The US Census Bureau thread

[subterranean]

Edit. Wrong thread.

[edale]

Decreasing household size can more than offset units gained through new construction. Anyone who's been on this forum for a while has probably seen this chart:



Philadelphia had 13% more households in 2020 than it did in 1950, but its population declined 23% in that same time period.

The Census estimates very well could be wrong. But claiming things like the presence of out of state license plates means that population growth is occurring is a very weak argument. I've seen similar arguments made from Clevelanders for years-- there are so many out of state license plates driving around the city, the school in my neighborhood is bursting at the seams, there are visible immigrant communities where there weren't before...surely we must be growing! But that's not really how this all works. It's simply confirmation bias rooted in a desire for your community to be growing. I'm not arguing the estimates are correct, but I think some of the reflexive claims of THEY'RE JUNK!!! are a bit sophomoric.

[aufbau]

These census threads always turn conspiratorial or to grasping-at-straws kind of thinking when older cities' numbers are released. The most reasonable explanation is these places are still losing residents, as there aren't that attractive places to live for most people.

"Record traffic levels" (further outward sprawl, inadequate and unsafe public transit) "record construction" (for 4000/mo apartments for one or two people live in while entire families move out), "undocumented immigrants/young people aren't counted (lots of nooks and crannies for them to hide in those railroad apartments!)."

We fetishize raw numbers here too much on SSP, without asking how to make cities more sustainable and attractive. Since we are all speaking anecdotally here, I wfh with my S/O who also does since Covid. Friends and inertia keep us here. However, not a week goes by where we feel like suckers being middle income New Yorkers. I'm sure a lot of those 78000 who left would agree.

/end rant from a salty Brooklynite

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by edale

I think some of the reflexive claims of THEY'RE JUNK!!! are a bit sophomoric.

When they've been estimating big messy urban cities like Chicago completely fucking wrong for the past 30 years now, I think it is entirely reasonable to assume that something is fundamentally wrong with the CB's estimating methodology.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by edale

But claiming things like the presence of out of state license plates means that population growth is occurring is a very weak argument.

Nope, and that's not the claim. Reread the previous posts.

No one is claiming an area is growing bc of cars registered elsewhere. That was an example countering the argument that all areas are using the same criteria.

I'm not even arguing anywhere is growing, or not growing. No doubt many areas are stagnant and some are declining. But that's not what Census shows. Census shows catastrophic, epic population loss. And the Census estimates have no relationship with other forms of federal demographic data, meaning they can't all be right.

You cannot have have big employment gains confirmed by BLS concurrent with big population loss estimates confirmed by Census (I mean you can, but it would be some bizarre situation where all the retirees and children disappeared or something).

Originally Posted by edale

I'm not arguing the estimates are correct, but I think some of the reflexive claims of THEY'RE JUNK!!! are a bit sophomoric.

Nope, it's more than a bit sophomoric to claim that estimates aren't junk, when the Census confirms their estimates are junk whenever they do the decennial count. Their decennial revisions are absurd. They've been off by 10%, which sounds about as accurate as Iron Age tribesmen estimating their clan populations.

[UrbanRevival]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

When they've been estimating big messy urban cities like Chicago completely fucking wrong for the past 30 years now, I think it is entirely reasonable to assume that something is fundamentally wrong with the CB's estimating methodology.

My point exactly.

There's a misinterpretation here apparently with some posters inferring that criticism of Census estimates is being needlessly defensive or delusional.

But that's missing the point completely, here. The numbers could be 100% precise based on their current methodology.

However, if your methodology is flawed (which, again, very strong argument to be made given the Census' history in big, typically very dense cities), then accuracy is completely out the window.

[Lobotomizer]

But are the estimates off by that much?

I realize estimating a loss of 100K when in reality there was an increase of 100K is nothing to sneeze at, but when you're talking about a metro of 9 million 200K represents an error of 2.2%.

A 2.2% error for a metro of 1 million would only be 22,000. I don't think anyone would be claiming the estimates were hot garbage if the discrepancy was 1,000,000 vs 1,022,000. That's pretty damn close.

I get it, though. It matters, and the census bureau needs to be as accurate as possible.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Lobotomizer

I realize estimating a loss of 100K when in reality there was an increase of 100K is nothing to sneeze at, but when you're talking about a metro of 9 million 200K represents an error of 2.2%.

But we're not taking about a 9M metro area, but rather a 2.7M city proper.

So the CB's 300K estimating error for Chicago in the '00s represented an 11% error.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You cannot have have big employment gains confirmed by BLS concurrent with big population loss estimates confirmed by Census (I mean you can, but it would be some bizarre situation where all the retirees and children disappeared or something).

Sure you can. Old people dying off in greater numbers than young people replacing them could result in decreasing population while employment numbers rise. Remote work has allowed people to live far away from where they work, which could also explain the discrepancy. There are plenty of explanations for such a scenario.

[Lobotomizer]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

But we're not taking about a 9M metro area, but rather a 2.7M city proper.

So the CB's 300K estimating error for Chicago in the '00s represented an 11% error.

Ah, I thought we were talking about metros.

11% is very bad.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Lobotomizer

11% is very bad.

Some might even call it "hot garbage".

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by SteveD

The Census has published their new MSA and CSA population estimates, as of July 1, 2023. Metro Atlanta squeezed by metro Philly and DC to become 6th largest in the US. 10th largest with the larger and broader CSA estimate.

1. New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ Metro Area: 19,498,249
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metro Area: 12,799,100
3. Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN Metro Area: 9,262,825
4. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metro Area: 8,100,037
5. Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX Metro Area: 7,510,253
6. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA Metro Area: 6,307,261
7. Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metro Area: 6,304,975
8. Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metro Area: 6,246,160
9. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL Metro Area: 6,183,199
10. Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, AZ Metro Area: 5,070,110

The Census larger "Combined Statistical Area" Top 10:

1. New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA: 21,859,598
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA CSA: 18,316,743
3. Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA CSA: 10,069,592
4. Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI CSA: 9,794,558
5. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA: 9,001,024
6. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK CSA: 8,654,750
7. Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH CSA: 8,345,067
8. Houston-Pasadena, TX CSA: 7,706,626
9. Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA: 7,390,919
10. Atlanta-Athens-Clarke County-Sandy Springs, GA-AL CSA: 7,221,137

Originally Posted by C.

Texas and Florida metro growing fast. And Phoenix. I wonder what the water situation will look like for Phoenix in a decade or two with this rapid population growth and dwindling water reservoirs.

Is this the first estimate that has Phoenix passing Boston as the 10th largest MSA? I know Boston was still just ahead in the official 2020 count. Recognizing the issues with the estimates (and the fact that Boston still has a very large CSA), I still think it's likely Phoenix is the 10th largest MSA in 2030.

I don't think we're at "peak Phoenix" yet. For now, the local river/reservoir system (Gila/Salt) is full, and the ongoing negotiations and mitigation efforts, plus a good couple years of rain/snow with the Colorado system, seem to have at least stabilized reservoir levels and brought them back up from the lows of 2022 to the 30-year historical average. So I think population will continue to grow in the 10-year timeframe. Harder to say at 20 years though.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by muertecaza

Is this the first estimate that has Phoenix passing Boston as the 10th largest MSA? I know Boston was still just ahead in the official 2020 count. Recognizing the issues with the estimates (and the fact that Boston still has a very large CSA), I still think it's likely Phoenix is the 10th largest MSA in 2030.

I don't think we're at "peak Phoenix" yet. For now, the local river/reservoir system (Gila/Salt) is full, and the ongoing negotiations and mitigation efforts, plus a good couple years of rain/snow with the Colorado system, seem to have at least stabilized reservoir levels and brought them back up from the lows of 2022 to the 30-year historical average. So I think population will continue to grow in the 10-year timeframe. Harder to say at 20 years though.

As Boston and San Francisco MSAs are a bit undersized, I think we couldn't say Phoenix would be on Top 10 if we're thinking of "metro areas".

On the past three Census we had the same metro areas on Top 12 (NY, LA, Chi, SF, Dal, Hou, Phi, Bos, Was, Mia, Atl and Det). The Big 12, all of them above 5 million. Now we'll have Seattle and Phoenix joining this group and probably surpassing Detroit by 2030.

Regarding Phoenix, they don't boom as they did before 2008 crisis though. They don't seem near the peak, although things are very dynamic when it comes to the US. We might have surprises.

[SteveD]

An interesting aside (to me anyway) is that 7 of the top 10 CSAs grab a portion of at least one adjoining state. The only three that don't are the two in California and Houston.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Even the decennial official count has issues. By law, they have to count every person, but not all people have similar response rates. For example, illegal immigrants have horrible response rates. Blacks and Hispanics, college students, formerly incarcerated, renters and a whole host of groups have bad response rates. The best response rates are among homeowners, seniors and "traditional" nuclear families.

So you can say "it's the same rules for everyone" but if, say, one jurisdiction has few undocumented residents and another has many, you can see that an equal application of the rules doesn't result in equally accurate data.

Crawford, Exactly!!! It frustrates the hell out of me when folks defend the Census in this area or talk about how the results aren't shared with any other agency. The undocumented populations are actively going to avoid filling out the census forms and avoid the enumerators.

The Census knows they undercount certain urban population areas, but are prohibited from using statistical adjustments to better account for the population because their is a political debate about enumeration and that a more accurate count would benefit the urban cities more.

The Census is good at counting traditional residences, but rooming houses, shelters, informal dwellings, even newly constructed housing is often missed as well.

I'm convinced that NYC already hit 9,000,000 people back in 2010, and probably has even more people today, but it's IMPOSSIBLE to accurately count everyone due to the reasons associated with dense, urban areas with high immigrant populations.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by aufbau

The most reasonable explanation is these places are still losing residents, as there aren't that attractive places to live for most people.

I think the most reasonable explanation is that these numbers are off, just as they have proven to be for decades and as the Census Bureau has admitted.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by edale

Sure you can. Old people dying off in greater numbers than young people replacing them could result in decreasing population while employment numbers rise.

Seniors are 17% of the U.S. population. Under your scenario, for a place to have a large employment increase concurrent with massive population decrease, you'd have to have a mass evacuation of seniors, which otherwise isn't reflected in any data.

Originally Posted by edale

Remote work has allowed people to live far away from where they work, which could also explain the discrepancy.

No, unless people are lying. A remote worker wouldn't be counted as an employed resident of a city where they don't live. We aren't talking about people employed in a city, but city residents employed.

[3rd&Brown]

Let's make an argument on the flip side.

The numbers show Denton County TX added over 100k people in a single year. It's a smidge over 1MM people as is.

This would have you believe come the next census Denton County will have 2MM people. Is there anyone here who believes that Denton County TX will double population in TEN years? Even the zoomiest of zoomy boom burbs don't double every ten years. Maybe if a county is going from 100K to 200K people. But from 1MM to 2MM? It's complete and utter BS.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

Let's make an argument on the flip side.

The numbers show Denton County TX added over 100k people in a single year. It's a smidge over 1MM people as is.

This would have you believe come the next census Denton County will have 2MM people. Is there anyone here who believes that Denton County TX will double population in TEN years? Even the zoomiest of zoomy boom burbs don't double every ten years. Maybe if a county is going from 100K to 200K people. But from 1MM to 2MM? It's complete and utter BS.

From the data that I think you are looking it, the 100K increase in that county is for a three year period, not one year. Other counties in TX also have that amount of increase. I presume they are increasing rapidly because they have the land for SFH and the prices are below average. I think a lot of the increase in many of the fast growing metros, but not all of it, is due to the price of housing being more reasonable compared with the Northeast and West coasts. Of course they are also drawing a lot of new businesses, but housing prices are a big factor. I would say one good example would be Phoenix - I believe in 2000 and 2001, it grew much faster by 80K-90K (I believe), and I suspect that was partially because its housing had barely recovered from the 2008 bust and was very cheap, but now it is no longer cheap and it grew by only 50K. Atlanta is not cheap anymore, and its growth as slowed, and Miami is expensive and it has slow growth. Texas, is becoming more expensive, with Austin being expensive and Dallas becoming expensive, but it has the advantage of being attractive to California and of course those metros can sprawl further out. But it is interesting that San Antonio gained nearly as many people as Austin, and I suspect because it is cheaper. I read somewhere that Houston is now the cheapest metro of the big ones, which is probably bumping up its population increases.

[N90]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

Let's make an argument on the flip side.

The numbers show Denton County TX added over 100k people in a single year. It's a smidge over 1MM people as is.

This would have you believe come the next census Denton County will have 2MM people. Is there anyone here who believes that Denton County TX will double population in TEN years? Even the zoomiest of zoomy boom burbs don't double every ten years. Maybe if a county is going from 100K to 200K people. But from 1MM to 2MM? It's complete and utter BS.

No county added more than 53k, so your entire premise is wrong.