The US Census Bureau thread

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Camelback

I understand that, but we're talking about LA MSA. They have the lowest home values out of the 3, yet they have the slowest growth out of those 3.

Again, urban argument is Phoenix and vegas.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

That didn’t seem to impact SF or other high cost locales

It’s obviously much more than cost. It’s the things I mentioned. Sorry, you’re just in denial

Portland and Seattle are more "woke " than LA is.

Didn't they grow better?

And I've never heard anyone in real life use that term unless they were mocking the shit out of it. You live in a bubble.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

That didn’t seem to impact SF or other high cost locales

It’s obviously much more than cost. It’s the things I mentioned. Sorry, you’re just in denial

San Francisco is a whole different case. They're unique.

Los Angeles is just a regular metropolis of the developed world, located in a country where people move away as often as they change underwear so high costs are definitely the most important factor for its slowdown. A much low Mexican immigration also plays a factor.

[38 Geary]

I think like sopas ej and others alluded to earlier, the economic growth in the LA MSA has not kept up with demand for housing. Even in the Bay Area's highest cost of living counties (SF, San Mateo, Santa Clara), we saw population growth because the economy has continued to grow. People can keep moving into these areas despite the obscene prices because they can afford it. I was actually quite surprised to see the numbers turn out the way they did because the Bay Area is the poster child for ridiculous housing prices and the "California exodus". I would've expected the Norcal/Socal numbers to be reversed, with the Bay growing more slowly than LA, because as others have noted, the Bay is on another level when it comes to housing prices. Some of the places posted in the Real Estate thread would probably go for double here than they do in LA.

However, that same level of economic growth doesn't appear to be the case in LA and that's likely why its growth has slowed relative to Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Obviously a lot of this was pre-pandemic too, so we'll have to see what effect it has in the early part of this next decade as people start working remotely more permanently and may bolt the Bay for cheaper locations.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

San Francisco is a whole different case. They're unique.

Los Angeles is just a regular metropolis of the developed world, located in a country where people move away as often as they change underwear so high costs are definitely the most important factor for its slowdown. A much low Mexican immigration also plays a factor.

In real life,
The cost of living is what people complain about here by a ton.
Traffic would be second.

Urbans dumb woke argument....who knows. 25?

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by proghousehead

The fact that LA hasn’t passed 4MM, despite surpassing this threshold being anticipated prior to the 2010 census, is telling. Whatever the reason for this, it’s got to be one of the biggest shocks of the 2020 census results.

SF and LA are both building a lot of high density housing along transit corridors, so that should help. Obviously much much more is needed, but it's a start.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by LA21st

In real life,
The cost of living is what people complain about here by a ton.
Traffic would be second.

Urbans dumb woke argument....who knows. 25?

#1 complaint here by far is cost of living. #2 is crime but that's so far down the list that it's on another page. But yes, crime is #2. Traffic isn't as bad here as it is in LA so it's probably #3.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

And on the last decade, the Illinois side of St. Louis went well, a solid 5.53% growth. Now a horrible -2.59%:

2000: 599,845
2010: 633,042 --- 5.53%
2020: 616,632 -- -2.59%

This has more to do with Illinois' larger issues than St. Louis'. Doesn't change the fact that the counties are shrinking, but absent St. Louis going through an economic boom, there isn't much that St. Louis can do. The solution will have to come from Springfield.

That being said, I was pleasantly surprised that the city shrunk less than anticipated and that St. Louis County also recrossed the million person threshold. All the other Missouri counties are growing, with St. Charles County being the primary growth engine. That won't help much in terms of stopping the metro's continuing westward sprawl, but at least there is growth.

Now if the city stabilizes itself over this decade and starts growing again, this could have a positive influence on the two core counties of the Metro East, Madison and St. Clair, due to their closer proximity to the city.

I'm frankly cautiously optimistic about St. Louis. I'm also not too concerned about a mass exodus from the Illinois counties, barring a catastrophic collapse of the state's economy.

[ITB495]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Outside of a couple university town bright(er) spots (Champaign/Urbana & Bloomington/Normal), downstate Illinois was largely a trainwreck across the board, losing some 162K people overall! The IL portion of Chicagoland's modest gain of 144K was not enough to offset it.

Hundreds of rural counties across the country lost population. Here's the map that shows the extent of loss:


Source: U.S. Census Bureau

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by LA21st

In real life,
The cost of living is what people complain about here by a ton.
Traffic would be second.

Urbans dumb woke argument....who knows. 25?

It's not only bizarre, but enerving. Like all the reports I saw about 2020 Census release on US news outlets turning every subject into political discussions.

I don't live in the US, but I can't imagine someone who's lived in LA for his whole life saying: "oh, now those leftists went too far, I must move to San Francisco, Portland, Seattle..."

And even without the crazy housing prices that are out of control everywhere in the world, this slowdown would happen soon or later. Los Angeles is about to reach 20 million people, with big geographic constraints, so it would have to stop.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by homebucket

#1 complaint here by far is cost of living. #2 is crime but that's so far down the list that it's on another page. But yes, crime is #2. Traffic isn't as bad here as it is in LA so it's probably #3.

I'd say homeless is 3rd here. Crime is down the list, I don't know many people who talk about or have issues with it.

[dimondpark]

Way too much Schadenfreude over LA's growth rate.

I don't see a problem with New York growing faster than LA. Immigration has slowed as have birth rates, many more people live closer to New York, which has a lot more higher paying jobs across a broader range of industries, and then there are the angry white middle class who seem to have fled LA by the millions over the past 30 years. Southern California has swung LEFT while those who hate that seem much more apt to move to more politically hospitable places like Arizona, Idaho, Texas and Utah.

And that doesnt even begin to address housing costs, perceived tax burdens on individuals and businesses, that give right wing media so much fodder.

I mean, there's a lot we could talk about to try and explain away LA's slowing population but keep in mind folks, Greater Los Angeles has grown by 9 million since 1980, doubling it's population.

Lastly, as evidenced above, the growth rate across the country is slowing down almost everywhere-Austin's growth rate is down from previous decades, Dallas too, Houston too, Phoenix too, etc.

Every metro will experience a slowdown, much sooner than most people realize.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

It's not only bizarre, but enerving. Like all the reports I saw about 2020 Census release on US news outlets turning every subject into political discussions.

I don't live in the US, but I can't imagine someone who's lived in LA for his whole life saying: "oh, now those leftists went too far, I must move to San Francisco, Portland, Seattle..."

And even without the crazy housing prices that are out of control everywhere in the world, this slowdown would happen soon or later. Los Angeles is about to reach 20 million people, with big geographic constraints, so it would have to stop.

Agreed. And I personally wouldn't get too depressed or too overjoyed with the numbers either. At the end of the day, it's more about the quality of the people than the quantity. Having slower population growth doesn't make LA any less of a world class city. Having less population would probably make LA more enjoyable for its existing residents actually.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Lastly, as evidenced above, the growth rate across the country is slowing down almost everywhere-Austin's growth rate is down from previous decades, Dallas too, Houston too, Phoenix too, etc.

Every metro will experience a slowdown, much sooner than most people realize.

Probably has a strong correlation with increasing housing prices in these areas too.

This is where places like Nashville, the place made famous by hot chicken, will step in next in line and see lots of population growth in the next decade.

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Lastly, as evidenced above, the growth rate across the country is slowing down almost everywhere-Austin's growth rate is down from previous decades, Dallas too, Houston too, Phoenix too, etc.

Every metro will experience a slowdown, much sooner than most people realize.

In rapidly growing areas, as the population increases, it's really tough to maintain the same growth rates from the decade before.

We marvel at Austin's 33% growth rate, however, Phoenix had a growth rate of 45% in 1990, when it was about the size of Austin. Now that Phoenix is over 1.6 million, it only grew at 15.5%.

[ITB495]

Originally Posted by LA21st

I'd say homeless is 3rd here. Crime is down the list, I don't know many people who talk about or have issues with it.

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the availability of jobs the No. 1 reason why people move? If people can't find work, or the type of job they want or are qualified for, they move. Simple as that.

California, unfortunately, has been hemorrhaging businesses and corporations for many, many years. Bechtel, Northrup Grumman, etc. The list is long. Obviously, when a company departs the jobs go too. This is a very worrisome matter for some in CA, as it should be.

The Center for Jobs & the Economy's website keeps track of the businesses leaving California, and, let me tell you, the number and extent of the departures is shocking. Check out the list here.

[Camelback]

Let's look at the bright side. LA's slow growth gives it an opportunity to play catch up with their mobility issues and transportation infrastructure. It gives the city time to rebuild roads and continue to build new tracks.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by ITB495

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the availability of jobs the No. 1 reason why people move? If people can't find work, or the type of job they want or are qualified for, they move. Simple as that.

California, unfortunately, has been hemorrhaging businesses and corporations for many, many years. Bechtel, Northrup Grumman, etc. The list is long. Obviously, when a company departs the jobs go too. This is a very worrisome matter for some in CA, as it should be.

The Center for Jobs & the Economy's website keeps track of the businesses leaving California, and, let me tell you, the number and extent of the departures is shocking. Check out the list here.

People don't move to areas they don't think they cant afford.
It's pretty simple.

[Lobotomizer]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Lastly, as evidenced above, the growth rate across the country is slowing down almost everywhere-Austin's growth rate is down from previous decades, Dallas too, Houston too, Phoenix too, etc.

I mean sure, the growth rate is not as high as it was when those cities were much smaller.

A small metro of 1,000,000 can add 50,000 a year, and 10 years later it has grown 50%.

Several decades later when it's 3 million people it can add 100,000 a year, and 10 years later it's only grown 33%.

It's growth rate is less, but it added twice as many people. That's not really what we're talking about here, though.

Austin's metro grew by 567,082 between 2010 and 2020 for a 33% growth rate. It's never grown by more people.

You're gonna be hard pressed to find anyone saying things are slowing down here, even if it's growth rate was once higher.

[proghousehead]

Originally Posted by camelback

let's look at the bright side. La's slow growth gives it an opportunity to play catch up with their mobility issues and transportation infrastructure. It gives the city time to rebuild roads and continue to build new tracks.

lol!!!!!!