2010 Census Discussion Thread...

[HX_Guy]

Who is to say that those 5,000 people didn't simply relocate to other houses or apartments in other parts of the Valley? I could completely see that with Anthem being way out in BFE and many of the people who lost their homes could have said "Since we have to move anyway, screw living way out here anymore."

We'll see what the official Census numbers say though I'm sure not everyone will believe those.

[Don B.]

I was working with population statistics and working at the Census Bureau in Kansas City when many of you were knee-high to a grasshopper. For example, I was very disappointed to find out, in the 1980 census, that Kansas City's population decreased from 507,000 in 1970 to 448,159 in 1980. Then I did a lot of research (I was in junior high at the time, and this was done using books in a library) and found out Kansas City's urban core had started losing population after World War II. The only reason why KC showed an increase from 1950 to 1970 (from 456,000 in 1950 to 470,000 in 1960 to 507,000 in 1970) was because of massive land annexations that increased Kansas City's land area from about 50 square miles to 316 square miles. Then I found out that the 1970s were not kind to most industrial cities of the northeast and midwestern United States, as well as various English cities like Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham.

For example, what is the annual natural increase of a fixed location in a modern western democracy with no immigration or emigration at all, expressed as a percentage of the base population? You won't find the answer easily on google, I can tell you. This number will also vary depending on the technological level of the area you are discussing. Phoenix will be different from Kuala Lumpur, which would be different from Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh.

My point is that government estimates are usually off. For example, in the 90s, the census bureau routinely underestimated the massive amount of growth Phoenix was experiencing at the time (and, I might point out, some of you have already acknowledged this reality). In 1998, the last year that estimates were released before the 2000 census, the government estimated Phoenix's city population at about 1.15 million, up from the 982,000 figure in 1990. The actual count revealed 1,321,000, way more than the latest estimates. Since I've worked for the bureau and understand the great lengths they go to to ensure a census count is real as humanly possible, I tend to put more stock in the decennial count than mere estimates. Any demographer who is knowledgeable in this area would tell you that estimates are really just an educated guess.

Are census counts perfect? Of course not...there's no way to realistically count every person in a large area like Phoenix on one particular day. But, the beauty of the count, even if it is off by a hair this way or that, is that all locations are similarly affected by the vagaries of a flawed human count.

Think of the horsepower rating of your car. There are stated numbers published by the manufacturer that says my four cylinder car has 140 horsepower. I can almost guarantee you that if I brought it to a dyno center and had it tested, even after accounting for driveshaft loss and other power loss factors, the actual horsepower of my car might vary by as much as plus or minus five percent. In other words, my engine might generate 136 horsepower when it is tested, or it might be 147 horsepower. No one really knows, until it is tested. The differences are in manufacturing irregularities, as after all, it is a machine constructed by people. Robots may play a larger role each year in heavy manufacturing like this, but flawed humans designed, built and tested those robots. If you are familiar with the concept of scatterplot diagrams, you would understand these vagaries I am talking about.

Same thing with census counts. They could be off by an unknown percentage. That number is probably +/- 5%, give or take, but it is only one method of determining a count.

--don

[NorthScottsdale]

2010 Census count could give Arizona 9th House seatDec. 21, 2010 06:39 AM
Associated Press


Arizona's decade-long population surge is widely expected to earn the state its ninth seat in the House of Representatives.

A redistricting consultant who analyzed state population trends earlier this year says the new seat will likely be centered in Maricopa and Pinal counties, which saw most of the increase in residents.

The U.S. Census Bureau will release the first results of the 2010 count on Tuesday.

The district lines will be drawn by an independent redistricting commission. Early arguments as the new commission is being picked signal it will be a tough job.

The new figures may also give the first solid indicator of whether the recession and Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigration slowed or even reversed population growth.



Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/p...#ixzz18lYEwysi

[NorthScottsdale]

Arizona census results: 1 more congressional seatby Ronald J. Hansen - Dec. 21, 2010 10:04 AM
The Arizona Republic


Arizona will gain a ninth seat in Congress in 2012, a result of being the second fastest-growing state in the nation over the past decade, according to the first release of 2010 census data today.

The state fell well short of what it needed to gain two congressional seats. A slowdown in growth that began in mid-2006 almost certainly prevented Arizona from joining Texas as the only state to gain more than one seat in the U.S. House.

The 2010 census data showed Arizona's population totaled 6.4 million, a 24.6-percent gain since 2000. America's overall population stood at 308,745,538 million, growing 9.7 percent since 2000.The state and the nation as a whole grew more slowly than in the previous decade.

If Arizona had maintained the average growth rate estimated at between 2001 and 2007, it would have added at least 100,000 more people by 2010. Demographers say the decline in real estate and the longest recession since the Great Depression helped dampen the state's growth at the end of the decade.

Another factor in the lower population count was an array of measures cracking down on illegal immigration, beginning with passage of employer sanctions in 2007. The census counts all residents, not just American citizens and legal immigrants.

Still, Arizona's overall growth helped the nation achieve a demographical turning point: For the first time, more people live in western states than in the Midwest. The four fastest growing states, Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Idaho, are all in the West, but the growth was more sluggish in California, which remains the nation's most populous state. California narrowly avoided losing a congressional seat, something it has never done.

The South maintained its status as the most populous region, a distinction it has held since the 1940 census. Meanwhile, the Northeast continued its relative decline as a percentage of the overall population.

The census was completed on time and $1.9 billion under budget, said Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke. This happened despite predictions by many, including the Commerce Department's inspector general, that the Census Bureau would fail to meet those goals, he said.

"That did not happen," Locke said in Washington.

The figures help guide the allocation of more than $400 billion in federal spending annually.

Every state but Michigan gained population since 2000. Louisiana bucked the trend of rapid growth in the South. Adding insult to injury, Hurricane Katrina drove thousands of residents out of Lousiana's ravaged coastal areas to other states, costing the state a congressional seat.

Texas gained four congressional seats, the most dramatic increase since California picked up seven seats after the 1990 census. New York and Ohio were the only states to lose more than one seat.

Arizona's voice in Washington will get stronger starting after the 2012 elections, and its electoral votes in the 2012 presidential election will increase from 10 to 11.

The census data released today doesn't detail city or county populations. That information will be released starting in February as states turn to the contentious matter of redrawing state and congressional district lines based on the new data.

State lawmakers will soon begin picking four members for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. Those four will pick another member to head the body, which must submit a proposed redistricting plan to the U.S. Department of Justice for review well before the 2012 elections.



Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...#ixzz18lhcPNPj

[kaneui]

As expected, Arizona's growth rate has taken a major hit the past few years according to the new 2010 Census numbers. As recently as last year, Arizona was projected to have more residents than both Massachusetts and Indiana and possibly more than Washington by 2010, but official results show Arizona trailing all three and ranked 16th nationwide, just slightly ahead of Tennessee.

Although gaining a new congressional seat and remaining the second-fastest growing state for the past decade (24.6%) behind Nevada, Arizona's growth will undoubtedly be much slower for the foreseeable future as it struggles to diversify its economy, attract higher-wage businesses, deal with huge fiscal deficits, and manage its shrinking water resources.


For more info.: http://2010.census.gov/news/press-ki...nt/apport.html

[Don B.]

According to this information, Arizona lost over 3% of it's population from 2009 to 2010:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...5&postcount=16

Granted, we are comparing a 2009 Census Bureau population estimate to the preliminary 2010 actual census count, but consider this: In the 1990s, the Bureau routinely underestimated the amount of growth Phoenix was experiencing. Now, the situation has reversed itself, and the Bureau is now apparently over-estimating the amount of people. Telling, yes?

Given the economic fallout from the recession and our self-created war against Hispanics, thereby driving out thousands of people, I'm not surprised.

--don

[azliam]

Originally Posted by Don B.

According to this information, Arizona lost over 3% of it's population from 2009 to 2010:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...5&postcount=16

Granted, we are comparing a 2009 Census Bureau population estimate to the preliminary 2010 actual census count, but consider this: In the 1990s, the Bureau routinely underestimated the amount of growth Phoenix was experiencing. Now, the situation has reversed itself, and the Bureau is now apparently over-estimating the amount of people. Telling, yes?

Given the economic fallout from the recession and our self-created war against Hispanics, thereby driving out thousands of people, I'm not surprised.

--don

Don, I usually agree with much of what you have to say, but "self-created war against Hispanics"? GMAFB

Isn't anyone really held accountable for their own actions anymore? Apparently only the people who call them out are.

[Don B.]

^ Immigration has been going on for decades, even centuries, perhaps, but only since the recession began have Arizonans suddenly found themselves up in arms over the issue. No other state in the union has done more to shoot themselves in the foot economically over this issue than Arizona. According to this article, as of November, we had already lost $141 million just in cancelled convention business, with 3,000 jobs lost and almost $10 million in direct tax revenues. The study also showed that Arizona would lose another $75 million in convention business, another 1,500 jobs and $5 million in direct tax revenue: http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=13541218

Interesting article in today's Arizona Republic on this issue of inflated population estimates:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...ion-count.html

I quote:

"The group's report, released in late 2009, said metro Phoenix's population had not increased since 2007."

--don

[azliam]

Originally Posted by Don B.

^ Immigration has been going on for decades, even centuries, perhaps, but only since the recession began have Arizonans suddenly found themselves up in arms over the issue. No other state in the union has done more to shoot themselves in the foot economically over this issue than Arizona. According to this article, as of November, we had already lost $141 million just in cancelled convention business, with 3,000 jobs lost and almost $10 million in direct tax revenues. The study also showed that Arizona would lose another $75 million in convention business, another 1,500 jobs and $5 million in direct tax revenue: http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=13541218

Interesting article in today's Arizona Republic on this issue of inflated population estimates:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...ion-count.html

I quote:

"The group's report, released in late 2009, said metro Phoenix's population had not increased since 2007."

--don

Of course immigration has been going on for centuries, but we're speaking about illegal immigration. You're throwing out a huge generalization here. How do you know that Arizonans just "suddenly" found themselves up in arms about this since the recession? While I have friends who are/were not legal citizens of the U.S., I have never been happy with people taking advantage of the system (I've never kept that a secret from them), and at the same time watching the government not doing its job. Our state has been on the government's ass long before Brewer took over and the economy went sour. Even dammit Janet was sending letters to the President requesting more security near the border (as was CA, NM, and TX) and reimbursement for the money AZ was spending to educate, incarcerate, provide free health care, etc. to illegals. Suddenly she changed her tune when she became a part of the Obama administration? The costs to implement the new law have caused an economic strain on the state, but while that will be shorter-term, the long-term savings to the state will far overwhelm any fallout from AZ's enforcement of the law.

While I have mixed feeling regarding the Dream Act, I have to wonder how many of those children have ever had "that conversation" with their parents as to why the parents put their children in a pickle by bringing them over to the U.S. illegally and how many of those parents have passed the blame onto the U.S. for not granting them legal status. So, where's the accountability?

On a side note, I'm pretty happy with the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as I was once a gay in the military.

[Don B.]

^ Illegal immigration has been going on for a long time. As for our immigration system, it is broken and discriminates against "undesirable races." How else do you explain that England can legally emigrate 100k per year to the U.S. and Mexico, with twice the population of England, only gets 20k per year? Check out how difficult it is to "lawfully emigrate" to the U.S.:

http://immigrationroad.com/green-car...green-card.pdf

As one example of many, Joe Arpaio ran for Sheriff in 1994, 1998, and 2002, and not once was illegals brought up as a big effing deal. It wasn't until the 2006 election that he latched onto illegals as the "next big thing" to score political points with a relatively ignorant (ok, maybe just uneducated) electorate.

I've been around a long time and seen many elections, since the 1970s when some of you weren't even born yet. Nobody cared about "illegal aliens" when times were good.

--don

[Tempe_Duck]

Originally Posted by Don B.

^ Illegal immigration has been going on for a long time. As for our immigration system, it is broken and discriminates against "undesirable races." How else do you explain that England can legally emigrate 100k per year to the U.S. and Mexico, with twice the population of England, only gets 20k per year? Check out how difficult it is to "lawfully emigrate" to the U.S.:

http://immigrationroad.com/green-car...green-card.pdf

As one example of many, Joe Arpaio ran for Sheriff in 1994, 1998, and 2002, and not once was illegals brought up as a big effing deal. It wasn't until the 2006 election that he latched onto illegals as the "next big thing" to score political points with a relatively ignorant (ok, maybe just uneducated) electorate.

I've been around a long time and seen many elections, since the 1970s when some of you weren't even born yet. Nobody cared about "illegal aliens" when times were good.

--don

I'm tired of your, "I'm better than you" thinking.

Thanks for calling us who want to enforce the law ignorant (or maybe just uneducated, as you think). In your opinion the law may be flawed, but as a lawyer, you know it is still enforceable. Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean you can ignore it.

If the system is "broken" as you say then American citizens have the right to "fix" it or leave it they way it is. We as a country and/or citizen have the right to let in who and how many we want. America doesn't have to let in everyone
who thinks they deserve the American way of life.

[somethingfast]

Originally Posted by Don B.

^ Immigration has been going on for decades, even centuries, perhaps, but only since the recession began have Arizonans suddenly found themselves up in arms over the issue. No other state in the union has done more to shoot themselves in the foot economically over this issue than Arizona. According to this article, as of November, we had already lost $141 million just in cancelled convention business, with 3,000 jobs lost and almost $10 million in direct tax revenues. The study also showed that Arizona would lose another $75 million in convention business, another 1,500 jobs and $5 million in direct tax revenue: http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=13541218

Interesting article in today's Arizona Republic on this issue of inflated population estimates:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...ion-count.html

I quote:

"The group's report, released in late 2009, said metro Phoenix's population had not increased since 2007."

--don

don, i usually agree with what you say even though i usually don't agree with the way you say it. kinda like vicelord. anyway, you are WAY oversimplifying this "immigration" issue. this isn't "immigration". this is illegal immigration. and whether or not people decided to wake up one day due to the recession (again, i disagree...this started a LONG time ago) is immaterial. these people (yes, NOT US citizens) are here illegally. and we have tolerated -- looked a blind eye, enjoyed the fruits of their labor -- however you wanna say it for far too long to the detriment of both our national security and economic health and THEIR ultimate well-being. this is a tragedy of the commons kinda thing and eventually it can't be sustained. illegals are taxing the foundation of our social and physical support systems. and, again, what they are doing is really immaterial. they are here illegally. liberals can argue all they want but they are simply undermining law itself. i hate both "conservatives" and "liberals" bc they both use pure rhetoric to push their agenda and twist numbers. their logic is patently false. if Arizona is so off base on this, why do most of the other border states endorse Arizona's move??? bc they know there is a serious problem that the federal govt is simply ignoring bc of their own agenda (we need illegals to keep "growing").

Arizona should be applauded for finally doing something about it, not derided. whether you or anyone likes it or not, free lunch in America is over and done with. we can't issue debt like we used to...and if you wanna keep enjoying a certain level of living as a US citizen, you should probably support this. painful process? yes. unfair to the hard-working, honest illegals? yes. but necessary and over-due? yes. there is a PROCESS by which you become a US citizen and it involves the rule of law. if we ignore law, we truly are nothing more than a shitty banana republic where our passions and secret agendas by our leaders hold sway. don, do me a favor and ask ten random Arizonans what they think about this...it might enlighten you.

[Vicelord John]

I'm an illegal...

[HX_Guy]

Originally Posted by somethingfast

don, do me a favor and ask ten random Arizonans what they think about this...it might enlighten you.

Kind of like one should of asked a white person what they thought of blacks back in the day?

[Vicelord John]

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

Kind of like one should of asked a white person what they thought of blacks back in the day?

Yeah.... most of my friends basically think mexicans are the scum of the earth and should be banished, so lets assume they are the majority, does that make them right? not really.

Let's see if an American would have the drive and desire to stand out in front of Home Depot for 8 hours in the summer sun, only hoping to get one job to make $20 to take home to their family. Most white Americans would scoff at the idea of mowing a lawn or laying down roofing tar on a 100 degree day.

I don't understand why people don't think things through...

[HX_Guy]

Originally Posted by Vicelord John

Let's see if an American would have the drive and desire to stand out in front of Home Depot for 8 hours in the summer sun, only hoping to get one job to make $20 to take home to their family. Most white Americans would scoff at the idea of mowing a lawn or laying down roofing tar on a 100 degree day.

The real problem there is that we (as in employers, the City, etc) kind of did that to ourselves. We liked that Mexicans were willing to do these jobs for a fraction of the price that Americans would charge to do it. So now Americans either think they are above those jobs or they would charge a whole hell of a lot more to do them, which apparently we don't like either. We sort of want to have our cake and eat it too.

My wife lived in FL for about 10 years and said while they don't have the amount of Mexicans we have here, they have Cubans and while they aren't illegal for the most part, they are the ones that do the lawn cutting and car washing. The difference is that while you can go to Danny's here and get your car washed for $17, it costs you $45 in FL.

[azliam]

Originally Posted by Vicelord John

Yeah.... most of my friends basically think mexicans are the scum of the earth and should be banished, so lets assume they are the majority, does that make them right? not really.

Let's see if an American would have the drive and desire to stand out in front of Home Depot for 8 hours in the summer sun, only hoping to get one job to make $20 to take home to their family. Most white Americans would scoff at the idea of mowing a lawn or laying down roofing tar on a 100 degree day.

I don't understand why people don't think things through...

An American WOULDN'T have to sit out in the sun for 8 hours at Home Depot begging for work. If those who sit out in the sun for 8 hours wish to make better money, then perhaps they should have thought about that before they came to this country illegally and instead used the proper channels to enter the country so that they wouldn't have to hide their status and take crappy jobs. In addition (while it's no secret), going to college or trade school in Mexico ISN'T some anomaly...people actually do it there just like they do in other countries besides the U.S.

[somethingfast]

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

Kind of like one should of asked a white person what they thought of blacks back in the day?

sure, yeah, make it a racist thing. that's just the easiest way of avoiding the argument when it gets to a logical level, right? way to be you.

[somethingfast]

Originally Posted by Vicelord John

Yeah.... most of my friends basically think mexicans are the scum of the earth and should be banished, so lets assume they are the majority, does that make them right? not really.

Let's see if an American would have the drive and desire to stand out in front of Home Depot for 8 hours in the summer sun, only hoping to get one job to make $20 to take home to their family. Most white Americans would scoff at the idea of mowing a lawn or laying down roofing tar on a 100 degree day.

I don't understand why people don't think things through...

no, it makes your friends assholes...and since they're your friends, that probably says a lot about you. motherfuckers...this isn't about race...it's about LEGALITY. fuckin' a...

[Vicelord John]

Originally Posted by azliam

An American WOULDN'T have to sit out in the sun for 8 hours at Home Depot begging for work. If those who sit out in the sun for 8 hours wish to make better money, then perhaps they should have thought about that before they came to this country illegally and instead used the proper channels to enter the country so that they wouldn't have to hide their status and take crappy jobs. In addition (while it's no secret), going to college or trade school in Mexico ISN'T some anomaly...people actually do it there just like they do in other countries besides the U.S.

Tell that to the 10% of the American population who are unemployed. If some Mexican can work for 8 cents on the dollar, why can't that piece of shit? I'll tell you why, it's because of the sense of entitlement, feeling of pride, and unwillingness to learn how a hard day of work should be. Meanwhile, Paco and Pedro walk miles through the desert with no promise of anything and work their asses off to get every bit they can.

I'm not saying I agree with them coming here illegally at all, but you have to admit that we are giving them incredible opportunities by refusing the jobs that they will happily do.