite their lower densities but actually facilitated in part by their lower densities...more room to grow.

Many people move to the West Coast because of the mix of strong inner cities, scenery, and access to water and mountains. It's a mix that many people find more attractive than the great (I agree) inner cities of the East Coast.

Bo-Wash has relatively "full" inner cities, particularly in the stronger neighborhoods. If the strong neighborhoods had room to grow the story would be different.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2010, 4:57 PM
Buckeye Native 001 Buckeye Native 001 is offline
E pluribus unum
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,553
You're both arguing about Chase, a guy who repeatedly decalres that if you're not living in or wanting to move to New York City, then your opinion isn't worth shit. Lets try to keep that in mind, at least.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2010, 4:59 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
and while it is suffering far more than any other state right now
Actually, that's not true anymore either. Michigan doesn't have the highest unemployment rate anymore (that would be Nevada), nor does it have the highest foreclosure rates (I believe it goes Nevada, Florida, Arizona, California and then Michigan). So my vote for the state hurting the most right now would be Nevada.

That said, the argument that guy is making is just dumb. The Midwest lost more Congressional seats than the Northeast because it is bigger in population than the Northeast.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2010, 5:02 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,389
^ i was using "suffering" strictly in regards to population growth, or lack thereof, not an overall economic assessment of the state, which would require far, FAR more measures to be included in the equation. i should have employed better phrasing for clarity's sake.
__________________
He has to go.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Dec 22, 2010 at 5:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2010, 5:03 PM
Buckeye Native 001 Buckeye Native 001 is offline
E pluribus unum
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,553
"Second-worst" behind Nevada is still pretty bad.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:11 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.