Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And while the state is expected to grow in population between now and 2030 (per the Census Bureau), its population growth between that time is expected to rank 46th out of the 50 states in the country.
See link: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2005/stateproj7.xls (broken link)
Point being, net population is increasing. My numbers came from the U.S. Census Bureau. Accordingly...
New York :
July 1, 2005 19,315,721
July 1, 2004 19,291,526
Yes, the NY growth rate will be slow over the next 33 years. And for very good reason; it's been growing for the past 230 years. I do believe that NC was one of the original 13 colonies. Looks like it's a bit late to the party.
I think it's a shame about upstate NY, I don't know if Rochester has the same plight though.
My son went to college in Rochester, RIT, and it's a great school.
He's currently still living up there, but will be moving back home soon. I think he's just tired of the really cold weather.
But the town itself is great. Nice area of artsy shops and restaurants called Park Ave. Nice communities like Brighton,and Scottsville,and great shopping and the Best food stores, like Wegmans and Lori's. Affordable housing ,except the real estate taxes have gone up a lot. Great deaf-friendly attitudes and resources there too.
There are still alot of people who call this area home.
Point being, net population is increasing. My numbers came from the U.S. Census Bureau. Accordingly...
New York :
July 1, 2005 19,315,721
July 1, 2004 19,291,526
Yes, the NY growth rate will be slow over the next 33 years. And for very good reason; it's been growing for the past 230 years. I do believe that NC was one of the original 13 colonies. Looks like it's a bit late to the party.
Here are the most recent “official” numbers from the Census Bureau. I’ve also provided a link to the Census Bureau’s site. Not sure where you’re getting your numbers from, but your lack of “proof” is not helping your point.
Pay attention; you were initially comparing 2004 to 2005. Now you're comparing 2005 to 2006. My numbers are "official". In contrast, your original numbers were not.
From 2004 to 2005 there was a net increase of 24,195. From 2005 to 2006 there was a net decrease of 9,538. Yet, there is still a two year net gain of 14,657. In addition, the long-term 10, 20, and 30 year Census estimates are all net gains.
Pay attention; you were initially comparing 2004 to 2005. Now you're comparing 2005 to 2006. My numbers are "official". In contrast, your original numbers were not. Just like NC, you're catching up a bit late.
From 2004 to 2005 there was a net increase of 24,195. From 2005 to 2006 there was a net decrease of 9,538. Yet, there is still a two year net gain of 14,657. In addition, the long-term 10, 20, and 30 year Census estimates are all net gains.
It doesn’t matter. He’s attempting to say that New York’s population is actually growing, when the reality is, its not. As has been reported by the Census Bureau and the New York media. As I said, it really doesn’t matter, really…
______________________________
January 19, 2007
THE BIGGEST LOSERS
One of the more intriguing statistics in demography is migration among the 50 states. And especially revealing is the data on "out-migration," or those residents of a state who flee to what they must figure will be better climes, says the Wall Street Journal.
The Empire Center, a New York think tank, has inspected the latest Census Data on migration, and finds that two of the three biggest losers of people from 2005 to 2006 were California and New York.
N.Y., Mass., R.I. lose population as rest of the nation grows
New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island were the only states to lose population from 2004 to 2005. The U-S Census reports that New York lost 26-thousand residents, a tenth-of-a-percent decrease. Massachusetts also had a tenth-of-a-percent decline, losing 8-thousand. Rhode Island lost about 3-thousand, or three-tenths of a percent….
New York population fails to grow since 2005
(NY to lose 2 electoral votes)
The Citizen ^ | 12/22/06
Posted on 12/22/2006 2:29:22 PM PST by LdSentinal
ALBANY - Thousands of people left New York for other parts of the country last year, making it one of only three states that failed to grow since 2005, according to census estimates released Friday.
New York's estimated population on July 1 was 19.3 million, a drop of 9,538 from a year earlier, the U.S. Census Bureau reported. That drop is minuscule - 0.0005 percent - and based on estimates rather than an actual count. But census demographers say it shows New York's population remained virtually unchanged over the year.
…New York is one of the few states actually losing population, thanks in good part to people fleeing from upstate. One recent study found that the young adult population of upstate New York declined at nearly four times the national rate between 1990 and 2005. "If you are smart, ambitious, creative, and can produce, and are under 25, you get out of upstate New York as fast as you can," says Moss.
Why taking it so personal? Do you get some kind of NY commission for high numbers? Maybe you should be in NY forum.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
